Sitting of 20 April 1998

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

    Film Industry
    Ms Christine Russell: What plans the Government have to respond to the distribution needs of the film industry. [37404]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): I refer my hon. Friend to "A Bigger Picture", the report of the Film Policy Review group, co-chaired by myself and Mr. Stewart Till, to whom I give the thanks of my Department and, I am sure, of the House, for his splendid work with others. The report was published on 25 March. It proposes a number of measures to promote the wider distribution of British films.
    Ms Russell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent report, which I hope all right hon. and hon. Members will read. I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my concern about the increasing difficulty that a number of film societies have in obtaining prints of new releases, especially when they are restricted to being able to show films on 16 mm equipment. I am sure also that my right hon. Friend agrees with me that we do not want to force the closure of all our town and city-centre film venues, thereby forcing everyone to get into his or her car to go out of town. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans—can anything be done—to keep film societies afloat?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments on the review. There has been a positive response on both sides of the Atlantic.
    I am aware of my hon. Friend's involvement with the Chester film society, which celebrates its 25th year in 1998. I know that the society uses 16 mm film. I shall be discussing with the British Film Institute a strategy for the use of modern methods of cinema technology, which I hope will include the interests of film societies.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware that it is becoming harder and harder since 1 May to attract international film makers to this country because of the strength of the pound? Given that, why is it that the London Film
    462
    Commission, which was set up with the help of the previous Government and which has helped to attract millions of pounds of film investment into the capital, has received a grant insufficient even to guarantee its future until the end of the year?
    Mr. Clarke: First, it does not help when the hon. Gentleman gets his facts considerably wrong. Secondly, it does not help when he talks down Britain when people abroad are investing in British films. We want to encourage them to do so.
    The previous Government left not one penny to the Labour Government to save the London Film Commission. In spite of that, my right hon. and hon. Friends produced £100,000. Working with others, we saved the commission. It is delighted, as the hon. Gentleman should be.

    Television Licence Concessions
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: What plans his Department has to introduce further television licence concessions. [37405]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): The Government's agreement with the BBC provides for a review of future funding arrangements prior to March 2002. That review will include a detailed consideration of licence fee concessions.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank the Minister for his answer, but the House will be aware that, before the recent Budget, there was much floating of a trial balloon by the Government in relation to suggestions that there would be free television licences for all pensioners. Will the Minister confirm that the trial balloon was shot down because the Treasury simply refused to sanction the proposal?
    Mr. Fisher: No. The trial balloon was floated by the media, not by the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman, having been parliamentary private secretary to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the previous Secretary of State, will know the difficulties surrounding the concession scheme. It is probably full of anomalies and imperfections. Our Department receives more correspondence about this matter than almost any other. It is genuinely a difficult matter. To extend the existing concession scheme to all pensioner households would cost, at latest figures, £471 million. That is a considerable sum, which we shall have to examine carefully when we come to the review.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 16 January 1987 my private Member's Bill was voted down by 21 votes? Tory Cabinet Ministers were chauffeured from across the road to the House to vote down a Bill that would have given tremendous help to many pensioners. Does he agree that concessionary television licences should be introduced when it is possible to do so, because, as he says, so many elderly people want and need them? Such licences would be fair and a form of justice, and I shall continue to press for them to be introduced as early as possible.
    Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding hon. Members of his 1987 Bill. He will recall

    463
    that those who voted against it included the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)—their opposition says it all.

    Piers (Lottery Funding)
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: How many piers in England and Wales have received lottery funding in excess of £100,000 since 1 May 1997. [37406]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): One seaside pier has received lottery funding since 1 May 1997. The Brighton west pier trust was awarded a grant of £10.6 million in March 1998 by the heritage lottery fund for the restoration of the pier's substructure.
    Mr. Fearn: I thank the Minister for our recent meeting, which was helpful. The Secretary of State said in the lottery debate that his criterion would be that lottery funding would go to people rather than to buildings. I agree, but piers do not come into the category of buildings or into any other category: they are one of their own. Southport pier attracts 144,000 people each year, but it is in need of repair, and we need lottery funding. Will the Minister put piers in a different category when heritage funding is considered?
    Mr. Clarke: On the general point, the hon. Gentleman and others can debate those matters when the National Lottery Bill is discussed. With regard to Southport pier, he led a delegation, which I was delighted to meet, and its members spoke fluently for their cause. To help the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, I should say that this is a matter for the heritage lottery fund, which expects to receive a revised application; it would be in their interests to submit it as soon as possible.
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: The constituents of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), who is not in the Chamber, are grateful for the £11 million investment in the Brighton west pier trust, which will generate about £30 million investment in the area. Is not such partnership funding the way to secure the future of piers such as the Brighton west pier, which is the only grade I listed pier in the country?
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks; the people of Brighton and many others are grateful for the funding. The major difference between Brighton west pier, which is of grade I status as my hon. Friend says, and Southport pier is that, until now, Southport pier, alas, has been grade II.

    Arts
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What proposals he has to encourage the arts outside London; and if he will make a statement. [37407]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): The Government are determined that the arts and the work of artists should be encouraged and supported in every part
    464
    of this country, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a new £5 million fund, the new audiences initiative, at the time of the Budget.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that many genuinely community-based groups in every aspect of the arts—for example, the Rude Mechanicals theatre group in my constituency—are benefiting or should benefit from funding through the Arts Council or through lottery funding every bit as much as high-profile organisations such as Covent Garden?
    Mr. Fisher: I entirely agree, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is obviously getting some early midsummer night's dreaming in with his Rude Mechanicals. Of course he is right. It is a well made point because it is the community arts, and particularly the non-professional arts, that contribute so much to cultural life and do not receive enough consideration either in the House or in the media.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend consider carefully the question of music in the sense both of music making and providing music? In the north-west, we have a vigorous tradition of excellent music, but, sadly, it looks as though some music teaching is to be abandoned in the education service, which is very worrying. It will deprive us of a whole sector of important cultural activity.
    Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is underlined by, for example, last year's report of the associated board of the Royal Schools of Music, which shows a worrying trend and a decline in the number of people learning and teaching music. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are examining the matter with considerable urgency, and hope to make a substantial announcement later in the summer, with some new initiatives to kick-start the teaching of music in schools and for young people. The new initiatives that we are providing in the National Lottery Bill may help us to do that.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In view of the pressure on the arts budget, particularly now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has helped himself to so much lottery funding, does the hon. Gentleman have any plans to ensure that some of the major national London arts groups are funded directly by his Department rather than through the Arts Council? Does he intend that the Royal Opera house or English National Opera will be a direct client of his Department, as the museums are, and will no longer be, as I say, the Arts Council's responsibility, which would clear its desk, so that it could help the arts outside London more evenly?
    Mr. Fisher: No. We have no such plans, although, as part of our departmental spending review, we are examining the whole way in which our Department allocates its expenditure.
    On the right hon. Lady's first point, she must not continue to make a point that she knows is not correct. As a result of the national lottery, £10 billion comes to cultural life and the good causes. That money is still coming, and it is going to do good throughout the country. She should recognise and welcome that.

    Museums and Galleries (Dudley)
    Mr. Ross Cranston: What measures he has taken to ensure that the new access fund supports museums and galleries in Dudley. [37408]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Perhaps I might be permitted to observe at the outset that access to cultural recreation, particularly sporting activity of all kinds, was something dear to the heart of our late and much loved colleague Denis Howell. We remember him today with great affection.
    On the specifics of my hon. Friend's question, museums and galleries in Dudley may apply for support from the heritage lottery fund's access fund in the same way as all other museums and galleries throughout the United Kingdom. A total of £7 million has been set aside for that purpose for 1998–99.
    Mr. Cranston: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and congratulate him on the moneys that have been made available. I raise two issues for the longer term. The first concerns education packs. As a matter of policy, Dudley museum does not charge, but it does have to charge for education packs, even though teachers can freely reproduce them.
    The other issue concerns, I am sure, other museums—physical access. Many of the museums are in older buildings. Physical access is difficult for older people and disabled people. For example, in Dudley museum recently, we had an exhibition on the first world war. Many older people had great difficulty getting in. Will my right hon. Friend take those two points into account in the long term?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. Both those issues, which my hon. Friend has rightly raised—the development of educational initiatives in museums and galleries and the ability of people with physical impairment to gain physical access to museums and galleries—would fall specifically within the province of the heritage lottery new fund. Dudley museum will, I am sure, be interested in putting in an application for consideration.

    Media Mergers
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on cross-border media mergers. [37410]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Government have no plans to amend the media ownership rules revised by the Broadcasting Act 1996. These permit, of course, cross-border holdings within the European Union.
    Mr. Viggers: On how many occasions in the past year has the Prime Minister personally intervened in such matters?
    Mr. Smith: As far as I am aware, the Prime Minister has had one 30-second reference to the matter in a conversation with the Italian Prime Minister, and on no other occasion has he intervened.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who live in the regions
    466
    are more concerned about what happened to cross-border television and independent regional television services under the previous Government, when many of us lost our independent regional broadcasting? Is it not about time that we reminded the viewing public of that? Will the Labour Government make sure that there are independent news services and local community services when companies such as Granada Television, which took over Yorkshire Television, become part of a much greater sector?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. The regional character and flavour of programme making, especially in the ITV network, has been one of the great strengths of independent television over the years. Sadly, it was put in some danger by the changes introduced by the previous Government, who seemed completely uninterested in quality and interested only in the price tag when they changed the franchising system. We have made it very clear to the Independent Television Commission that we regard it as one of its prime duties to uphold the regional character and the regional sourcing of programmes when it considers matters relating to ITV.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: How predominant does an international multi-media group have to become before it triggers concern and intervention by this Government?
    Mr. Smith: The rules are very clearly laid down in legislation passed by the Conservative Government.

    Drama and Television
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: What assessment he has made of the contribution which (a) drama and (b) television make to the United Kingdom economy. [37411]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): No separate estimate is available for drama, although the revenues of the much wider other entertainments category totalled nearly £6 billion in 1997. Television and radio combined had total revenues of almost £10 billion in 1997.
    Mr. Mitchell: The figures that my right hon. Friend has just given go some way to illustrating the importance of these industries. Given their impact on employment and the balance of payments, and given also that they brighten the quality of our lives, is there not a case for adding to the help, support and encouragement that he has already given them, especially in respect of training, which has suffered badly from the fragmentation of the television industry? That would enable us to do better at combating the huge advantage that the Americans gain from their huge domestic market, and the huge advantage that the French have from cultural and linguistic subsidies.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. I welcome, as I am sure he does, the dialogue between film and television, and the interest of both in training. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that total revenues of spectrum estimates indicate a turnover from the creative industries as a whole of around

    467
    £55 billion, £12 billion of which is generated from exports. Creative industries like those to which he referred are of the utmost importance to my Department and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend can be sure that we share his values.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is it not the case that most people who work in the film industry originally trained in television, not only at the BBC but with independent companies? Although I welcome the last Budget, which helped the film industry, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer also to give some thought to withholding tax, which at present is still a disincentive for some American film companies to come to the United Kingdom, even though they invest here in large numbers?
    Mr. Clarke: It ought to be said that, with regard to the film industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the most generous Chancellor in history. In his Budget, within eight weeks of being in government, he gave a three-year, 100 per cent. write-off to film production. On the day that the document that I have in my hand was published, in which the review group—consisting in the main of people from the film industry, from television and from skill set involved in training—recommended an extra year, the Chancellor outdid even that and gave an extra two years, so things are not going too badly.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the film review recommended that the broadcasting industry—which makes tremendous use of film—should contribute to the all-industry fund. Has he had any response from the television industry to that proposal?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. BBC, Channel 4, ITV and BSkyB already have a good record of investing in film production. Broadcasters recognise that the voluntary contribution suggested in the review is appropriate for all who now use film, including broadcasters and cinema and video distributors. There has been a very positive response.

    News International
    Mr. Tim Collins: What meetings he has held with representatives of News International in the last month to discuss cross-media ownership; and if he will make a statement. [37412]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I have not held any meetings with News International to discuss this subject in the last month. I briefly met Mr. Rupert Murdoch and representatives from BSkyB—in which News International has a 40 per cent. holding—together with other key players in the European audio-visual industry, at the Birmingham audio-visual conference on 6 April.
    Mr. Collins: Has the Minister or any of his officials ever discussed policy issues relating to News International with Mr. Tim Allan at No. 10 Downing street? Does he believe that 28-year-old Mr. Allan has been offered a
    468
    salary of £100,000 a year because of his mastery of the motor scooter or because of his access to the heart of Government?
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The politics of envy.
    Mr. Smith: The answer is no—I have never discussed such matters with Mr. Allan. That question, coming from a former Tory communications director, smacks a little of jealousy.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the statement that Mr. Murdoch made at the Birmingham conference, when he said that he looked forward to the day when Britain was fully integrated into Europe? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the traditional strength of the British audio-visual industry is such that it should be the leading player in Europe? Far from adopting the rather xenophobic protectionist line of Conservative Members—just sour milk because Rupert has gone off them—should we not be backing any British companies that promote British film and British media ownership across Europe and the rest of the world?
    Mr. Smith: I did, indeed, note with considerable interest Mr. Murdoch's statement in his speech at the Birmingham conference, when he looked forward to the future integration of Europe. However, he made one or two other observations with which I could not agree, such as his attack on public service broadcasting. I tried to put the record right with a robust defence of public service broadcasting during my closing speech at the conference.
    Mr. Francis Maude: At the time when the Prime Minister acceded to Mr. Murdoch's request to intervene with the Italian Prime Minister in favour of the recent BSkyB bid, did he know that his deputy press spokesman was already negotiating to take on a senior job with BSkyB? Was Mr. Allan the conduit for Mr. Murdoch's request for help? Were Cabinet Office officials consulted about his subsequent appointment? Did they know of any role that Mr. Allan played in the Prodi affair?
    Mr. Smith: I think that most people are interested in rather more substantive issues, which include the matter on which Mr. Murdoch addressed the Birmingham conference last week. That related to the approval which I gave on 13 October last year for the start-up by the BBC of 24-hour news—something which Mr. Murdoch and BSkyB greatly resented.
    Any charges that this Government give particular favours to particular media companies are completely false. We deal with each issue on its merits, as my decision in October shows.

    Lottery (Burton)
    Mrs. Janet Dean: How lottery distributors, when formulating their strategy, will assess need in the Burton constituency. [37413]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Distributors will consult widely when drawing up their strategies. This consultation will include local authorities and other local interests. The new proposed policy directions, drafts of which are in the Library of the House, emphasise the need to ensure that lottery funds reach all parts of the country and all sections of society.
    Mrs. Dean: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. My constituency has some of the most deprived wards in the west midlands. Will the new lottery legislation ensure that help gets to where it is most needed in those wards?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, in two ways. First, the new policy directions—drafts of which I have issued—will ensure that all lottery distributors take proper account of the need to combat social deprivation when considering making grants. Secondly, distributors will be able to instigate fast-track procedures for small community grants which will get rid of a lot of the red tape and excessive paperwork which at the moment bedevil applications by small community organisations eminently deserving of grant.
    Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): Will not the National Lottery Bill result, effectively, in the decisions on which projects in Burton are supported by lottery funds being taken by Ministers? Is that not why virtually every Labour Back Bencher who spoke in support of the Bill at Second Reading did so on the explicit basis that the Bill will make it easier for the Secretary of State to direct lottery money to the constituencies of Labour Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Smith: No, Madam Speaker. It may not surprise you that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. I was interested to receive a letter from the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley)—the former Secretary of State—who spends most of her time, like the right hon. Gentleman, accusing us of creating the new opportunities fund to somehow deal with our priorities. In her letter she referred to a dyslexia centre in her constituency, and said:
    "The changes in direction—
    the changes we are proposing in the Bill—
    should provide an excellent opportunity for them. I wonder if you could brief me on the likely timetable in which applications will be received for the new opportunities fund."
    Opposition Members are seeing the wonderful opportunities that will come about through the legislation.

    Lottery Funding
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: What plans he has to review the criteria relating to the eligibility of good causes to receive lottery funding. [37414]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The National Lottery Bill creates a new, sixth good cause encompassing health, education and the environment. I am consulting on a new package of draft policy directions governing the distribution of lottery funds for the existing good causes, and expect to issue the formal directions shortly.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things which characterised the lottery when it was
    470
    run by the Tory Government was that they favoured their own people and their own marginal seats? As evidence of that, the three seats in north Derbyshire—Bolsover, North-East Derbyshire and Chesterfield—finished in the lowest 10 per cent. of all constituencies in Britain in terms of receiving grant. It is clear that somebody was making a serious attempt to ensure that we did not get much of a return. Since the Labour Government are in charge, will my right hon. Friend remedy that and help those areas of social deprivation? It is not a matter of favouring anybody—it is about favouring those people who have not had a fair crack of the whip hitherto.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This should not be a matter of favouring particular parts of the country because of their political affiliation. It should be about ensuring that there is a fair geographical spread across the country and that issues of social deprivation are properly taken into account. Both will result from the changes in direction and legislation that we are proposing.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern expressed by the chief executive of the mental health charity Sane about the fact that her helpline, which deals with many thousands of people who are contemplating suicide, has had its applications for lottery grants turned down three times, whereas a helpline for owners bereaved after the death of a pet, which deals with a much smaller number of people, has received a grant of £180,000? Does he not think that a strange set of priorities? Does he agree that the lottery of the lottery should be in the choosing of numbers and the winning of prizes, not in the awarding of grants?
    Mr. Smith: Certainly the awarding of grants should not be a lottery, but the hon. Gentleman will know—as, indeed, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman has just pointed out—that those decisions are strictly a matter for the National Lottery Charities Board, not for me.

    Cricket
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What steps he is taking to improve standards in cricket in the United Kingdom. [37418]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Working through the English Sports Council, we are encouraging the England and Wales Cricket Board in its plans to widen access to the game, to build the quality of the competitive game in England and to improve performance in international competition.
    Mr. Hughes: That is a good statement of principle, for which I thank the Secretary of State. Will he be more proactive in ensuring that standards are such that we can expect to win test series this year and in the future, rather than think that we will win, but then lose? Will he consider calling for an audit, local authority by local authority, of facilities for teaching cricket and of incentives to youngsters to learn? On each estate in constituencies such as his and mine, places could be marked out as nets—it is very simple—so that kids could play cricket in the yard just as they play football and other games. If that happened, we might get people who could win some test matches for us.
    Mr. Smith: Like the hon. Gentleman, I look forward with a mixture of optimism and trepidation to the test

    471
    matches against South Africa and Sri Lanka later this summer. It is important that we ensure the promotion of excellence, which is why we very much hope that the England and Wales Cricket Board will put forward proposals for a national cricket academy as part of the United Kingdom sports institute network.
    It is also important that we consider the broad base of mass participation, which is why I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the decision that I took with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to halt the unnecessary sale of school playing fields, so that schoolchildren have the facilities to learn and play.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the England women's cricket team, which returned to this country yesterday morning—on the same plane as me—from its successful tour of South Africa? What steps are his Department taking to encourage more women to take part in cricket?
    Mr. Smith: I congratulate both the England women's cricket team and my hon. Friend. I am particularly pleased that £157,000 of world-class performance grants have been made available to the team so that it can develop the excellence of its game. I am also pleased that the Women's Cricket Association has decided to merge with the England and Wales Cricket Board, which I think bodes well, especially for the board.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not rather bizarre that anyone should look to the Government to improve cricket, as the essence of new Labour spin doctoring is that it is not cricket?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is batting on rather a sticky wicket. It is important that the Government ensure mass participation in sports of all kinds, including cricket, and excellence. Both are very much at the heart of the Government's sports policy.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: As the question refers to cricket in the United Kingdom, may I remind the Secretary of State that cricket is played in Scotland and that Aberdeen cricket club had a Caribbean professional long before the 1939–45 war? I further remind him that some Scots have played for England, and that two of the world cup games will be played in Scotland. Will he impress upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the need to increase coaching facilities throughout Scotland? My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) and his colleagues in the Scottish Office are not known as great cricket fans. We need an expansion of cricket coaching facilities throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is well known, however, as a man of great fairness and integrity and I am sure that he will have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, whose remarks I shall draw to his attention.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What action he is taking to ensure that the millennium dome will enable the best British design and innovation to be exhibited. [37434]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The dome itself is a flagship of British design and innovation—Richard Rogers's design, in scale and construction, shows the world the best of the nation's talent and creativity; the content will be a reflection of the spectacular imagination of British companies and British-based designers.
    Mr. Sheerman: Did my hon. Friend see the report by Business Strategies last week pointing up the vital importance to this country's future wealth creation of the creative industries, including those in design and innovation? As so much interest is being expressed by people at home and overseas in visiting the dome, will he ensure that the impact of the dome and what happens in it are not just felt during its time, but will influence future creativity, innovation and design as we go into the millennium?
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a good point, with which I agree. It is extraordinary that some people in this country like to carp and sneer at our creative industries and at what they call "cool Britannia". My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Business Strategies report of last week, which noted that the creative industries contribute some £50 billion to our national economy and that they will be the fastest-growing source of new jobs between now and 2006.
    While I am on the subject of jobs, I should say that in today's Evening Standard, it is estimated that millennium tourism will create 50,000 new jobs. That is what the Evening Standard calls a "jobs bonanza". I do not care what the paper calls it: it will be good news for many people and their families in this country.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the dome's token nod to British content, which is apparently to be called "UK@ Now", is being designed by a Frenchman? Is that the Frenchman who described the dome as "very un-British", which the Minister said last week he took as "a great compliment"? Does he agree with the spokesman for the dome who, when the story about the French designer came out, said:
    "As far as we are concerned David Bentheim is doing it himself but if he wants to farm it out to someone else that is cool with us."
    Does that not make a mockery of the Prime Minister's brave words at the launch that the dome is
    "a display of confidence in the creativity and talents of our people"?
    Presumably he meant British people.
    Mr. Mandelson: I notice that, the better we do and the more progress we make in constructing the millennium

    473
    dome and its contents, the weaker the right hon. Gentleman's questions become. One day he will give us all a shock and say something positive about the millennium dome, which was, after all, his party's original idea. However, perhaps it is just very cool in today's Conservative party to pour cold water on the ideas and vision that were originally shown by his right hon. Friends.

    Millennium Experience
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What events are proposed at the millennium experience for the evening of 31 December 2000. [37435]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I am tempted to say that my hon. Friend should give us a break before asking questions about the closing ceremony. Preparations for that ceremony are at an early stage, and it is too soon for final decisions.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I am somewhat disappointed by the tone of that reply, bearing in mind the fact that the eve of the millennium is the last day of December 2000 and the first day of the millennium is 1 January 2001. When we are emphasising the need for arithmetic to be taught correctly in schools, I should have thought it incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to mark the arithmetically correct time of the millennium change.
    Sir Patrick Cormack indicated assent.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Before they nod, Conservative Members should reflect on the fact that they got it wrong as well. It is important that this Parliament should at least give some recognition to the fact that the eve of the millennium is the last day of 2000. We should get it right, or we shall look profoundly silly. The Victorians got it right: newspapers of 1900-01 show that they marked the change of the century on the eve of 1901. We ought to be able to get it right, too.
    Mr. Mandelson: Whatever the technical truthfulness of my hon. Friend's observation, I can assure him that, whenever the opening and closing ceremonies take place, they will reflect the full breadth and success of the celebrations that we have planned. I am determined to ensure that the whole year-long celebrations are accessible to as many people as possible, and not only to the well-heeled and the very important.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Whatever the closing date of the dome may be—or perhaps, following the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), I should say, "la date de fermeture"—is it not completely irrelevant, given that, although there were supposed to be 12 million visitors, we have already heard that the plan to provide river transport has failed, and London Transport says that there will not, after all, be 24 trains an hour? How can there be a closing, when the opening will be unsuccessful, as nobody will be able to get there?
    Mr. Mandelson: The innovative integrated transport systems that are being developed—the Jubilee line
    474
    extension, the new river services and riverside walks, and even a cable car service across the Thames—will be among the most important legacies of the millennium experience.
    The article in The Times last week was not correct, as I shall set out in a letter to the editor. As part of his Thames 2000 initiative, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced last month—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like to hear the facts, but I shall give them to the whole House none the less. My right hon. Friend announced the allocation of £21 million to boost new passenger services on the river, and we expect 1 million people to travel to Greenwich by boat from central London using those services, which will certainly become a jewel in the capital's transport network.
    Mr. Paddy Tipping: What progress has been made on the national programme for the millennium experience. [37436]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The New Millennium Experience Company has established 12 national programme offices in the nine regions of England and in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Staff in those offices are providing a one-stop shop source of information about how to engage in the United Kingdom-wide programme of events and activities and in the nation's millennium festival.
    Mr. Tipping: Is my hon. Friend aware of the feeling in north Nottinghamshire and, I suspect, in Hartlepool, that people living in London and the south-east are advantaged to the disadvantage of people in the midlands and the north? Will he take steps to ensure that people throughout the United Kingdom have the opportunity to celebrate the millennium?
    Mr. Mandelson: The Government are absolutely determined to ensure affordable access to the millennium dome for all people from every part of the country, but the millennium does not mean only the dome. It means the £100-million nationwide festival of sporting, artistic and heritage events, bids for which can be submitted from next week; the huge range of capital projects being funded by the millennium commission at over 3,000 locations throughout the country; and the millennium awards, which will fund ordinary people throughout the country to do extraordinary things, from pensioner inventors in Cornwall to special needs workers in Northamptonshire. In other words, it means a national movement to change the landscape of our country and really make a difference to the way we live our lives. That is what the millennium celebrations mean, and that is why the Government are backing them.
    Mr. James Gray: Is the Minister not aware that the millennium celebrations actually mean the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ? Is he not ashamed of the fact that, throughout all that great tirade and, indeed, his answers to the other questions this afternoon, he did not mention that once, and that the importance he gives to it in his dome is so ludicrously small?
    Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman's view is not shared by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,

    475
    with whom I had a recent meeting and who expressed himself well content with the proper acknowledgement that we are giving to the birth of Christ and the contribution of the Christian religion to this country. We will continue to work with him, his colleagues and other members of the multi-faith Lambeth group to ensure that all those objectives are properly reflected and fulfilled.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Bishops (Vehicles)
    Mr. Norman Baker: What vehicles are available to bishops and how many chauffeurs are supplied; and what was the total cost of running these vehicles, including depreciation, and employing the chauffeurs for the latest year for which figures are available. [37445]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Official cars provided for bishops have engine capacities in a range from 1.6 to 2.3 litres. In 1997, the net cost of providing and maintaining bishops' cars was £279,000. Seven bishops use their own cars and are paid a mileage allowance. In 1997, 31 bishops employed full or part-time drivers. The cost of those to the commissioners was £317,000.
    Mr. Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that money spent on chauffeurs and very large-engined cars is not regarded sympathetically by people in parishes who see their churches closing and otherwise short of money? Would the money not be better diverted to helping to take the Christian mission to the country at large?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Bishops have a demanding ministry, as he will know, and an increasing work load. The use of a driver can give them valuable extra time and relieve them of some pressure when travelling to and from their many and varied engagements. Several of the drivers also work as gardeners or handymen at see houses, or are part-time.

    Arms Exports
    Ann Clwyd: What discussions he has had on the arms exporting policy of companies in which the Church Commissioners have invested. [37446]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The question of company policy on the export of arms has recently been put to GEC and GKN. Both companies have given assurances that they adhere strictly to the United Kingdom Government's licence terms for such sales.
    Ann Clwyd: Has my hon. Friend followed events recently in east Java, Indonesia, where, on 8 April, British-supplied water cannons were used to fire toxic
    476
    liquids and tear gas at unarmed students? Is it not time that the Church Commissioners reviewed their policy in view of those facts, especially as the water cannons have been used not once but many times against unarmed demonstrators? They should review their policy in the light of those incidents and I want my hon. Friend's assurance that they will do just that.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those matters; as she habitually does. The Church Commissioners are always grateful to her, and listen to her with great care. As Church investors, we are acutely aware of the strength of feeling that those issues arouse within the Church and among the public at large. Our policy as commissioners draws a distinction between, on the one hand, a legitimate British defence industry that supplies equipment under Government licence to the Ministry of Defence and our NATO partners and, on the other, the supply of equipment as part of the international arms trade, albeit also under Government licence.

    Ethical Investment
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What recent discussions have taken place between the Church Commissioners and diocesan authorities about ethical investment. [37447]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Members of the Church of England's ethical investment working group frequently meet and give presentations to various diocesan bodies regarding the Church's ethical investment policy.
    Mr. Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman ensure that there is not merely regular or some contact between the dioceses and the Church Commissioners, but some mechanism whereby, before any decision is taken by a diocese, such as mine of Southwark, which I read had invested in the defence industries, it is fully briefed on the implications and alternatives, and on issues that relate to the Jubilee 2000 repayment of debt agenda? Many countries that buy arms sold by the companies in which our diocese invests could pay off or reduce their debts and spend on more worthwhile activities if they did not buy those arms.
    Mr. Bell: Under the Cathedrals Measure 1963, chapters are requested to seek our advice before investing, although they are not required to follow it. The Church Commissioners publish information about the ethical investment policy of the Church's central investing bodies. It is widely circulated and a report is made annually to the General Synod of the Church of England. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a review of the Cathedrals Measure, and a Cathedrals Measure will come before the House shortly.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement regarding the role of BSkyB as a sponsor of the millennium dome. [37438]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): BSkyB is one of the four founding partners of the millennium experience. Founding partners have the opportunity to work with the New Millennium Experience Company's staff and design teams in developing the content of exhibits in the dome. Additionally, where founding partners' support covers the company's challenge programme of country-wide events and activities, they will have similar opportunities to work with the company's staff in the development of that programme.
    Mr. Swayne: Will BSkyB get any exclusive television coverage rights?
    Mr. Mandelson: No, it will not.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Given the public interest in sponsorship and other arrangements for the dome, when does the Minister intend to publish the business plan for the millennium dome, in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport?
    Mr. Mandelson: The initial draft of the company's corporate plan has already gone, under cover of confidentiality, to the Select Committee. It will duly be published for the House and the public to read.

    Millennium Celebrations
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What proposals he has, through the New Millennium Experience Company, for celebrating the millennium in Scotland, Wales and the English regions. [37439]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The New Millennium Experience Company has established 12 national programme offices in the nine regions of England and in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to ensure that the millennium experience programme of UK-wide events and activities running before and during 2000 offers as many opportunities as possible for people across the country to take an active part. In addition, the company's 12 local offices will provide a one-stop shop source of information about how to take part in the millennium festival programme which will run during 2000.
    Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, as one just about old enough to remember with great fondness the 1951 festival of Britain, both on the
    478
    south bank and all the events in my home village of Radyr, which I now have the honour of representing. Does he agree that, while Greenwich will be essentially regarded as an urban festival, matters such as improving access to the countryside for 2000 and beyond are important? For many of us, the right to roam is as important as the right to dome, if not more so.
    Mr. Mandelson: I very much share my hon. Friend's sentiment. It is important that, in formulating ideas and, plans for locally based, do-it-yourself millennium celebrations and festivals, the matching funds from the millennium festival fund are sought by rural as well as suburban and urban areas. I hope that that will be the case. I shall ensure that the offices of the New Millennium Experience Company, which administers the millennium festival fund, seek to encourage and look kindly upon any such applications from local groups and organisations in rural areas.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Over the recess, I met Mr. Stephen Martin of Virtex, which runs virtual reality systems that would allow the millennium dome to be enjoyed by every citizen in the country who has access to the internet. That project was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), but the company has now learnt from a reliable source that a Japanese system might have been chosen. Why is that?
    Mr. Mandelson: I shall, of course, look into the matter; I have no detailed information on it at my fingertips. Wherever possible, we seek to make sure that the supplies for the dome, both for its construction and for its contents, come from British companies. If British companies have failed to compete successfully on this occasion, I very much regret that. However, as I said, I shall inquire with the company and see what the facts of the matter are.

    Spirit Zone
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What representations he has received about the use of the term "spirit zone". [37440]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The New Millennium Experience Company's working title for the zone, which aims to explore the values that underpin our society and how they are expressed through faith and belief, is spirit level. The New Millennium Experience Company has received two representations about the use of the term "spirit level" arising from the company's continuing consultations with the Lambeth group on the content of the zone.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Christians and other faith groups had their worst fears confirmed when the contents of the dome were launched at The People's Palace, the same place where Labour celebrated its victory? Their fear is that the Government are exploiting the dome for party political purposes. The term "spirit level" is an insult to the Christian faith and to other religions, and sounds more like a place where Mystic Meg should hang out.
    Mr. Mandelson: That is rich coming from the right hon. Lady, the leader of whose party said recently that he would rather take a walk than go to church.

Northern Ireland (Belfast Agreement)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement, which the House has wanted to hear for many years, on the succesful conclusion of the multi-party talks in Belfast.
It is my privilege to be able to tell the House that a comprehensive political agreement was reached late in the afternoon of 10 April—Good Friday. The text has been published as Cm 3883. A copy is being sent to every home in Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to the Post Office for providing this service at business rate, so that people across Northern Ireland have a chance to study the agreement in detail.
The Government's main aim throughout these negotiations has been to secure political stability and lasting peace for all the people of Northern Ireland. As a result of what is being called the Good Friday agreement, that goal is now in sight.
This is a unique agreement born of a unique set of negotiations that involved Unionists, nationalists, republicans and loyalists around the same talks table. This is a situation in which, although compromises have been made, everyone can be a winner. Everyone's political and cultural identity is respected and protected by this deal. Northern Ireland politics, for so long, has been seen as a zero sum game. This agreement demonstrates the potential for the people of Northern Ireland to move beyond that, into a new type of politics in which everyone can gain. This agreement represents a sensible, fair and workable way forward for both communities.
I should like to pay a particular tribute today to the negotiating teams of all the parties involved. I should also like to pay tribute to a group who, though often vilified, have worked for many years to bring about this agreement, often at personal risk to themselves and their families—the civil servants in both Northern Ireland and the Republic.
It is important, when we are talking about all the positive developments, that at the same time we do not lose sight of the terrible price that has been paid by the victims of violence and their families. No amount of progress in the search for lasting peace will bring back those loved ones who have been lost, or take away the pain felt, day in and day out, by their families. I hope that Ken Bloomfield's victims commission, which we have set up and which I hope will report later this month, will provide us with some practical suggestions as to how we can best recognise the suffering endured by the victims of violence and their families.
Many of those families say to me similar words to those that are actually printed in the agreement:
"the achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence."
The main elements in the agreement are as follows. First, on constitutional issues, the British and Irish Governments have formally resolved our historical differences through the general and future acceptance of the principle of consent, which means that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and will stay that way for as long as that is the wish of a majority of people who live there; and it means that, if the people of Northern
480
Ireland were formally to consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, the Government of the day would bring forward proposals, in consultation with the Irish Government, to give effect to that wish.
Under the agreement, the Irish Government will bring forward proposals to amend the Irish constitution to bring it into line with this understanding, and the necessary changes will also be made to the British constitutional legislation.
The second part of the agreement says that there will be greater democratic accountability in Northern Ireland through the devolution of a wide range of executive and legislative powers to a Northern Ireland assembly. In the assembly, the posts of executive authority will be shared out on a proportional basis, and safeguards will be in place to protect the interests of both the communities.
Thirdly, there will be a north-south ministerial council, which will bring together those with executive authority, north and south, to work together by agreement on matters of mutual interest. Those participating on the council will be mandated by, and remain accountable to, the assembly and to the Irish Parliament; and at least six "implementation bodies" will be identified within the next six months to put decisions taken by the council into effect, either on a cross-border or all-island basis, in specified areas. More such bodies or mechanisms may be established by agreement between the two sides, north and south.
Fourthly, there will be a British-Irish council, to bring together our two Governments, and representatives of devolved administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and from the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. This development builds on the Government's radical programme for constitutional reform.
Fifthly, there will be a new British-Irish agreement to replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. This will be brought into effect as soon as the other elements of the deal are in place.
The British-Irish agreement sets out the new shared understanding on constitutional matters. It also creates a new British-Irish intergovernmental conference, which will deal with all bilateral issues between the two Governments. In recognition of the Irish Government's special interest in relation to Northern Ireland, there will continue, as now, to be regular meetings between myself and the Irish Foreign Minister. However, in future, relevant executive Members of the Northern Ireland assembly will also be involved in those meetings, to discuss non-devolved issues that arise in relation to Northern Ireland.
In addition, the existing joint Anglo-Irish Secretariat at Maryfield will close before the end of this year.
The agreement also includes a range of measures to enhance the proper protection of basic human rights. It will include a new independent human rights commission in Northern Ireland, which is there to consult and advise on the scope for defining rights supplementary to those in the European convention on human rights, which the Government are in the process of incorporating into United Kingdom law.
There is also public consultation under way about the proposals in our "Partnership for Equality" White Paper. Subject to that consultation, those proposals—including the establishment of a powerful new equality

481
commission—are reflected in the agreement, along with a number of other proposals to encourage parity of esteem between the two main political and cultural traditions.
Finally, the agreement looks ahead to the creation of a normal and peaceful society in Northern Ireland. It establishes a clear process of the decommissioning of illegal weapons that can start forthwith, and a commitment by all the parties to work constructively in good faith with the independent commission, and to use any influence they have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons within two years of the referendum. It commits both Governments to reducing the profile of security measures and emergency legislation as the threat to peace and good order reduces.
There will also be an independent commission to consider what policing service would be appropriate in a Northern Ireland free from the threat of terrorist violence, and would be capable of fully commanding the support of both communities. There will be a parallel review of the criminal justice system.
The agreement also commits both Governments to put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners. Let me be clear: this is not an easy issue for anyone, but it is an indispensable part of this agreement. For our part, the British Government will establish an independent sentence review body to look at each prisoner on a case-by-case basis to determine their eligibility for release.
Most eligible prisoners will qualify for release on licence within two years. If the circumstances allow, the remainder will be released at that point. It must be emphasised, however, that this time frame is variable, depending on the degree of genuine commitment to peace.
Prisoners associated with groups that do not maintain a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not qualify. Prisoners who do qualify will be released on licence and returned to prison if they engage in any further terrorist activity. These are crucial safeguards, and a briefing note giving more detail of the specifics of the proposed arrangement has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
This agreement was made possible by the efforts of many people—most of all by the leaders of the political parties involved in the negotiations. The House will, I am sure, wish to join me in paying tribute also to the exceptional chairmanship skills of the former Senator, George Mitchell, and his two assistants, the former Prime Minister of Finland, Harri Holkeri, and Sir John de Chastelain.
No less crucial was the constant support and the direct involvement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, particularly over the last few crucial days of the negotiations. His efforts were matched by those of the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who rose above the personal tragedy of his mother's death to play an equally decisive role.
Hon. Members will also appreciate the enormous value of having a broad political consensus in support of the talks process, both here at Westminster and in the Irish parliament. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), and to Lord Mayhew and his colleague the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
482
Equally, successive Irish Prime Ministers and Ministers for Foreign Affairs in the Republic have played a crucial role. In addition, I should like briefly to thank President Clinton, who has been an invaluable support during the talks process. I could go on—many other Governments and people have been involved, including the European Union. All of them have made an incredible difference, but I just thought it important to put our appreciation on record.
I am laying an order today setting 22 May as the date for the referendum. A parallel referendum will take place in the Republic of Ireland on the same day. If both are successful, elections should be held to the new Northern Ireland Assembly before the end of June. Following the elections, the Assembly and the North-South Ministerial Council would operate in shadow mode, making the necessary preparations, until the main implementing legislation, which I intend to introduce as soon as possible, has been enacted and brought into effect.
The agreement reached on Good Friday is, I believe, a significant turning point in the history of Northern Ireland, but let us have no illusions. It will take a long time to repair the physical and the emotional damage of the past and bring about a real sense of reconciliation and partnership. The people there have suffered a great deal of hardship and pain. To their strength we must give all our support in the weeks and months ahead.
There will be pressures on all sides to bring the agreement down. The best way that we can help to fight those pressures is to give the agreement the overwhelming support of the House, and to give the people of Northern Ireland the chance to choose the future, not the past, in which to live. In the end, the decisions rest with the people of Northern Ireland. The choice is theirs.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I congratulate the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues on achieving an agreement between the political parties and the two Governments. May I particularly praise the sensitive and understanding chairmanship of Senator Mitchell and his colleagues, which in no small measure resulted in the agreement.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for acknowledging the significant contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), his Secretary of State, Lord Mayhew, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), all of whom worked tirelessly to achieve a lasting settlement in the Province, and without whose efforts we would not have heard the statement today.
The Conservative party warmly welcomes the agreement, but recognises that it is not an end in itself. It will not bring peace overnight, but it gives us the opportunity to build a lasting peace underpinned by stable political institutions that have the allegiance, and respect the rights and traditions, of all parts of the community.
For all of us, there are aspects of the agreement that do not sit comfortably with our aspirations and beliefs. Nevertheless, we believe that the agreement represents the best way forward for Northern Ireland. The Conservative and Unionist party strongly endorses the conclusion of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the agreement strengthens the Union. The Act of Union remains firmly in place, while the Irish territorial claim is

483
to be abandoned. At the same time, the agreement recognises the legitimate aspirations and interests of the nationalist community.
I have some questions for the Secretary of State relating to matters that are of legitimate concern not just on these Benches, but particularly in the Province. First, does she accept that it is highly likely that splinter groups could seek to bring down the agreement by the use of force? The Continuity Army Council, Republican Sinn Fein and the 32 County Sovereignty Committee remain implacably opposed to the agreement, as does the Loyalist Volunteer Force. Will she confirm that no security measures will be relaxed prematurely that cannot be reversed very quickly?
Secondly, we are naturally concerned about the lack of progress on decommissioning terrorist weapons. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no member of the new assembly will be appointed a Minister until his paramilitary associates have engaged in substantial decommissioning? Can that be incorporated in the forthcoming legislation, along the lines of the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann?
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no early release of prisoners if decommissioning is not well under way? Can she allay fears in the Province by promising today that prisoners will not be released early if their parliamentary associates resume violence in any shape or form, and that, in the case of those released, their licence will be revoked if such violence resumes? Will she reconsider the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright in the light of these developments?
Thirdly, does the Secretary of State agree that it is the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported by the armed forces, who have stood between the rule of law and anarchy for the past 30 years? The RUC deserves our continuing praise and support. Therefore, will the Secretary of State confirm that any changes in policing will be made only after widespread consultation, on the basis of the broadest possible consensus?
Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that we are pleased that the Prime Minister has today taken up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the two of them, together with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, should speak together on a "yes" platform during the forthcoming referendum?
This is as inclusive an agreement as is ever likely to be achieved. It is a crucial development in the history of Northern Ireland, upon which we hope all sides can build. The next step is to secure an overwhelming yes vote on both sides of the border in the referendum on 22 May. After all the horror, disappointments and false dawns of the past 30 years, this is perhaps the best opportunity that we shall ever have to secure a new beginning for Northern Ireland. Let no one be in any doubt that we in the Conservative party will do all in our power to ensure its success.
Marjorie Mowlam: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point, yes, I welcome the cross-party support for the referendum. I make it clear that we are not financing one side over the other. That fact must be put on record, as other hon. Members have raised that point. We are
484
providing free leaflets to every house on behalf of all parties that received support in the May 1996 elections, whether they are campaigning for a yes or a no vote. There will be no imbalance for the parties within Northern Ireland.
I have no difficulty in supporting the tribute that the hon. Gentleman paid to the RUC. I have stated on many occasions that the RUC has demonstrated enormous bravery over the past 30 years. As I said earlier, when praising the RUC, we must not forget the families and friends who are living without loved ones or with very injured members of that force. It is important to remember that point, and I am very pleased to put it on record.
No one is seeking change unless there is a peaceful situation. We know that the first job of any Government is to ensure the security of the people they govern. We have 13,000 police and 17,000 troops in Northern Ireland. During past ceasefires, we and the previous Government de-escalated in response to that situation. However, we were flexible enough to return to our former position when the situation demanded it—we have no difficulties on that front.
I know that the police in Northern Ireland will, after consultation, want to work as a police force in a normal society that is not faced with terrorism. The police want to represent the whole Northern Ireland community, in both make-up and behaviour. That is the crucial point to remember.
As to the early release of prisoners, I hope that I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that several security safeguards are built into the agreement. I am sure that he and his colleagues understand that, according to the nature of the agreement, several things must happen in parallel in order to build confidence. That has always been the situation, whether it be decommissioning, the release of prisoners, changes to the police force or normal acts of governance.
We have just announced assistance of £33 million in addition to the school building programme in Northern Ireland. Introducing such measures alongside one another is crucial to normalising the situation in the long run.
The hon. Gentleman knows that it is difficult for me to say a lot about Fisher and Wright, as, like my predecessors, I have a semi-judicial role in that decision. As Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wright were convicted of scheduled offences, they will be able to benefit from the review and from any other proposals that are on the table. As the hon. Gentleman knows, their cases are up for review again in autumn this year.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I would like to see decommissioning tomorrow. I would like it to happen forthwith, as the Prime Minister said at the end of the week of the talks, and as we have said on numerous occasions. The mechanisms that will make decommissioning possible are in place. The Prime Minister's letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred said not only that decommissioning should start immediately but that he would like to put in place mechanisms to enable a review some months into the process, to ensure that all the machinery was working. It is built and structured in such a way in the agreement that it represents mutually assured progress or mutually assured destruction. That is why I am hopeful, and that is why I believe that the decommissioning that we would all like to see is crucial.

485
The hon. Gentleman asked, in the context of decommissioning, whether Ministers would be able to serve. It is clearly stated in the agreement that Ministers have to sign up to the principles of a democratic and peaceful way forward. That is a crucial step for anyone who seeks to be a Minister in the assembly.
Built into the agreement is a cross-community mechanism. If people are not fulfilling their responsibilities and commitments in the assembly, there can be sufficient cross-community support within it to ensure that ministerial jobs can be withheld from those concerned. A review mechanism will be implemented six months in, to ensure that all the bits of the process are working.
The hon. Gentleman's first point was about splinter groups. As he will be aware, they have been a continual problem during the talks process. The Loyalist Volunteer Force, the Continuity IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army have been a particular problem. They will not go away after what I hope will be a successful referendum vote. They will still be there. It is a credit to the people of Northern Ireland and to the parties to have kept going when there are people there murdering, maiming and trying to destabilise the best chance they have not to go back to the past but to live for the future.
I hope that we get a good enough vote in the referendum. I have said that we are not campaigning one way or the other, but I have not worked for a year to get a no vote. I think that a positive yes vote in the north and the south is the biggest message that we can give the groups to which I have referred. That message is that they have no future with their present behaviour in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Secretary of State will have received enough plaudits, well justified and well deserved, from enough quarters not to need me to add to them.
Marjorie Mowlam: Do, please.
Mr. Ashdown: I suppose that one can never get too many plaudits.
As someone who is proud to call himself a Northern Irishman—born and brought up in the north of a divided family, and having served on the streets of Northern Ireland as a soldier—I can say that the right hon. Lady, the Prime Minister and everyone else who has contributed to the agreement gave me, a week ago last Friday, the best day that I have had since I was elected to this place 15 years ago. It was probably the best day for me for the past 30 years, since the troubles started.
Of course I congratulate the Secretary of State. Her determination to do things differently, even against opposition and criticism, and the Prime Minister's determination not to accept defeat in the negotiations, were two significant contributions of a great number which the right hon. Lady listed.
There was the vision of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), without which, I suspect, the process would never have started. There was the courage of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), without which, I suspect, the agreement would not have existed, even today. A tremendous contribution was made by the previous Prime Minister. Also involved were the
486
Taoiseach and Senator Mitchell. All those individuals contributed, and I suspect that without any one of them, the success would not be here to be celebrated today.
I shall make three brief points. Surely it is right, as the right hon. Lady did in her statement, to reiterate that we do not have peace; it is merely the opportunity for peace, or the hope for peace. It is the foundation stone upon which peace can be built, but it is now up to the Northern Irish people to build upon it.
Secondly, is it not the case that the first major building block in the peace process comes with the referendums? All those who wish the process success can assist by obtaining the most decisive yes vote, both in the north of Ireland and in the Republic, in the two key referendums. If—if—it is the case that I or anyone else goes over to the north of Ireland to campaign on that basis and to assist in the process, I shall be happy to play that role. However, that involvement must be determined on whether it is helpful or not. This is an issue not of ceremony but of practical assistance.
Thirdly, in addition to decommissioning, is it not the case that other activity on the part of those who wish to see a success must make sure that words are followed by actions? Actions are necessary to reassure both sides. One of the absolutely crucial actions is the ending of paramilitary beatings. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be as unacceptable for them to continue as it would be for the private armies that have done Northern Ireland so much damage in the past to continue?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I shall be quick; I do not disagree with a thing he says, and in the interests of other hon. Members who want to speak, I shall only say, "Thank you for your support, and thank you for the support of your party."
Mr. John Hume rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hume: May I place on record our deep appreciation for the detailed work that the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues have done in arriving at this agreement? I am sure that, in so doing, I speak for the vast majority of the people of both sections of our community.
May I join her in thanking the Prime Minister for the priority that he gave to the greatest human problem facing the House? The fact that he gave it such priority gave enormous encouragement to the people at grass-roots level, who have suffered from this problem and strengthened the peace process enormously. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for so doing.
I also pay tribute, and express deep gratitude, to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and his colleagues, because they worked hard to help to lay the foundations for the process. I express my deep appreciation to him and to other hon. Members who are in the Chamber. I include in that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), because, when the history is written—I know a bit about the history of this process—his role and public statements will be seen to have laid a major foundation. I say to him, "Thank you." I add to that our thanks to the leader of the

487
Liberal Democrats, because he has been consistent in his total support for a common-sense approach to this problem.
It is welcome that the agreement will put in place institutions which will give no victory to either side in our community, but which instead will create circumstances that respect the identities of both sections of our community, in which they could work together in their common interests.
I have no doubt from my experience that, given the massive international good will that there has been towards the agreement, real politics will take over once we start working together and leave our quarrel behind us. Harnessing that international support and interest will transform our economy, and give hope to our young people, so that the next century will be the first in our island history in which there will be no killings on our streets and no emigration of our young to other lands to earn a living.
Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to make two quick responses. First, I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who fought long and hard on this issue when it was not popular, which should be remembered by those who came along when it became more popular.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has brought something to the process over the years which is difficult to achieve in Northern Ireland—flexibility with words, which has helped tremendously. As I was preparing my statement, I picked out a phrase that he has used; he said that the future depends on the wishes of the people, not on institutions. The rethinking that he has brought to the process has also helped.
Mr. David Trimble rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Trimble: Without disagreeing with the introductory comments of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), I hope that the right hon. Lady and other hon. Members will forgive me if I do not repeat the thanks to everyone, but merely record my view that, without the actions of the Prime Minister in the last couple of days of the negotiations, no agreement would have been achieved.
I emphasise the right hon. Lady's comment that we should have no illusions. Considerable difficulties lie ahead, and there will no doubt be setbacks. I note with interest her comment that the British and Irish Governments have resolved their historical differences. That is important, because, while there will be developments within the structures that we shall put in place, this must be seen as a settlement, not as a milepost in the direction of some other eventual outcome.
On that point, is the right hon. Lady not concerned about the way in which Sinn Fein is acting with regard to this agreement? It has not endorsed the agreement. It says at the moment, if press reports today are to be believed, that, in the referendum, it will campaign in Northern Ireland for a yes, but in the Republic of Ireland for a no, and that, rather than endorse the agreement as a whole, it will attempt to cherry-pick some items of it and to ignore the obligations that it would place on Sinn Fein.
488
In that respect, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is important that the requirement that parties be committed to peaceful, democratic, non-violent means is not just a few empty words, but a genuine requirement that has to be satisfied before people can move into the Administration? It also underlines the need for the commitments to decommissioning again to be more than the empty words that they have so far been, and that action now is necessary.
With regard to the position on prisoners, as I am sure the right hon. Lady knows, that matter causes very great and very real concern in the community in Northern Ireland. The sentence review body will look at each prisoner on a case-by-case basis to determine eligibility for release. I should be grateful if she could give some indication as to the sort of criteria that the review body might be adopting, so that the public have some assurance that the circumstances of individual cases will be considered; the gravity of those cases does need to be taken into account.
In that context, I note that the Irish Government have already said that, irrespective of the release provisions, if people are found guilty of the murder of Garda McCabe, they will not be released. The contrast is bound to be keenly felt when people who have been guilty of murdering policemen in the United Kingdom are released.
May I again press the right hon. Lady on the question of security force prisoners? The case of the two guardsmen was mentioned, and of course I endorse the comments that were made about that by other Members; but there are quite a few security force prisoners, and I think that we should be doing more than just leaving their cases to be considered in the normal way, particularly as among those members of the security forces who are in prison—I think that he is now one of the longest life sentence prisoners—is a man who was unjustly convicted.
There is an innocent man in prison who was unjustly convicted of a murder. He was a member of the security forces, and a wide section of the community believes that, because he was a member of the security forces, he has not been given the sort of generous consideration that others have. The public's concerns on those matters need to be allayed.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the kind remarks about the Prime Minister. I obviously echo them. For those three days, he worked flat out, and I am not sure that many others would have done that. The right hon. Gentleman also worked very hard in those last days to find an accommodation.
I agree completely that we have to bear it in mind that we should have no illusions in the next six months. We thought that it was tough up to Good Friday; we are going to have some tough days in the weeks and months ahead. However, we are starting from a different base. We are starting from the base of an accommodation based on consent, and we have to bear it in mind that the principles of consent and fairness that have governed us until now are in place in that historic agreement. I think that that is an enormous starting point.
I pick up the right hon. Gentleman's last point, on prisoners. I will, of course, look at individual cases, but I think it best at this point to take note of those. I am not unaware of the cases to which he has referred, but I should like to get the legislation in place first. There is a detailed

489
brief in the Library, but the details further to that will be available when the legislation, which is being drawn up now, is available to all hon. Members.
May I pick out the main point that the right hon. Gentleman raised about Sinn Fein and its non-endorsement of the agreement? In the talks last week, its members made it clear that they wanted to consult their party before they were prepared to make a definitive statement, but that they would be positive about the agreement. They were, and I think that they have been since then. I feel unable to comment on particular statements in the press-not because I do not always believe what the newspapers say but because I should like to read it for myself first, and get advice on what has been said.
I do not know whether Sinn Fein is going to cherry-pick the agreement, but I do know that most of the parties will, in their heart of hearts, cherry-pick. When we started n years ago, people were very far apart. We have reached a compromise on a structure—no one is signing up to 100 per cent., but, on balance, people are saying that it is the best agreement they can think possible, and that therefore they are able to support it.
I am not sure that I can go further than that, but I very much hope that Sinn Fein will join us in campaigning positively for an agreement. We have said all along that we want an inclusive agreement. It is only by inclusivity and bringing people into the process that we are going to stop the violence in the long term.
Finally, I support what was in the Prime Minister's letter, which is the basic position we hold on decommissioning. As we have said, it is an essential step to having a settlement that lasts.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, when history records the agreement and a yes vote in the referendum, it will be not only the suffering in Northern Ireland that will come to an end but the suffering imposed on the people of the United Kingdom, because war in Ireland has caused great anguish and many casualties in this country, in England and Scotland as well?
I should like to ask one practical question. In annex A, a pledge of office is required for Members of the proposed assembly. When the legislation comes to be drawn up, will the Secretary of State consider whether anyone ready to give that pledge of office would also qualify, if elected, for membership of the House of Commons? It would be very hard if some Ministers in the Assembly were qualified to sit in this House and others were not. As she knows, it is an issue that I have raised many times—indeed, I introduced the Parliamentary Declaration Bill—and one that merits serious consideration when the legislation comes to be drafted.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my right hon. Friend. I agree whole-heartedly with his first point. It is useful to put on record the hard work of people such as Colin Parry from Warrington and Rita Restorick, whose son Stephen was the last man from the Army to be killed. They are people who have suffered on this side of the water, and, alongside the people of Northern Ireland, they have put great effort into making a difference.
490
On my right hon. Friend's second point, it is a matter best left to the House as a whole, not to me.
Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this is a very moving occasion for anyone who has had the privilege to hold office in Northern Ireland? I warmly congratulate her and the Prime Minister, and join her, if I may, in congratulating my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister and other colleagues who have played such a part in taking the process forward.
The right hon. Lady referred to two people who lost their lives—Private Restorick and one in Warrington—but she will understand that my mind goes back to so many people—those in the security forces and brave non-combatants in both communities—who, by standing for democracy and freedom against terrorism over the years, have made the agreement possible. I congratulate her on the achievement of bringing forward this agreement now.
I know from her remarks that the Secretary of State recognises that this is the end of the beginning, and that the real challenge comes now. There may be an agreement on paper, and an agreement may have been reached in smoke-filled or non-smoking rooms in Stormont, but it is with the hearts and minds of the people, expressed not just in a referendum but in a genuine determination then to make the new possibilities work, that the challenge will lie. I certainly wish her well, and, for my part, I am willing to do anything I can to help the process forward.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I reinforce the point that his service in Northern Ireland was during one of the hardest, toughest times. I pay tribute to him for his service, and to the many people who, as he said, suffered during that time, many of whose names will never be known. When we were working on the late Friday night of the talks, I realised that I had been doing the job for 11 months, but sitting next to me were civil servants who had been doing it for 11 years. We should never forget to keep things in perspective.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman's last point. We can put the structures in place, but, as he rightly said, in the end it will be the people who will make it work or not. It is about trust and respect for each other. We cannot legislate for that—it takes years to build. There is a long haul ahead, but—call me naivex2014;I am still confident that, in the years ahead, the people of Northern Ireland will make it.
Mr. Clive Soley: In expressing my sheer delight at my right hon. Friend's achievement, I want also to ask her to bear in mind the principle that parole has always been available throughout the United Kingdom system to allow the early release of prisoners and to recall them if there is any danger of their committing another offence. That principle applies equally to the people in Northern Ireland, whether Unionist or republican, who have misguidedly believed that they could advance their cause through violence. That is the principle by which we should be guided, and the one for which I have argued for many years during this dispute.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for the personal support that he has given me. I echo his last

491
Point. It is worth putting on the record the fact that, in the 1960s, the Stormont Government released prisoners, so this is not the first time that early release has been considered. Of course, if the remission scheme currently in place was the only scheme on offer, two thirds of prisoners would be out in two years, anyway.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady well knows that there is an explicit linkage in the agreement between the release of prisoners and the cessation of murder. That is welcome in so far as it goes. However, there is no explicit linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners; nor is there an explicit linkage between the appointment of the First Minister, his or her deputy, Chairmen of Committees or Ministers, and decommissioning and the cessation of murder.
Why is that? Are there, perhaps, side agreements or letters of comfort—for example, the letter from the Prime Minister to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? If so, what are those side agreements, and would the right hon. Lady please put them in the Library of the House?
Marjorie Mowlam: There are no side agreements. The letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is in the public domain—it has already been published. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to see any other information? As he knows, I write to many Members of Parliament about Northern Ireland. The letter to which we have referred is the one that I believe to be relevant, and it has been published. There are no side deals, and there is nothing that is not in the public domain.
There is quite consciously no bartering of prisoners for weapons2014;no link between the two. All along, the Government have believed that that would be an unacceptable bargain to strike. All we have said is that a number of changes are necessary in the context of overall peace being the first step. If we have an overall peace agreement, other things will follow if there is to be change.
Everyone has to change—we have to change, the Irish have to change, and the parties have to change. We all have to adapt and find a future in which we can all live. There are no side deals and no bartering, but the early release of prisoners, changes in the police system, greater equality and a whole host of other things will follow as confidence, respect and trust are built among the people.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I join colleagues in congratulating and thanking all those in this House, previous holders of office and the Irish Government for their efforts in obtaining this agreement—not forgetting the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I want to claim a massive victory, because I think that the agreement is a massive victory. It is a victory for the political process over violence; of pragmatism over outdated ideologies. Above all, it is a victory of the human spirit, inspired by hope and confidence, over the twin imposters of hatred and bigotry.
I believe that the agreement should not be nit-picked or cherry-picked. I believe that it should not be seen as a victory for either Unionism or nationalism. It is a
492
comprehensive and common-sense set of arrangements that will allow people to be at peace with themselves, at peace with others, and united in the common purpose of resolving our differences only by agreement, only by consent and only through working together to lay to rest the ghosts that have divided us for so long.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I echo his support for the Ministers who are seated on either side of me, who have done a lot of the hard slog to get us here.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The right hon. Lady deserves the praise she has received. She picked up the baton from the Conservative Government and twirled it, very successfully, with a style that was very much her own.
This agreement is very much in line with the principles which have held together the United Kingdom—democratic processes, consent and discussion. It is very important that the people of Northern Ireland, themselves and alone, have an opportunity to take a view on the outcome of the agreement and whether they wish to adopt it. Does she agree that we should warn those who wish to oppose the agreement that they should consider carefully the grounds on which they oppose it? Does she agree that those who wish to be part of the United Kingdom should remember that the rest of the United Kingdom would like a democratic future for Northern Ireland on the basis of the agreement?
Marjorie Mowlam: Frighteningly, I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says, apart from his remark about twirling my baton—the marching season is not yet with us. Ultimately, the matter is in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, and those who oppose the agreement should think hard about what the rest of the United Kingdom would like. They should consider also their opposition to it, because I should like to know their alternative—apart from going back to the dark days.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my thanks and congratulations to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on her remarkably fine performance in that difficult office. I also offer my sincere thanks to my hon. Friends in the SDLP, and to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who has shown remarkable courage in recent days. We should thank also President Bill Clinton for his helpful contributions, although I believe that he should defer his visit until after 22 May.
It is my view that Scots Guardsmen Fisher and Wright should be given an early transfer to a prison in Scotland if, and only if, that is their wish. They committed an horrendous crime, but these two young infantrymen should be returned to Scotland. I hope that, in the near future, they will be released to their families and communities under licence.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his positive comments. A transfer for Fisher and Wright is available—all they have to do is apply. They have not done so yet.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Has any amnesty been offered against future prosecution of

493
crimes of violence in Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Lady appreciate the profound disquiet—indeed, revulsion—which will have been aroused in the hearts and minds of all those who care about the impartiality and independence of justice by the fact that certain selective criminals should be offered premature releases as a result of the agreement? There are no political prisoners in this country. There are merely prisoners who have been convicted of greater or lesser crimes. The right hon. Lady is proposing the release of some prisoners convicted of the worst crimes.
What kind of signal does that send for the future—"If you kill one man, woman or child, you are a murderer, but if you kill enough people, you can negotiate a collective amnesty with the British Government"? What signal does that send to those who are in prison for lesser offences? Have they made a mistake by not associating themselves with some terrorist organisation? Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate the dangers of introducing into this country arbitrary justice and the politicisation of justice, which are the abnegation of justice itself?
Marjorie Mowlam: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I tell him that there is no amnesty, collective or individual—that is not on the cards. He is entitled to his view, but it is not shared by the Government or those on the Conservative Front Bench.
Mr. David Winnick: In welcoming this splendid agreement, which represents the best possible future for Northern Ireland, should we not record—especially given the hostile question that has just been asked—that, during more than 25 years of sustained terrorism, neither the British public, in Northern Ireland or on the mainland, or the House wavered for a moment in dealing with terrorism? We have refused to give in to terrorism, and have always insisted that democracy should triumph. Should not that be a warning to future terrorist groups, who may believe that they can undermine the agreement or the yes vote for which we all hope?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, with which I agree whole-heartedly. Labour Members, particularly my hon. Friend, have never been soft on terrorism—we have made our position clear time and again. The measures will not apply to anyone convicted after 10 April. We have put in place clear and specific regulations, and I think that we have dealt with the matter straightforwardly, honestly and up front.
There will be disagreements—some people will find the terms of the agreement distasteful, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) suggested. I say to those people that, in these difficult times, I have received more letters and phone calls from people who have lost family in the troubles, saying, "Yes, maybe we find it difficult, but this is our best chance to prevent other families from going through what we have been through. If that is the case, you should continue to do what you are doing."
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Secretary of State turn her mind to the issue of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright? Many hon. Members do not accept that their conviction was safe or proper—and if we have to swallow
494
our distaste a at the early release of terrorist murderers to sustain the agreement, Guardsmen Fisher and Wright should be released without delay.
Marjorie Mowlam: I have explained the procedure to the House, and I think it best to leave it at that.
Kate Hoey: As a strong supporter of Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom, may I welcome the agreement? I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister, and I particularly congratulate the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who I believe has played a very courageous role—without him, we would not be where we are.
I urge my right hon. Friend to listen carefully to the 99 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland who are law-abiding, decent citizens; they find it very difficult to understand the release of prisoners. I think that they will accept it, but the issue must be handled very carefully—we must be as open and transparent as possible about the prisoners who will be released.
This issue could prevent the agreement from being successful, although I hope that it will not, and that the people of Northern Ireland will support the agreement. Nevertheless, I urge my right hon. Friend to treat the matter carefully, and to work as closely as possible with all the political parties, especially those constitutional parties that have campaigned so long and hard on the issue.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and I echo her comments about the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. I acknowledge her position, which was not always popular in the party in opposition—however, she stood by it, and fought her corner hard, for which I respect her.
I do not in the least under-estimate the prisoner issue. It was included in the agreement as part of an overall settlement. The parties agreed to it—some unhappily, others more happily. I accept that people in Northern Ireland and here find the matter difficult, but, if one asks, "This is part of an overall settlement—should we do it?", the number of people who want us to proceed doubles. We must put the matter in context. No one wants to be the one standing here doing it, but most people accept that it is part of what a settlement will look like.
Mr. David Maclean: I recognise that, in the Secretary of State's words, there is a flexibility in the use of words in Northern Ireland—perhaps the most flexible phrase is "confidence-building measures". The terrorist groups see the release of their criminals as a confidence-building measure, but does the Secretary of State share my deep concern—and that expressed by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—that the 99 per cent. of people who are the decent, law-abiding majority will not have their confidence built by the early release of some of the worst criminals in society, especially if arsenals of weapons are still available in Northern Ireland, and measures are taken that may damage the effectiveness of one of Britain's greatest and bravest police forces, the RUC?
Marjorie Mowlam: I say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall

495
(Kate Hoey), that I accept that, for many people, this is a difficult issue. They are faced with building confidence, which means taking the violence off Northern Ireland's streets and not returning to history and the violence that it brings. On balance, and given time, even those who have suffered most think that it is worth doing. They do not want to be the people who do it, but they think that, in the end, it is worth doing. The referendum will be a chance for them to make their voices heard—it is there for people to voice that concern.
The judgment is difficult. Do we buy a package with which we do not agree 100 per cent., but which in the end has a chance to bring peace and save lives that might be lost in the years ahead? That is the judgment that people will have to make, and, given the option of preventing other people from going through what they have gone through, people will make that call. It is up to them, and it is not easy, but, as I have said, we have to look at the issue in the context of the fact that two thirds of these people would be out in two years, anyway. We are talking about 400 prisoners. Faced with that, and with the history of the past 30 years, let us make the choice.
Ms Margaret Moran: I assure my right hon. Friend that she has the whole-hearted support not only of the House, but, judging from the phone calls that I have received from my constituents in Luton, which she visited a year ago, overwhelming public support and a great deal of emotional support for the settlement. Many of my constituents and hon. Members welcome her earlier emphasis on fairness and opportunity for all. Could she clarify her response to the report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and say how its recommendations might be integrated in a final settlement in Northern Ireland?
Marjorie Mowlam: The question of fairness and justice and the SACHR report and equality is outlined in some detail in the agreement. It refers to our efforts to put matters on a statutory footing after the consultation in which we are currently engaged. The results of the consultation will form part of the final agreement.
When we have listened to people's views, we shall put on a statutory basis within the public service the obligation to bring about equality of opportunity in public services across the board in goods and services. An equality commission will set the objectives and carry out monitoring, and a host of measures will be attempted alongside targeting social need and Labour's new deal proposals to try to get to the long-term unemployed. They include twice as many Catholics as Protestants, but there are many unemployed male Protestants over the age of 40. We have particular projects in mind to try to address that matter, because that too is part of an overall accommodation.
Mr. John Bercow: I too congratulate the Secretary of State on this negotiating success, which will be widely welcomed throughout the United Kingdom and for which she as an individual deserves, and seems to have received, immense personal credit. Is she able to confirm that the independent body charged with the
496
review of sentences will be free from lobbying campaigns by one side or the other, by interested parties or by the British or Irish Governments?
Marjorie Mowlam: I have made it clear that the body will be independent. We shall appoint people to that end, and it, like the Parades Commission, will not be open to lobbying from any source.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and I congratulate her and her team on everything that has happened so far. As she says, we are at the starting point, and the next weeks will be vital. I hope that all hon. Members, regardless of party, will support the yes campaign.
On the vexed question of the release of prisoners, my right hon. Friend will know that I was involved in the case of Private Lee Clegg. I was exposed to the horrendous problems caused by the divide in Northern Ireland, and to the tremendous sensitivities about the release of prisoners. When the independent review board considers prisoner releases, I hope that it will be truly independent, and will acknowledge the sense of injustice on both sides of the divide in some very important cases.
Marjorie Mowlam: I acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend has done on the issue, and I hear what he says.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Like the Secretary of State, I hope that there will be a massive yes vote, but I strongly endorse the cautionary words of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about prisoner releases. I draw the attention of the House to point 2 in the section on prisoners on page 25 of the agreement, which says:
"Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements. The situation in this regard will be kept under review."
That makes it clear that prisoners will not be released on licence if their organisations continue to kill; but will they be recalled from release on licence if their organisations, rather than they themselves, resume killing?
Marjorie Mowlam: We made it clear in the statement, I hope, that individuals who are let out on licence will be recalled if they return to violence, and that organisations not on ceasefire will not be eligible. More detailed legislation is still being worked on for cases such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This week we shall lay a order for the referendum and an elections Bill, and legislation for the release of prisoners will be introduced in due course. We said that we would consult the parties and others on the question, and we shall certainly honour that pledge.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and all the parties involved in this courageous settlement. When framing the legislation, will she consider whether it will be possible to avoid by-elections in the new assembly by using a proportional representation system that will allow any vacancy that occurs to be filled by the party that held the seat previously?
That is an important and sensitive matter, because, in the fragile incubation period of the new executive and the new assembly, with the apportionment of committees and

497
portfolios, there should be no possibility of a disruption in the arithmetic, allowing malevolent people to campaign and screw up the settlement, as happened at the time of Sunningdale. It would be legitimate, in the democratic process, to have legislation that avoided by-elections in the formative years of the new Assembly and executive.
Marjorie Mowlam: That is an interesting point, well worthy of consideration. I hope that we can consider such detail on Wednesday.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Following the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will the Secretary of State return to the issue of Sinn Fein and its attitude? Sinn Fein has had every opportunity to endorse the agreement. Does she agree that it is stalling in order to have time to assess how far down the road towards a united Ireland the agreement will take it? Was not she chilled by the words of Sinn Fein's president? No sooner had he said, "Well done, David," than he was commending the work of the IRA, and saying that it had not been defeated by the agreement.
Marjorie Mowlam: I am not responsible for what other folk say. As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman seems out of tune with his party's Front-Bench spokesmen. Sinn Fein representatives said that they would hold consultations with their party, and I assume that that is what they are doing. There is not much that I can do about it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit that my right hon. Friend claims to have explained the procedures to the House and says that she is acting in a semi-judicial capacity, are not the cases of Fisher and Wright fundamentally different, in that those two young men were sent there by us on green Benches?

How can the Government be satisfied with the judges' conclusion that Fisher and Wright had no reason to feel that they were in danger? Was it not taken into account that their colleague, Guardsman Shackleton, was shot dead on the very same streets only a few weeks before? Having read the transcript of the trial, as I have done, does she not think that Fisher and Wright might have instantaneously understood the danger of coffee jar bombs and the whole "Come on!" trap scenario? Many ex-servicemen and, indeed, national servicemen, like me, feel, "There but for the grace of God went we!"
Marjorie Mowlam: I know how strongly a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House feel about this issue. I am afraid that all I can say in response, with a semi-judicial hat on, is that I have explained the procedures. Fisher and Wright were tried in court, and they had an appeal. As I said, we will certainly consider the issue.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: By linking the release of a prisoner to participation in a ceasefire by a particular faction, are we not establishing a dreadful principle—that there is a separate category of political crime?
Marjorie Mowlam: There is not a direct linkage. We are taking it as part of an overall peace settlement.
498
As hon. Members have said, that has happened in other parts of the world, and it is the way to try to find a new future for Northern Ireland.
Mr. John McDonnell: On that point, many hon. Members have made crude linkages between prisoners and decommissioning. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is better for the process to be seen as more complex, and to see the release of prisoners in the context of rehabilitation of individuals and the whole community, and decommissioning in the context of the demilitarisation of the whole of the Six Counties? Is it not better that Sinn Fein should go through a thorough consultation process, so that its leadership has the overwhelming support of its membership for its position on the agreement?
Marjorie Mowlam: What we are after achieving is a normal society for everyone in Northern Ireland, which is what we are trying to do. On the prisoner issue, the proposed new tariff will result in two thirds being let out within two years—the present tariff is a half. We are suggesting that remission level with a date two years down the line.
Mr. Michael Connarty: First, can I attach myself to the congratulations to my right hon. Friend and her team, and particularly to say how proud we in Scotland are of our two Ministers from Scotland? Does she accept that, although we did not suffer in Scotland from bombing violence, we have been scarred deeply by the sectarianism which has plagued our community, because of the inability to move on the Northern Ireland question?
As we move forward on this path to reconciliation, my right hon. Friend will recall that I visited and spoke to people in Northern Ireland during the period of opposition, and the one word that came up continually was "intimidation". I have looked in the document under "Policing", and I do not see that word mentioned.
Can my right hon. Friend give us some reassurance that consultation and discussions will take place, so that the sub-structure to the paramilitary organisations, which are running a rule of law within their own community outwith the British rule of law, will be dismantled at the same time as decommissioning and the dismantling of paramilitarism?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. We will be attempting, in response to the police, to change the present situation in which some areas of Northern Ireland are no-go areas, which is not satisfactory either for the police or for the local community. To change that situation, we will need trust and confidence building, and the best way to get those is to get a peace settlement so that the changes that we began to see in the police force under the last ceasefire begin to take place.
The best way to change the situation to which my hon. Friend referred is to get the representation of people across the communities. That is the point, and at the moment it is not possible. It will become so only with overall change, and through the whole peace process.
Mr. Brian White: I was an 11-year-old schoolboy in Belfast when the troubles

499
started, and I never thought that I would see what happened on Good Friday. History has been mentioned, and everyone in Ulster remembers their history selectively. I remember the Sunningdale agreement and what happened after it, when the Ulster Workers Council strike brought it down. Those voices have not gone away, although they are not here today.
I urge my right hon. Friend not merely to stand on the sidelines and put the agreement to the people, but to rebut and refute every allegation that parties outside the agreement make. I urge her to take on those people and make the argument for the agreement, as that is the only hope for the future of Northern Ireland. If we do not take this opportunity, I do not think that we will see another day like Good Friday in another generation. I urge my right hon. Friend to take on those voices of unreason, and rebut every argument they make.
Marjorie Mowlam: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and perhaps I was not completely clear earlier. Of course, when people say daft and nonsensical things, I will disagree—they are just not here for me to disagree with them this afternoon.
The precedents are there, and it is difficult in Northern Ireland. The only reason that I am being reticent is because it is about trust and confidence, and we do not build those by telling people what to do. They will happen in their communities when people read the document, which is what I implore everyone in Northern Ireland to do—to make up their own minds.
We will not necessarily achieve the sort of community that will build for the future itself, which is the way that it will happen, by going in in busloads and telling people
500
how to behave. That is not the way to build community support. Enough voices in Northern Ireland are disagreeing.
I have faith in those who want to build a safer, more positive and stable future, where economic growth could be phenomenal and the day-to-day issues that affect people's lives, such as health, education and jobs, will begin to change, as my hon. Friend will know, as he grew up there. We are not going to be wimpish about it, but I have one word of caution—it is their choice, not ours.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I welcome the right hon. Lady's comments, and congratulate her on what she has achieved. One matter troubles me from what I have heard. Under the system under which early release will be achieved, the fact that particular organisations have announced that they do not support violence will be taken into account in allowing prisoners early release. How will she ensure that prisoners held for terrorist offences who are members of organisations that have not signed up to the agreement, or that may denounce it, do not consider themselves unfairly penalised by not being released and not having their cases considered?
Marjorie Mowlam: "Tough" is, I think, the short answer to that. If they do not sign up to the ceasefire, then they remain where they are.
To restructure the question and deal with a serious difficulty, a slightly harder issue to deal with is if they suddenly wake up one morning and say, "Whoops, I'm no longer a member of INLA, I've just joined PIRA." Those are difficult questions, which is why we are putting in place an independent body to assess them case by case, so that, when it does get difficult—it is problematic—the system is not used and abused. That is why we have been careful in the paper in the Library, and will be careful in the further details that will be provided, to ensure that it is not abused.

Business of the House
4.48 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Following the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for Wednesday 22 April will now be as follows:
Proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill; followed by motions on the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 (Referendum) Order, and the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order.
The business previously announced for that day will be taken at a later date. The business for the remainder of this week will be as previously announced.
The House may also wish to know that, subject to discussions through the usual channels, it is proposed that the business for Monday 27 April, Tuesday 28 April and Wednesday 29 April will be progress in Committee on the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Opposition are delighted to agree the progress of what we have been discussing for the past 80 minutes. That is welcome. I also thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to three days on the Floor to discuss the Finance (No.2) Bill, which we felt strongly about.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments, and for the co-operation we have had in rescheduling the business for Wednesday, not only from the official Opposition but from other parties.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I welcome the circumstances that have made the change in business necessary. It will have the full co-operation of the Liberal Democrats.
Mrs. Taylor: We are having much co-operation on the matter. 1 trust that it will be maintained, that everyone will share the good will that has arisen from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and that we will be able to make early progress in the House to ensure that progress on peace is maintained.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Not having been in the House for the opening words of the statement of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Madam Speaker, I was, under your very proper rule, unable to take part in the exchanges. I take this early opportunity of congratulating the Government on their achievement, the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland on their generosity
502
and courage, and the people of Northern Ireland on their resolution. I am delighted that we will be attending to this business on Wednesday.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have a positive contribution to make on Wednesday and on other occasions. I think that some hon. Members try to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, even though they have not been here for statements. I am sure that, if others followed the lead of the right hon. Gentleman, the House would respect them the more for it. I hope that he was in the House to hear the tributes paid to his work in Northern Ireland.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was in the House to hear the very considerable tributes that were paid to him. Indeed, I thought that he had been here for the entire statement. Had he stood, I would have called him, although I would have been remiss in doing so.
Mr. John Swinney: Although I welcome the circumstances that have changed the business for Wednesday, they knock out the first day of the Report stage of the Scotland Bill. Can the Leader of the House say when she expects that business to be rescheduled?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot give that decision today, but I hope in my business statement on Thursday to be able to cover the point.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to enter a dissenting note. As I understand it, the right hon. Lady proposes that the Committee stage and Report stage of Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill should be taken on Wednesday. That means that the House will go straight to the Committee and Report stages after Second Reading. Does she accept that that is in principle undesirable? I hope that she will allow some time to elapse.
The right hon. Lady will have noticed that we are talking about assemblies or parliaments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but nothing for England. That highlights a question that those on the Government Front Bench will have to address.
Mrs. Taylor: I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to enter a dissenting voice. I should have thought that, given the nature of the business that we are discussing, it is desirable that we make as much progress as we can, as quickly as we can. It is not unprecedented to take Bills in this way. If we are all serious about wanting to make progress, which I believe is the general wish of the House, it is important that we take the Bill as speedily as possible.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the matter of the rural economy in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration—[Mr. Dowd.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Bank of England Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Bank of England Bill
    Clause 4

      ANNUAL REPORT BY THE BANK
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
      ("() The report mentioned in subsection (2)(a) shall, in particular, include a review of the Bank's performance in relation to its objectives and strategy, as determined by the court of directors of the Bank, in the financial year to which the report under this section relates.")
      4.53 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): 1 beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Mrs. Liddell: These three amendments, which have come to us from another place, will ensure that the Bank's annual report contains details of its objectives and strategy and provide for the committee of non-executives to report specifically on them. The amendments reflect and enhance existing practice, and provide useful additional clarification of the role of the court and its sub-committee. I have pleasure in commending them to the House.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the background to the amendments. She said that they came to us from another place; it may help the House if I add that they came to us from Labour Back Benchers in another place. As the hon. Lady said, they usefully clarify the position.
      Lords amendment No. 1 ensures that the Bank properly reviews its performance. May I ask who will lay down the objectives and strategy for the first year, which the Bank will not have been able to do before the enactment of the Bill—or do we take it that the Chancellor's correspondence setting up the new arrangements itself comprises the objectives and strategy?
      Lords amendment No. 2 is self-evidently an improvement—such an improvement that I wonder why it did not occur to anyone in this place.
      Lords amendment No. 3 is worth pausing over. It makes sense only if the Bank of England's report is published reasonably early in the financial year. Could the Minister help us by giving her interpretation of the phrase "as soon as practicable"? As I understand it, the Bank's report will include the accounts of the Bank of England. Many public bodies have to produce annual reports to the House that include their accounts and they sometimes struggle to get them in by end of July, when the House rises.
      I hope that the Economic Secretary accepts that that is a little late in the day for us to see the statement of objectives and strategy for the forthcoming year. It may
      504
      be that they can be published in some other form. Under clause 12, the Treasury's specification for monetary policy strategy and objectives can be published at any time during the 12 months. If the hon. Lady can clarify the timetable and say when she expects the annual report to be put before Parliament, I am sure that we can wish the amendments well on their way.
      Mr. Nick Gibb: Lords amendment No. 1 seeks to ensure that the Bank of England sets out its objectives and strategies and then prepares a report on its success in meeting them. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the amendment proposed on Report in the Lords. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, I am surprised that it was not proposed by the Conservatives in Committee or included in the Bill as originally drafted. It is difficult to see how
      "the Bank's performance in relation to the objectives and strategy for the time being determined by the court"
      can be kept under review under clause 3(2) if there is no requirement to publish the objectives and strategy.
      There is a big problem with the Bill's basis, because it takes from politicians key economic decision making in a vital area of economic policy and puts it into the hands of unelected officials. In such a case, it is the more important that every step in the decision-making process is catalogued and published so that people can see what is going on. It is more important that that happens when policy is determined by those who are unelected, because, if the policy goes wrong, there is no sanction against those officials—they cannot be turfed out of office by the electorate. As an alternative, the public must be able to see every step in the policy-making process. The setting out and publishing of strategies and objectives is a key element in achieving that.
      It is important to remember that the translation of an inflation target into monetary policy is not a scientific, simple, formulaic matter. The conduct of monetary policy is as much an issue of public policy debate as the setting of the inflation target itself—indeed, I would argue that it is more political. There is a consensus on a low inflation target, but there is much less of a consensus on the means of translating that target into monetary policy. The amendment should ensure that the Bank of England publishes not only its objectives and strategies for running itself on a day-to-day basis, but a statement of how it believes monetary policy should be conducted.
      5 pm
      Clause 16 specifically states that the directors of the Bank
      "shall keep the procedures followed by the Monetary Policy Committee under review."
      That is therefore specifically to be included in the functions to be carried out by the directors as set out in clauses 2 and 3, and is to be part of the annual report required under clause 4. It is logical that the amendment should also apply to the review of the Monetary Policy Committee and therefore to the conduct of monetary policy. I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary could say whether that is the purpose of the strategy and objectives that are to be required to be published. Will they contain details of the Bank's general strategy on how

      505
      to conduct monetary policy—how it intends to translate an inflation target set by the Chancellor and the Treasury into day-to-day monetary policy?
      Samuel Brittan, in giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, said:
      "Monetary economics is not a hard science."
      In his evidence, Lord Eatwell said:
      "there is a tendency in monetary policy matters to regard certain propositions as 'obvious' and anyone who questions such propositions to be at best a nit-picking academic and at worst a crank. Yet the notion that the theory of monetary policy is 'obvious' and 'pragmatic' is belied by the fact that the theory and practice of monetary policy has undergone quite radical revisions over the past 20 years. If views held 10 years or 15 years ago were so obviously right then, why are they so obviously wrong now?"
      The Bank of England should use the disclosures required by the amendment to spell out its latest thinking on what constitutes best science or best practice in the general conduct of monetary policy. The public, academics and general policy debate can then examine the Bank's propositions to determine how far they are proved correct with the passage of time.
      One of the other great paradoxes and difficulties in the Bill could be eased if we were to include in the required statement of strategy some explanation relating to the inherent conflict between the Bank's conduct of monetary policy and the Government's conduct of fiscal policy. The problem with separating those functions is that, by passing control of inflation to an outside independent body, the Government could conduct a loose fiscal regime and leave the Bank of England to deal with the inflationary consequences. Indeed, some have argued that such has been the Government's record over the past 11 months. The amendment should enable the Bank to set out how it would or did respond to the Government's fiscal policies.
      That would have two distinct advantages. First, it would enable the public to see the consequences of the Government's fiscal policy in terms of interest rates, mortgage rates and so on. Secondly, it would enable public policy debate to take place on the issue of whether the Bank was adopting the correct strategy in dealing with fiscal policy changes implemented by the Government. The Bank's performance will be judged at the very least principally—and probably almost entirely—by the success of its conduct of monetary policy and therefore the success or failure of the members of the Monetary Policy Committee. I hope that the amendment will enable the Bank to set out, in as much detail as possible, its strategy and objectives on the conduct of monetary policy.
      Important matters relating to the conduct of exchange rate policy also need to be spelled out in any statement of objectives and strategy. The key role in the conduct of an exchange rate policy rests with the Treasury and, as with fiscal policy, it is important that the Bank sets out how it has dealt with what it perceives to be the Government's exchange rate policy. In addition, the Bank itself has some role in the implementation of exchange rate policy.
      Such an approach is important for two reasons. First, it would enable the public to assess how the Bank has dealt with and responded to the Government's exchange rate policy and, with the passage of time, to decide whether that was the correct approach. Secondly and equally important, it would enable people to see what effect the Government's exchange rate policy had on the conduct of monetary policy by the Bank—in other words, the effect on mortgage and interest costs.
      506
      The Bank should also set out what it perceives to be the consequences for the exchange rate of its own conduct of monetary policy. That would help to expose the absurd situation that might occur if the Government pursued a policy of reducing the value of sterling by selling it into the market and, simultaneously, the Bank raised interest rates to reduce the money supply artificially increased by the Government.
      Throughout the Committee stage, Conservative Members tried to obtain from the Government an explanation of how such conflicts would be resolved. Which policy will take priority: fiscal or monetary; exchange rate or inflation target? The Government refused—or, rather, were unable—to give an answer. The amendment might do what the Government could not, and help to make the issues transparent.
      A further conflict that the amendment will help to make apparent to the public relates to the Treasury's debt management policies. Whether or not the Government finance debt through a fully funded method will have an enormous impact on the money supply figures. In his evidence to the Select Committee, Professor Tim Congdon explained in great detail that debt being fully funded or not will have a specific and direct effect on the money supply. The Bank should set out in its strategy and objectives how it will respond to the method of debt funding pursued by the Government. Again, that will enable analyses to be undertaken of whether that approach is correct and, with hindsight, it will enable the public to see the effect of Government debt management policy on the level of interest rates.
      The amendment, accepted by the Government, should be used to create much greater transparency not only in the management of the Bank but in the far more important question of the performance by the Bank of its key function of managing monetary policy in general. The minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee go some way towards achieving that, but more general objectives and strategies set out in full, assessed in the light of experience, debated and discussed will do much to bring an element of democracy into what is, in essence, an undemocratic Bill.
      Mrs. Liddell: I am glad that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) sees the common sense of the approach taken, because it fits in with our debates on Second Reading and in Committee. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to today's debate, as he was not with us in Committee. I hope that he will pass on to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who was with us, our good wishes to his family, about whom the Committee heard a great deal—which may have been a sign that it took the Conservatives some time to get into their stride in relation to the Bill.
      I take up the specific point that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks made about who will set the Bank's strategy and objectives. As clause 2(2) says, the court as a whole will set out what that strategy is; we had a lengthy discussion in Committee on how that would be achieved. Indeed, the Chancellor mentioned the subject in his statement on 20 May 1997.
      The hon. Member for Sevenoaks suggested that it might be possible to hold a debate on the Bank's annual report and strategy. On 20 May last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically said that it would be desirable for

      507
      the Bank's annual report to be debated in the House. The Treasury Committee, in its report on accountability of the Bank of England, also recommends that there should be a debate.
      The hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked about this year's timetable for the annual report. The Bank's financial year ends on 28 February, and usually an annual report is available by the end of May or the start of June. We are aware of no reason to deviate from that timetable or for the Bank to deviate from it. The Government look forward to a debate in the House soon after, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as an experienced parliamentarian, would not expect me to involve myself in the issue of when the House will have an opportunity to debate these matters; such issues are a matter for the usual channels.
      As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) is a great fan of recycling, I am glad that he had an opportunity to recycle his speeches from Committee and from Second Reading. It is always interesting to listen to him, although one does not necessarily agree with all that he says. It will be for the court to determine the contents of the annual report. Extensive correspondence between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England has been published, as have memorandums of understanding between the Government and the Bank. There has been extensive debate in this place and elsewhere, and I am sure that the court will take into account many of the points raised.
      The Government welcome Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which provide useful clarification. They very much fit the Government's strategy, which is in favour of greater transparency, and greater clarity of operation, of the Bank. It is useful to have greater clarity of legislation as well, so I commend the amendments to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

    Clause 12

      SPECIFICATION OF MATTERS RELEVANT TO OBJECTIVES.
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 30, leave out ("the House of Commons") and insert ("Parliament")
      Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment would require any notice defining price stability or the Government's economic policies to be laid before the Lords as well as the House of Commons. It is about openness and about accountability to Parliament, so it should be welcomed.
      I take the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the written answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in which he announced the Government's response to the consultation on cash ratio deposits. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government have decided that the initial CRD scheme should apply a zero rate to eligible liabilities up to £400 million and 0.15 per cent. to eligible liabilities over £400 million.
      508
      In relation to the amendment, there is no reason why the House of Lords should be excluded from receipt of the Government's notice—it will be publicly available anyway. The amendment clarifies that point; I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for her welcome, although she may have forgotten that I participated on Report, when I specifically drew attention to the issue of cash ratio deposits. It might have been helpful—I know that these things are difficult—to have copies of the Chief Secretary's written answer and details of the scheme before we started to consider the amendments. However, we look forward to receiving that—at some stage later today, presumably.
      We welcome Lords amendment No. 4. The Minister said that the inclusion of the other place among those before whom any notice should be laid was a matter of openness and accountability; it also sounds to me like second thoughts and an improvement to the Bill. None the less, we welcome it.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 13

      MONETARY POLICY COMMITTEE.
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 6, line 8, at end insert—
      ("() Of the four members appointed under subsection (2)(c) one shall be appointed on the advice of the First Minister of the Scottish Executive.")
      5.15 pm
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The Bill sets up the Monetary Policy Committee, whose job it is to set interest rates in order to meet the Government's inflation target. It is worth noting that our long-term interest rates are the lowest that they have been for some 33 years.
      During the Bill's passage through the other place, an amendment was moved by Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish to the effect that one of the four members of the Monetary Policy Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be appointed only after receiving the advice of the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament.
      When the Government expressed their intention to set up the Monetary Policy Committee, we said that the members of that committee would be chosen because of their skill, because of their reputation and because of their ability to reach decisions as to the appropriate levels of interest rates for the whole of the United Kingdom.
      We recognised that there was anxiety—which has continuedx2014;that the Bank of England should have regard to the, sometimes varying, economic conditions in different parts of the United Kingdom. As I shall explain shortly, we have drawn the Bill in such a way as to ensure that the court of the Bank of England has a specific duty to monitor the way in which the Monetary Policy Committee discharges that duty and, in making our most recent group of appointments to the court, we have responded to many of the legitimate concerns reflected by

      509
      Lord MacKay and others who spoke in support of his amendment. Indeed, those concerns were acknowledged by Lord McIntosh of Haringey in another place.
      I have taken the trouble of reading what Lord MacKay and others said. Some of the arguments were advanced tongue in cheek, and the Government defeat by a majority in the other place was something of a tea-time raid. Interestingly, the Conservatives in the House of Commons, and presumably the nationalists—I see one member of the Scottish National party in his place—are jumping on a bandwagon being pushed by an odd group of Conservatives and hereditary peers, who, as I understand it, oppose the Monetary Policy Committee in principle.
      I am bound to say, with due respect to Lord MacKay, that, excellent man though he is, I do not recall that, when he was a member of the previous Government, he ever advanced the view that conditions in Scotland were different from those anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and that any regard should be had to what Scots opinion might be on that or any other issue. However, I recognise that politics is what it is; the Conservative hereditary peers took the opportunity to put one over on the Government. I do not think that the arguments that they advanced for the amendment have any merit whatever.
      Mr. Gibb: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government defeat was the result of Conservative hereditary peers voting against them, but the actual results—93 contents against 90 not contents—show that the Government lost by only 3 votes. As The Times said today, the laziness of the working peers appointed by the Labour party was responsible for the Government's defeat.
      Mr. Darling: I dare say that in we shall soon have plenty of time to debate the workings of the other place. The fact remains that more than half of those who voted against the Government were hereditary peers. On practically every occasion when the Government have been defeated in the other place, it has happened only because of the voting strength of the hereditary peers—who tend to support the Conservative party.
      The scheme of devolution that we have proposed and that will result in a Scottish Parliament proceeds on the principle that power will be devolved unless it can be more effectively discharged by the United Kingdom Parliament. Economic matters, particularly monetary policy, are not devolved, for the simple reason that there is only one currency in the United Kingdom, and it is difficult to see how monetary policy could be conducted on anything other than a UK-wide basis.
      Although there are undoubted regional variations in economic performance, the fact is that it would be very difficult to operate monetary policy in any other way. That is why economic matters and monetary policy have not been devolved. Scotland will remain part of the UK. We do not propose a separatist solution, or a federalist solution of the type that the Liberal Democrats would like at some stage.
      We believe that the monetary policy committee must reach its policy decisions having regard to what is good for the whole of the UK economy. Indeed, it would be very difficult to do otherwise. Economic conditions in
      510
      different parts of Scotland differ greatly. There is evidence of significant overheating in the Edinburgh housing market, but the same cannot be said of Wick. Economic conditions are also quite different in Edinburgh and Glasgow, only 40 miles apart.
      Mr. John Swinney rose—
      Mr. Darling: Clearly the hon. Gentleman anticipates that my arguments will not agree with his view—which is that Scotland is completely different from England, and that economic conditions everywhere in Scotland are exactly the same. That view of the modern economy is economically illiterate.
      Mr. Swinney: The Chief Secretary is entitled to his definition of economic illiteracy. Does he accept that interest rate policy in the United Kingdom should be influenced by the fact that house prices in the south of England have in the past 12 months increased by more than 12 per cent., while in Scotland they have fallen by 1 per cent? Should that not have some bearing on any decisions taken by the Monetary Policy Committee?
      Mr. Darling: I can speak with some feeling when I tell the hon. Gentleman that that is certainly not true of Edinburgh, where house prices are rising dramatically.
      I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is not the same as Edinburgh; nor is the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), who has just joined us. While there is undoubtedly pressure on house prices in the south-east of England, the same cannot be said of parts of the north-east of England. The point is that inflationary pressures are, and will be, different in different parts of the UK, but it is necessary to take an overall view. Not even the nationalists would argue for a different monetary policy for each county or district. Interest rates need to be set to achieve inflation targets for the whole of the United Kingdom.
      I remind the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) that his party is in favour of Scotland, or the United Kingdom, joining the European single currency. Interest rates will then have to be set for the whole of Europe, never mind the United Kingdom. It is therefore somewhat inconsistent to maintain that Scotland should opt out.
      In any case, that is not what the amendment would do. It acknowledges that there is concern, and that the Monetary Policy Committee should have regard to the differing economic conditions in different parts of the country, but we had anticipated that. Under the old system, the criticism was that the Bank of England sometimes gave the impression that it did not acknowledge the problems experienced by different parts of the UK.
      That is why the Bill makes it clear that one of the duties of the reformed court of the Bank of England will be to keep under review the way in which the Monetary Policy Committee reaches its decisions and collects the regional, sectoral and other information on which it is necessary to base them. Clause 16 lays that down; I am sure that if hon. Members have not read it, they will do so now. The Lords amendment is not necessary, because of the safeguard that we have inserted in the Bill.

      511
      We said before the election that we thought that the court ought to be more reflective of the differing interests of the whole of the UK. We made the latest group of appointments in February; hon. Members will be aware that, for the first time ever, there are now individuals on the court representing interests in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Jim Stretton, chief executive of the Standard Life assurance company and well respected in Scotland, has been put on the board. In anticipation of his appointment, he has already taken steps to ensure that conditions in Scotland are made known to the Monetary Policy Committee and to other members of the court.
      Graham Hawker, chief executive of Hyder, has also been put on the court. He has been a director of Welsh Water for more than a year, and is well known in Wales. We have also appointed Roy Bailie from Northern Ireland, who is not only a former chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board but was chairman of the CBI in Northern Ireland between 1992 and 1994. Another appointment is Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union—unlike the former Government, we have no aversion to including people from the trade union movement on the court of the Bank of England. He will lend his experience, and that of people involved in manufacturing industry, to the process. There is also Sheila McKechnie from the Consumers Association.
      All those people are examples of the Government's willingness to broaden the base of the court of the Bank of England. As we make further appointments over the next few years, we shall ensure that the court has a wide base throughout the whole country. Under the terms of clause 16, the Monetary Policy Committee will thus be enabled to reach decisions that will be good for the whole UK.
      The Lords amendment was an attempt to make mischief. Their Lordships are of course entitled to take advantage of their opportunities. The matter was never raised in Committee or on Report, which suggests that Opposition Members did not feel strongly about it at the time.
      Above all, the amendment is not necessary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appoints members of the Monetary Policy Committee on the basis of what he believes best for the whole of the country, not just one part of it. The reforms that we have made to the court, and the people whom we have put on it, will ensure that the interests of Scotland and other parts of the UK are taken into account. The amendment should be rejected. It was an unnecessary bit of mischief making, which adds nothing to the Bill.
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Although the amendment comes from another place, it fits well with the concerns expressed about the Bill in the House and in Standing Committee, and particularly with worries expressed on both sides of the House on occasion about the powers and composition of the Monetary Policy Committee. The Chief Secretary has just reminded us that the court of directors of the Bank of England is drawn from a wide spectrum of experience and backgrounds, but that is not the point.
      We are discussing the Monetary Policy Committee, which is the decision-making committee that determines interest rates, and therefore affects mortgage holders,
      512
      businesses and anyone who borrows or lends money. It affects people and businesses not just directly, but through its effect on the exchange rate and its influence on economic policy generally. The importance of the amendment reflects the central importance of the Monetary Policy Committee.
      Anyone who doubts that has only to look at what has been happening in the past few months, when the committee has been setting interest rates. There is an almost even split on the committee between those who want to leave interest rates where they are and those who want to put them up. It has been the job of the Governor of the bank to cast his vote, in those cases against a rise.
      5.30 pm
      That is not an altogether happy situation. It has not brought certainty and stability, because of the widespread view that another rise in interest rates is inevitable at some point. That is what the markets anticipate, and it has contributed to the strength of sterling and the consequential damage to industry and exporters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the matter is nothing to do with him. He has washed his hands of the whole affair and says that it is now the job of the Monetary Policy Committee.
      It is beyond dispute that the committee is extremely important. The issue of who is appointed and how members are appointed is equally important. In Standing Committee and on Report, we examined the case for confirmatory hearings, which would be one way of giving the House and hon. Members an input into appointments to the committee. The idea of confirmatory hearings came from the Treasury Select Committee, which of course has a Labour majority and a Labour Chairman. The House divided on Report on the Committee's suggestion to implement confirmatory hearings, although, mysteriously and regrettably, the Labour members of the Committee, having proposed the amendment, all disappeared when the House divided. We lost the vote, but we won the argument.
      Confirmatory hearings would have been a good idea. The powers of patronage enjoyed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are very great—possibly too great. He directly or indirectly appoints all the members of the Monetary Policy Committee. Not only do the appointments give him that power, but the term of appointment is short. Members are appointed for only three years. In comparison with other central banks, that is a very short term. Members of the Bundesbank are appointed for eight years, and those serving on the Federal Reserve bank of the United States serve for 14 years. That is done deliberately to give them a degree of independence from the Executive, which gives members and their committees credibility in the markets.
      The three-year term for which the Chancellor has opted means that committee members can be sacked or reappointed within the term of one Parliament. If they are politically inconvenient or defy the Government's monetary policy, it is possible to get rid of them in short order. That concerned hon. Members on both sides in Committee and on Report. We tackled the issue in various ways. Amendments were moved not just to institute confirmatory hearings in line with the Treasury Select Committee's proposal, but to give members of the committee longer terms of appointment, and to require

      513
      fuller minutes, which would give the views of the members of the committee to the public and to the markets.
      We also thought that the pay of at least some committee members should be related to performance, and we proposed an amendment to require the Monetary Policy Committee to report on any developing split between monetary and fiscal policy, which was rather a perceptive amendment in view of what has happened since then, as there is now a clear divergence between monetary and fiscal policy, which is one reason why interest rates have had to go up five times since the election, with consequential damage—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying outside the precise terms of the Lords amendment before us, which is about Scotland.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I never wish to defy you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall return briskly to the amendment. I wanted to remind the House of the importance of the Monetary Policy Committee, the way in which it is appointed and who serves on it, and the measures whereby we tried to improve that.
      It took the other place successfully to pass an amendment, which was moved by my noble Friend Lord MacKay. The amendment would give the First Minister of the Scottish Executive, when he is in place, the right to advise on one of the external appointments. It arose from what was by any standard a good debate in another place. I was disappointed by the way in which the Chief Secretary dismissed the amendment on the ground that it was simply voted through by hereditary peers. If he studied the debate, as he said he had, he would agree that it was the quality of debate that was important.
      The amendment tackles many of the points on which I have been digressing. First, it widens the appointment procedure. By making one of the appointments dependent on the advice of the First Minister, it takes at least some of the monopoly of patronage away from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although it still gives him considerable latitude. The First Minister might suggest a number of candidates, from whom the Chancellor could choose. In any case, the person appointed in this way to the Monetary Policy Committee is not required to be resident in Scotland or even to be a Scot. It could be someone temporarily working in Scotland with experience elsewhere, or a Scot who might have an appointment or be working in a business south of the border.
      The amendment allows complete discretion, but gives another input into the selection procedure. It therefore introduces—this is the second point—an element of devolution. The present appointees on the Monetary Policy Committee come exclusively from the south-east of England, or at least the southern part of the country. They are all splendid people with a great deal of experience. There is no criticism of them but, as has been noted, they all come from a triangle that links Oxford, Cambridge and London. It would strengthen the Monetary Policy Committee and its credibility in the markets if one of its members came from another part of the country or was appointed by someone from another part of the United Kingdom, and had a different perspective on the decisions to be taken.
      In resisting the amendment, the Chief Secretary suggested that Scotland would be treated differently from England. That is not the case: it is not the decision that
      514
      would be devolved to Scotland, but the appointment of one of the people on the committee that takes the decisions. I can think of no better place to devolve that appointment. Scotland is the birthplace of perhaps the greatest ever economist, Adam Smith, and I am sure that there are other people in the present day of similar calibre. Edinburgh has a very large financial sector and its banking system is distinct from that of England.
      For those reasons, I believe that the amendment deserves support. Anticipating the Liberal Democrats' contribution, let me say that I cannot support their idea of widening the measure to allow for an appointment from each constituent country of the United Kingdom. I think that the Liberal Democrats wish to see one appointment from Wales, one from Northern Ireland and one from Scotland, which would leave only one appointment from England. That would introduce a wholly unnecessary degree of federalism and is perhaps another example of the Liberal Democrats' adopting someone else's idea and making it unworkable. I note in passing that the idea of a Scottish appointment is supported by the Scottish Trades Union Congress—
      Mr. Ross Cranston: If this is such a great idea, why did the right hon. Gentleman not mention it before in the House or in Committee when we discussed the matter at great length?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman has attended the debate for only the past few minutes, but he will have heard me list the alternative amendments that we pressed upon the House. I regret that the hon. Gentleman apparently took no interest in them at the time, because they would have had an effect similar to that of this amendment. For instance, they would have given the hon. Gentleman an input—if he desired it—into the decision making through the Treasury Select Committee and confirmatory hearings.
      One of our regrets in Committee was that Labour Members were carefully chosen to serve on the Standing Committee in such a way as to filter out anyone with independent views or powers of scrutiny. No Labour Member who spoke critically or showed that he had something to contribute in the Second Reading debate was included in the Standing Committee membership. For instance, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made an extremely penetrating speech on Second Reading, and we regretted that he was not a member of the Committee and we could not discuss his views at greater length. Perhaps he does not regret that fact, but we did occasionally.
      A range of Labour Members who did not have a great deal to contribute served on the Committee. Therefore, although we persistently won the argument, we always lost the vote, and it was left to the other place to devise the amendment that we are now discussing. It sweeps up many of our ideas and amendments. It may not be perfect—in fact, I prefer some of our amendments—but it is a valid and constructive contribution to the question of how members of the Monetary Policy Committee should be appointed, how that committee should operate and how it might gain enhanced credibility from that method of appointment.
      In summary, the Lords amendment places a modest constraint on the untrammelled powers of patronage enjoyed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a modest

      515
      element of devolution, and it could improve the decision making and standing of the Monetary Policy Committee. For those reasons, I urge the House to accept the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I rise to speak in favour of this intriguing little amendment which has been proposed by that well-known defender of Scottish interests, the House of Lords. I moved a similar amendment before the Bill left this place which sought to ensure a wider geographical representation on both the court of directors and the Monetary Policy Committee. I would like to see representatives from Scotland appointed by the First Minister for Scotland as well as a representative from the north of England.
      It is vital that the committee reflects a wide spread of interests. The Minister said, quite rightly, that the committee is the custodian of the national interest. However, the national interest comprises regional interests and the interests of different sections of our society. That includes manufacturing interests in the north and in Scotland, as well as the interests of finance and financial services in London. Therefore, I would like to see specific geographically based representatives serving on the committee. That is the only way in which we shall reach some consensus about the national interest.
      Committee members are not Olympians who give a detached opinion about what is in the national interest: they are all pushing a particular barrow. If their interest is not geographical, the committee will reflect the interests of finance. I do not wish to see finance dominate the interests of manufacturing in this country.
      5.45 pm
      This is an interesting and important little amendment. I understand why the Government intend to oppose it, but it is a little sad to see a Scottish party rejecting this Lords amendment. It is not a happy spectacle. The amendment also allows us to mention some concerns that a Scottish representative on the Monetary Policy Committee might have raised during that committee's deliberations. There is no doubt that the experience of that committee—lwhich is at work even before the legislation is passed—has not been happy, to say the least. Its operations have been very messy indeed.
      It is not as though the committee comprises a body of independent monetary experts who, in light of their academic knowledge about the workings of inflation, can read the dials and pull the appropriate levers, which results in the inevitable inflationary effect in 18 months. The economy does not work like that, and the myths of monetarism have been exploded. The monetary target towards which the committee has worked is undoubtedly far too tight. That has led to deflation, and consequently to high interest rates in this country. It has pushed up the value of the pound, making it attractive to the money pouring out of Europe as a result of instability caused by pursuit of the monetary union farce. That money goes into sterling, which pushes up the value of the pound.
      At the same time, the deutschmark has been deliberately and steadily depreciated, and far eastern currencies have also been devalued substantially. As a result, the Monetary Policy Committee—which does not
      516
      include a Scottish representative—is not able to do its job properly. It is becoming the instrument of over-valuation, which will lead to a major recession this time next year.
      I am afraid that we have appointed the wrong people to the Monetary Policy Committee. They are eminent academics: almighty, invisible academics only wise, like light inaccessible hid from our eyes—at least for six weeks until they have taken their decisions. That brings me to another point: the decisions should be known immediately. Why are the committee's minutes not published immediately, so that they may be subject to lobbying?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has enough parliamentary experience to know that he is moving into a general debate about the role of the committee. That is not the intention of the amendment under discussion.
      Mr. Mitchell: A Scottish representative would introduce a note of canny common sense which does not seem to have operated in the committee thus far. I think that it is important to strengthen the representation of the interests of manufacturing in the way that this Lords amendment would do. When the Monetary Policy Committee was first constituted, I thought that Bank of England officials, because of their long desire for high interest rates—the first reflex of the Bank of England is: when in doubt, put up interest rates—would act as agents for deflation. I thought that the Government's appointees would work in a different way and serve the people's interests, which lie in growth, expansion, jobs and full employment. However, the exact opposite has occurred.
      Of the appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, only Dee Ann Julius has been voting for sense. That is incredible. We have appointed experts to advance the interests of the people and the Government's views, yet they are voting consistently and persistently for higher interest rates. 1 hoped that Scottish representation would be a weight against such an automatic bias in favour of deflation, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has imposed on us.
      When the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund are saying that there is no need further to increase British interest rates—there is a case for them being reduced—it is incredible that our appointees are still urging a further increase in interest rates. Let the members of the committee be accessible, and let them be Scottish. Let them speak for the interests of the people.
      The members of the committee are subject to lobbying, and lobbying should take place. We need to know what they have said immediately they have said it. The experiment has begun badly, with a messy procedure that is creating not stability but endless speculation, argument and pleas that the committee should make a final statement to the effect, "That is the end of increases in interest rates and we shall now start on the way to reducing them." There are constant calls for that action to be taken, but that cannot be, because the committee is divided. As I have said, it is not giving us stability or sense. Instead, it is creating a scenario of deflation. If outside interests were appointed, the committee might be led to sense.

      517
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must do something to stop the remorseless rise of the pound, which is so damaging to our manufacturing base. I have sent him various solutions, and I hope that he accepts them. I hope also that he will consider the arguments that I have advanced this evening. Certainly something must be done.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I oppose the Government's motion to disagree with the amendment. I support the amendment for some, if not all, of the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Although the amendment is far from perfect, it would give Scotland at least some say on appointments to the powerful Monetary Policy Committee. Liberal Democrats believe that such a small but significant element of guaranteed representation, or a voice in appointments to the MPC, would give Scotland an extra dimension, and would be useful in ensuring more effective policy making within the Bank.
      My party's position needs a little explanation because my colleagues in the other place voted with the Government on the amendment. They did so for reasons that we understand and share. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I tabled amendments whose thrust met the criticisms of our colleagues in the other place. Criticisms of the original amendment were limited to scope. Unfortunately, despite our best endeavours, we failed to produce an amendment that you and your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could deem to be in order.
      I wish to place on record again our view, as advanced by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in Committee and on Report, which is contrary to what the Chief Secretary alleged. We believe that the newly independent Bank of England should represent fully all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. In the spirit of our amendments, we shall support the Lords amendment, which provides the only element of additional representation on offer.
      Speaking in the other place, Lord Newby explained why Liberal Democrats felt that the interests of Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of Britain should all be captured in the deliberations of the MPC. Such representation is not uncommon on the management and decision-making boards—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to speak to amendments that were not selected. He must not do that.
      Mr. Davey: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to make a connection that is relevant to the position of Liberal Democrats in tonight's vote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make that connection. He must not now develop an argument.
      Mr. Davey: My argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that representation such as the amendment would grant is not uncommon in other independent banks. The comments that I shall proceed to make are directly relevant and I hope that you will find them in order.
      The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States and the Bundesbank in Germany have representation that goes beyond the central area. Against that background,
      518
      the amendment does not represent a madcap invention. Instead, it focuses on a tried-and-tested way in which to operate decision making on monetary policy. It would ensure that a region's voice could be heard and that differing economic conditions could be taken account of in setting interest rates.
      The Chief Secretary has argued that clause 16(2) meets the regional representation issue. The clause requires the court to ensure that the MPC has collected the necessary regional and sectoral data and examined them. The right hon. Gentleman said that, by appointing people to the court of the Bank who are clearly identified with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Government have demonstrated that they believe that the regions will be fully represented.
      Such measures are superficial; the data requirement would have been met in any event. Before the Bill was introduced, the monetary-policy-making authorities examined similar data to that which will come before the MPC. The problem with the Government's approach, as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, is that no one who takes decisions on interest rates will represent the nations and regions of our country.
      As the Bill stands, no one on the MPC need be from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Although the members of the committee are all eminent people, no one would suggest that they spent, or have spent, the bulk of their working lives outside what the right hon. Member for Wells described as the triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London. The Government's approach to recognising nationhood and regionalism in the Bill is insufficient. The amendment is intended to put that right, albeit only partially.
      It has been argued that such representation is not necessary because Britain is not a federal state, yet, as we are passing the Bill, the United Kingdom is fast down the track of becoming such a state. Perhaps it is not yet in name a federal state, but it is very much so in practice, with a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly, and now an assembly in Northern Ireland. There is to be a council of the British Isles.
      The institutions of UK federalism are being formed. These institutions need to be nourished and further developed. Options such as government in the English regions or national government for England alone are now being actively discussed in all parties. Recognising the regions and nations more explicitly in the Bank's new decision-making body would help to nourish federalism in the UK.
      The Chief Secretary argued that the MPC should be made up solely of the best available people and should not be restricted to representatives from Scotland or elsewhere. Indeed, it should have the best people. However, the suggestion that Scotland could not supply such people shows an amazing lack of confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's countrymen. Given the number of successful Scottish business men and economists, going back to Adam Smith, as the right hon. Member for Wells said, I am surprised that the Chief Secretary does not have more confidence in his countrymen. As he sits on the Treasury Bench, which is stuffed full of Scots, I am surprised that he takes a rather weak and indecisive approach.

      519
      At this late stage, I urge the Government to think again and to give Scotland a voice in appointments to the MPC, as a first step to allowing wider national and regional involvement.
      Dr. Lewis Moonie: I was delighted to hear a Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), advancing the opposite case to that which his party supported in the other place. I have often heard that Liberal Democrats have a habit of doing that. However, this evening is the first time that I have heard a Liberal Democrat Member indulge in the practice. It was impressive.
      It is with some trepidation that I support my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. That is not because of lack of conviction about the arguments which he advanced, but because of my friendship with Lord MacKay, who argued the opposite case in another place. As I am likely to sit in a small boat fishing with him at some time over the next few weeks, I shall tread carefully. If one thing is sure, the Tay is running deep at this time of year. I suspect that I would sink like a stone.
      There is only one key argument, but it has two parts. First, should there be regional representation in the Bank of England? I think that it is agreed that there should be. Secondly, should that representation be on the Monetary Policy Committee? That is a different kettle of fish.
      I am absolutely convinced that there is—as there should be—adequate representation of regional interests on the court of the Bank of England through our policy, and that will be more so in future. It is highly illogical to say that the membership of a small, tight committee such as the Monetary Policy Committee should be gradually expanded to encompass whatever form of federal or regional government we decide on over the next few years: we are talking about a Scot today, but it may be an Irishman tomorrow, then a Welshman, then a Yorkshireman and then someone from the north of England. We would have the sort of committee that used to be set up in certain parts of the Labour party not long ago: the way in which to make absolutely certain that a decision was not reached was to put everyone with a point of view on the committee.
      The amendment is nonsense. The MPC should be small, tightly focused and appointed in the way it is at the moment, so that there is no dubiety about who is on it and why. There is adequate provision for regional points of view to be considered by the court, and that is where they should stay.
      6 pm
      Mr. Swinney: For a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may have thought that Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish was still a Member of this House because of the way in which he is haunting the debate like a spectre. I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) about his future in a boat on the deep River Tay; I shall alert the bailiffs in my constituency to his imminent presence with Lord MacKay to ensure his protection.
      The remarks of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) bore a startling resemblance to the Hansard report of Lord MacKay's contribution to the debate in the other place. Notwithstanding that, I welcome
      520
      the debate. The heart of the argument is the question of how representative the MPC is of the component economies of the United Kingdom and of different economic conditions.
      I want to comment on the component economy of Scotland in relation to the United Kingdom. I intervened on the Chief Secretary to point out that the latest Halifax survey shows that house prices in the south-east have increased by 12.4 per cent. in the past 12 months, but in Scotland, have fallen by just under 1 per cent. I accept that patterns of overheating and house price increases are not uniform, but there are substantial differences in the nature and pattern of economic activity between those two important parts of the United Kingdom.

      According to the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), Scotland's manufacturing exports last year were valued at more than £20 billion and were higher per head than those of other parts of the United Kingdom. Today, there has been a further and welcome initiative from Scottish Trade International to boost the export performance of Scotland, but it is difficult to promote such an initiative when the value of sterling is so high and the relationship between interest rates and the value of sterling is creating difficulties for our exporters. Unemployment in Scotland is now consistently higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom, which is a disturbing change to the trend.
      In response to my intervention, the Chief Secretary said that there was overheating in the economy in different parts of the country; he is obviously familiar with overheating in the Edinburgh house market. On how many occasions would he expect the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to turn a blind eye to overheating in the economy of the south-east of England? I suspect that it would never do so, because it observes such conditions primarily to guarantee that the economic policy of the United Kingdom is sustained. Under Labour and Conservative Governments, it has persistently been directed by the prevailing economic conditions in the south of England.
      The Chief Secretary made a series of points about the way in which the composition of the court of the Bank of England had ensured that the different component factors of the economy of the United Kingdom could be borne in mind in its discussions and decisions. Everything that he said about the Bank of England court would be justifiable and valid about the MPC, which takes decisions that are of much greater significance to the economy of Scotland.
      I welcome Jim Stretton's appointment to the court of the Bank of England. Having worked in the life insurance sector before being elected to the House, I am aware of his formidable reputation in the industry, but he is not on the MPC, which is where big decisions about interest rates, which affect the livelihoods of manufacturers and exporters within the Scottish economy and in the rest of the United Kingdom, are taken.
      Will the Chief Secretary say what input is given to the MPC in relation to the divergent patterns of economic activity within the United Kingdom? There is scant reference to the economic conditions of Scotland in the minutes of the MPC, and I should welcome his guidance on whether there is a need to improve the amount and type of information that goes to the MPC to ensure that it hears a more representative account of the position of the United Kingdom economy.

      521
      The MPC is where the action is; it has increased interest rates five times since the general election, and there should be a voice for Scotland. For that reason, we shall support the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Darling: I cannot agree with the last argument.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) has finished his remarks, so the Chief Secretary should seek the leave of the House to speak.
      Mr. Darling: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I do not agree with the Scottish National party's argument? It tends to view everything in terms of the difference between Scotland and England and, somehow, everything is the fault of the English. I represent a Scottish constituency, and I think that I represent the majority view of Scotland, which does not take that simplistic and sometimes nasty view of the way of things. We live in the United Kingdom and remain part of it.
      We have heard two arguments. The first came from Conservative Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). They were against the concept of independence for the Bank of England in the first place, and always have been against it. It is curious that the shadow Chief Secretary has embraced a Lords amendment that would give a voice to the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament on something in which the right hon. Gentleman does not believe.
      Interest rates have had to go up; it would have been much better if the previous Government in their last months in office had taken the necessary steps to ensure that we achieved the long-term stability that this country needs rather than ducking decisions purely because the Conservative party might have been damaged even more in the run-up to the general election.
      The second irony is that the shadow Chief Secretary and, for the first time in a generation, the Conservative party, seem to care what Scotland thinks. Conservatives say that they want to save us from the works of the Monetary Policy Committee by having a voice for Scotland on it. It is nice that the Conservative party has such confidence in Scotland.
      The amendment has no merit whatever. It is unnecessary, and the court of the Bank of England is far more widely representative than ever—the previous Government did nothing about that in 18 years in power. Our reforms of the MPC are in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom, which is evidenced by the fact that long-term interest rates are the lowest for 33 years. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Fallon: The Government cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, the Economic Secretary commends previous Lords amendments as sensible revisions from the revising Chamber; on the other, the Chief Secretary whinges that this amendment is the result of a teatime ambush. If it is, whose fault is that? Perhaps it is that of the Government Whips in the other place, or of new Labour peers, who have been nominated to the other place but are too busy to attend. Perhaps they are spending more time with their money—who knows?
      The Chief Secretary has wholly misunderstood the amendment. Appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee would still be made by the Chancellor if it
      522
      were accepted. He would simply be required to make one appointment on the advice of the First Minister. What is the Chief Secretary frightened of? He does not appear to have much confidence in the first First Minister, whoever he might be. I thought that it was supposed to be the current Secretary of State for Scotland. Under this amendment, why would he want to nominate someone of whom the Chancellor would not approve? That argument simply will not wash.
      The Chief Secretary's argument that, because we opposed the Bill in the first place, we should not now support the amendment, will not wash either. We did not want an independent Bank of England of the nature that is set up by the Bill but, as we are getting one, we do not see why the Monetary Policy Committee should not better reflect all parts of the UK.
      This is an amendment for openness. It widens the membership of the Monetary Policy Committee and helps to break up the Oxbridge-London mafia—[Interruption.] I certainly support its break-up. Above all, it is an amendment for Scotland, which all true Scots should be proud to support. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Government's motion.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 107.

      Division No. 248]

      [6.10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cohen, Harry

      Ainger, Nick

      Coleman, Iain

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Connarty, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corbett, Robin

      Austin, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cousins, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cranston, Ross

      Beard, Nigel

      Crausby, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benton, Joe

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Darvill, Keith

      Berry, Roger

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Best, Harold

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Denham, John

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Boateng, Paul

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Edwards, Huw

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Byers, Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Follett, Barbara

      Caton, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gapes, Mike

      Clapham, Michael

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clelland, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clwyd, Ann

      Grant, Bernie

      Coaker, Vernon

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      523

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mudie, George

      Grogan, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Norris, Dan

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Olner, Bill

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Heppell, John

      Pearson, Ian

      Hill, Keith

      Pike, Peter L

      Hinchliffe, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Hoey, Kate

      Pond, Chris

      Home Robertson, John

      Pope, Greg

      Hood, Jimmy

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hope, Phil

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Radice, Giles

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Rapson, Syd

      Hurst, Alan

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Hutton, John

      Rogers, Allan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Rooker, Jeff

      Illsley, Eric

      Rooney, Terry

      Ingram, Adam

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Ruane, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Salter, Martin

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Soley, Clive

      Khabra, Piara S

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Kidney, David

      Spellar, John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Stevenson, George

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Laxton, Bob

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Leslie, Christopher

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Levitt, Tom

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Linton, Martin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Love, Andrew

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McAllion, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      McAvoy, Thomas

      (Dewsbury)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      McFall, John

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Touhig, Don

      McNulty, Tony

      Truswell, Paul

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      McWalter, Tony

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Vaz, Keith

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Watts, David

      Martlew, Eric

      White, Brian

      Maxton, John

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      (Swansea W)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Wills, Michael

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Winnick, David

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      524

      Woolas, Phil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Wyatt, Derek

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Allan, Richard

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Johnson, Smith

      Baker, Norman

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bercow, John

      Key, Robert

      Blunt, Crispin

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Boswell, Tim

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Breed, Colin

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lidington, David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Burns, Simon

      Mackay, Andrew

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chidgey, David

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Clappison, James

      Maples, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      (Rushcliffe)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Moss, Malcolm

      Collins, Tim

      Ottaway, Richard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Paice, James

      Cotter, Brian

      Paterson, Owen

      Cran, James

      Prior, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Randall, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Rendel, David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan, Alan

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Duncan Smith, lain

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Evans, Nigel

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fallon, Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Feam, Ronnie

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Shepherd, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Streeter, Gary

      Garnier, Edward

      Stunell, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Swayne, Desmond

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Swinney, John

      Gray, James

      Taylor, John M Solihull)

      Green, Damian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Greenway, John

      Trend, Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Walter, Robert

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Waterson, Nigel

      Harvey, Nick

      Weksg, Andrew

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Young,Rt Hon Sir George

      Hawkins, Nick

      Heald, Oliver

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Mr. John Whittingdale.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.

    Clause 28

      BOARD OF BANKING SUPERVISION
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 12, line 9, leave out
      (", who shall chair the Board,")
      Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 7.
      Mrs. Liddell: The amendments further reinforce the independence of the Board of Banking Supervision by giving the chair to one of the non-executive members. We have consulted the Financial Services Authority chairman, Howard Davies, and, through him, the non-executive members of the board. Having done so, and having confirmed that they are content with this change to their rules, I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Fallon: We, too, welcome the change made to the Bill on Third Reading in another place. Those who believe in transparency clearly consider it a good idea that the chairman of the authority should not also be the chairman of the Board of Banking Supervision, especially when that board may be investigating the performance of the authority, deciding not to investigate the performance of that authority or, as in the Barings case, dealing with the conclusions of that investigation.
      That brings us to the bigger question of exactly what the Board of Banking Supervision's new role is going to be. Perhaps the Economic Secretary can tell us briefly whether it is to be advisory or supervisory.
      The independence that the Economic Secretary is now accepting for the chairmanship, which we welcome, brings out the issue of practitioner involvement. I must say at once that we are not happy with what the FSA is proposing in its consultative documents, and we expect a considerable improvement when the draft clauses are published later this year.
      Mrs. Liddell: I reiterate the point made in Committee, which is that we do not propose to retain the Board of Banking Supervision in its current form when we introduce new legislation. That would not be in keeping with the wider regulatory responsibilities of the FSA. The FSA has been consulting on the issue of practitioner input for the longer term. It is not a subject that we would want to discuss at this stage, but there will be plenty of opportunity to do so at the end of the consultation period, when the legislation comes before the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

    Clause 40

      ORDERS
      Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 16, line 12, at end insert
      ("or
      paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7,")
      Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 9.
      Mrs. Liddell: The House will be aware that the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation considered the order-making powers contained in the Bill. Its report of 4 February
      526

      recommended that the parliamentary procedure to implement the power under paragraph 3(2) of schedule 7 should be the affirmative rather than the negative. The Government accepted the Committee's recommendation, and I accordingly commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Gibb: I am a relatively new Member of the House, and I wish to raise a concern that I and other new Members have—one that is shared increasingly by people outside, especially those who need access to legislation. It relates to the growing amount of delegated legislation. It has been a feature of all Governments in recent years, but it appears to be a particular penchant of the new Labour Government. For example, it now appears that major tax changes, such as reforms to the capital gains legislation, are to be introduced by statutory instrument rather than through the Finance Bill.
      The 11th report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation says of paragraph 3(2) of schedule 7:
      "The power to amend the Table is potentially wide, and the appropriate degree of parliamentary control depends on the uses to which it will be put. The House may wish to consider whether it is not of such significance as to justify amending the Bill to provide for the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than the negative procedure currently proposed in the Bill."
      Indeed, the memorandum to the Select Committee prepared by the Treasury lists in an annex all the new delegated powers created by the Bill—there are some 15 new delegated powers from one single Bill.
      I raise this matter now as a concerned Back Bencher, but it was already of general concern when I was in practice before entering the House. Will the Minister confirm that she is aware of this widespread concern, and give an assurance that the Government will seek to redress the huge increase in secondary legislation which has been their hallmark since it came to power a year ago?
      Mrs. Liddell: The Government believe—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must ask the leave of the House.
      Mrs. Liddell: With the leave of the House. As a relatively new Member, I also make mistakes.
      The Government have made it clear that we believe in consultation, and in listening to people's views. Although I am a comparatively new Member, I was in the House during the last Parliament when the previous Government used the deregulation orders many times and in relation to secondary legislation. Therefore, I believe that this amendment is a useful addition to the Bill, and I reiterate my commendation of it to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 9 agreed to.

    Clause 44

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 16, line 32, at end insert—
      ("(1A) Section 33 extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.")
      6.30 pm
      Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment that would ensure that the transfer of the gilts registration function of the National Savings stock register to the Bank of England register also has legal effect in the Channel Islands and in the Isle of Man. I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Gibb: Does this amendment have anything at all to do with the review into those territories being conducted by the Home Secretary?
      Mrs. Liddell: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—no.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 5

      TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 29, line 22, leave out ("paragraphs 31 and") and insert ("paragraph")
      Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16.
      Mrs. Liddell: This is a group of six technical amendments. Amendment No. 11 tidies up the consequential amendment contained in schedule 5. Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 16 would ensure that consequential changes to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 are accurate. Amendment No. 14 is required to make a consequential amendment to the Building Societies Act 1997. It arises because of the transfer of banking supervision to the Financial Services Authority. Amendment No. 15 would remove some redundant definitions from the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Fallon: I want briefly to raise two issues. The Economic Secretary described the amendments as technical. Amendment No. 14 is not that technical. As I understand it, it replaces the Bank of England with the Financial Services Authority as the consultative body if any amalgamation is proposed to the Building Societies Investor Protection Board and the Deposit Protection Board. It might assist the House if the hon. Lady said whether that is the Government's immediate intention—is an amalgamation proposed?
      528
      I put the hon. Lady on notice that we will need to go into greater detail on the role of the Financial Services Authority as it relates to building societies more generally. While we were all on holiday, the Treasury slipped out an announcement about a voluntary code, which ensures that generally building societies will not be brought under the arrangements for the new authority.
      Perhaps the hon. Lady could help the House on amendment No. 15, which would delete the words "overseas institution" and "representative office". The other place was told that the words were no longer needed in the Bill, because they had no operative effect, yet they are still in paragraph 1 of schedule 8. Perhaps the Economic Secretary could explain why, if they have no operative effect, they are still in the Bill.
      Mrs. Liddell: The Building Societies Act 1997, which went through with the co-operation of both sides of the House, makes provision for a future amalgamation of the Building Societies Investor Protection Board with the Deposit Protection Board. Provision is made for consultation with the Building Societies Commission and the Bank before making any order effective. It will be for the Governor of the Bank to appoint ordinary members of the new board. Therefore, it is sensible to make consequential amendments that draw together the reality of the Financial Services Authority in relation to building societies.
      There was no question of the Government sneaking out a voluntary code on building societies—it was introduced by the Council of Mortgage Lenders last July. We merely made an announcement that we would see how it operated before deciding whether the future financial services legislation would contain such a provision. I hope that it is clear that in no sense did the Government try to sneak through a critical measure while the House was in recess. Indeed, the announcement was made before the House rose—although some people may have risen slightly earlier than others.
      On amendment No. 15, as the hon. Gentleman said, the words "overseas institution" and "representative office" have no operative effect, so there is no need to define them. The amendment would remove their definitions from the Bill.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16 agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 5 to the Bill: Mr. Robert Ainsworth, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. John Whittingdale and Mrs. Helen Liddell; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mrs. Liddell.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reason for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 5 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Data Protection Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a detailed, technical Bill, which has already been the subject of extensive debate in the other place. It implements the directive on data protection that was agreed in the European Union in 1995.
  The draft directive, which was drawn up in 1990, was the subject of a good deal of discussion in the House. When it came up for discussion in European Standing Committee B in December 1994, serious reservations were expressed by both the then Government and the then Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke for the Opposition. The directive was then improved, and the previous Government—Mr. Tom Sackville was the Minister—published a consultation document in March 1996. We are under an injunction in the directive to implement the directive in the form of legislation by October this year. The Bill would do that.
  The Bill's detail can be the subject of discussion in Committee. However, I want to refer to a few important aspects where there are significant changes from the 1994 Data Protection Act, which itself implemented a 1981 Council of Europe convention on data protection. The first difference is that the Bill covers some manual records, which are known as structured manual records. It does not cover unstructured manual records. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that, because in my experience that automatically excludes any record held by a Member of Parliament.
  Clause 2 sets out special safeguards for the processing of sensitive personal data, including information about matters such as ethnic origin, political or religious opinions, health and sexual life. One important matter that has been raised with the Government—indeed, it was raised with me when I visited the United States in February—concerns the rules governing transfer of personal data to countries outside the European economic area. It is an important issue, which I hope will be discussed in some detail in Committee.
  I know that there is come concern among certain of the European Union's trading partners, especially the United States, about how the word "adequacy" in the Bill will be interpreted in practice. Not all countries outside the EU have arrangements that meet the high standards in the directive, but I believe that our proposals for dealing with individual cases are sufficiently flexible to meet controllers' needs, while giving proper effect to the directive.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend explain what protection is available to an individual who provides information to a company which decides to sell it abroad? Does the individual have any veto on the information being sold abroad?
  Mr. Straw: That is what the Bill and the directive seek to do. The Bill also seeks to deal with the issue of enforced third-party access to information held by data users. The broader question of third-country adequacy is
  530
  being addressed in collective discussions in Brussels, and I am confident that a satisfactory way forward can be found.
  The Government are committed to dealing with the problem of enforced subject access. Typically, that occurs where one person requires another to provide information in documentary form which can be obtained only by using the subject access route. That has been a means of accessing individuals' criminal records. The Data Protection Registrar strongly believes that this is wrong in principle, and, in another place, my noble and learned Friend Lord Williams indicated our acceptance in principle of what the registrar had said.
  The matter is proving to be a very difficult nut to crack. The issues are complex, and, in some respects—certainly until part V of the Police Act is enforced—there will be a continuing need to ensure that there is access to individuals' criminal records. We are continuing to have discussions with the Data Protection Registrar and her staff. I hope that we can table the necessary amendments in Committee.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend has just made an important statement. In Committee, will he ensure that sufficient flexibility exists in the legislation to take into account the rapidly changing scene—particularly his Department's use of processes such as data matching, which are very important in crime detection?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, we will address that issue, and will listen with care. As we made clear in another place, we approach this matter in an entirely bipartisan way, and there has been excellent co-operation from the Opposition. We do not regard the Bill as perfect, but we have done our best. I am sure that it could be improved, and we look forward to receiving amendments from wherever they come.
  Clause 28 was partly amended in the other place, against our advice. We are considering carefully whether there is any way in which we can limit the need for the original provision in clause 28, but we may have to table amendments in Committee.
  Understandably, concern was expressed by the media about the way in which the Bill might impact on their rights. Detailed discussions have taken place with representatives of the media, particularly with Lord Wakeham. The conclusions of the discussions have been positive, and are expressed in clause 31. They achieved approbation from both sides of the House, and can be the subject of further discussion in Committee. I believe that they provide a satisfactory way forward, and they appear to have achieved widespread agreement.
  In conclusion, I repeat that we regard this as an all-party matter, which we inherited from the previous Administration. It is an important but technical Bill. I look forward to the debate and to the reports of the proceedings in Committee.
  6.43 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I immediately tell the Home Secretary that we share his view that we ought to proceed in a bipartisan way? There has been a lot of consultation—which we welcomed—in another place, and we will seek to continue

  531
  in that constructive vein during our considerations. I agree that this is a technical Bill. Its principles are important, but I will not seek to get bogged down in the details at this stage. They can be examined in Committee, and I hope that that will be of help to the House.
  We are pleased that the principles behind the Data Protection Act 1984 are largely reproduced in the Bill, with some additions. We consider that to be almost the necessary prerequisite to that bipartisan approach. Personal data, and the proper and accurate handling of those data, is important. Our constituents must be protected when people are tempted to misuse information. All of us will have had examples of constituents who have been greatly distressed because they could not find out what was held about them. In many cases, the information was inaccurate, and they had no means of changing it.
  As the Home Secretary said, the directive emerged because different countries applied the data protection convention in different ways. The European Commission, as is its tendency, wanted to homogenise everything. We were not aware that the absence of a directive had had a negative effect on trade between member states, or was necessary to ensure fair competition within the Community. We did not believe that a directive was necessary to make the single market work. We did not vote for it, but we have it, and we are now under an obligation to see that it is put into our law.
  That leads me to my first question, which can be explored in Committee. The House will want to know what steps are being taken by other countries. We have a tendency in this country to get ahead of the game, and to be conscientious in the implementation of directives. We then find that others—for a variety of reasons—are lagging behind, and our businesses find themselves at a disadvantage. We will want to know what progress is being made in other countries.
  We want to know also how much gold-plating is in the Bill, over and above what is required by the directive. When the Labour party was in opposition, it regularly accused us of adding to legislation required by directives, and imposing extra burdens over and above those requirements. In Committee, we will want to explore how much of the Bill flows from the directive, and how much is an opportunity being taken by the Government to add other burdens.
  The Home Office said that the directive has three intentions. First, it intends to harmonise data protection legislation throughout the EU. We would prefer a regime of minimum standards, but we will look at the Bill against that background. Secondly, the directive aims to protect the individual's rights and freedoms, particularly the right to privacy with regard to the processing of personal data. That is a matter of common ground between us. Thirdly, the directive facilitates the free flow of personal data within the EU in the interests of improving the operation of the single market. As I have said, we are not aware that the single market is being damaged, but we will bear that in mind.
  Like the Home Secretary, I wish to mention a few articles as a tick-list to which we will return in Committee. Article 7 defines the individual's right to gain access to information. That is a very important right, which we will want to make sure is enshrined.
  532
  Article 8 introduces the new concept of sensitive data. We will want to explore why such sensitive data might be held in the first place, and whether there are ways of regulating the holding and processing of personal data.
  We must look at the range of exemptions in terms of revealing information. The Bill refers to the police, employers, health care services and lawyers. Other things occur to me. What about the notes I take in my political surgeries when constituents come to see me? Will they be covered by the Bill? What about the advice given by citizens advice bureaux to our constituents? There are a number of large issues relating to exemption which we will want to explore in some detail.
  Article 9 states that member states must provide exemptions from data processing rules where the information is held solely for the purposes of journalism or literary expression. Like the Home Secretary, I have read the Hansard reports of the debates in another place, and I have talked to my noble Friend Lord Wakeham, whose general view of the article's appropriateness I share. I only wish that the Government had consulted as effectively on the Human Rights Bill as they clearly have on this Bill—they are belatedly doing so, for which we give them half a mark.
  We recognise the importance of deferring legal recourse to post-publication—we shall sympathetically examine the Government's decision on that. The Home Secretary mentioned manual records and the concerns of the Data Protection Registrar, which we shall also want to consider further.
  On enforcement, clause 41 is a replica of current legislation, but we welcome the Government's willingness to go further, as represented in clause 42, as that goes to the heart of ensuring privacy and confidence in the system. I hope that the Home Secretary will understand if, in Committee, we come back time and again to the question whether the procedures will elicit public confidence.
  The final point to which I want to draw attention—the Home Secretary did not mention it—is the enormous cost to business and industry of implementing the Bill. According to the Government's figures—from the Data Protection Commissioner's office—£1.15 billion in non-recurring start-up costs and £750 million in recurring annual costs will be incurred. That is a huge burden on business. It will have an impact on competitiveness for those who compete and market not only within the United Kingdom but—unless there is a level playing field—internationally. That brings me back to where I started: if the Bill is gold-plated, there will not be a level playing field, and we shall add burdens to British business and industry that will not be replicated overseas.
  We recognise the importance of technological advance and the need to change procedures to take account of it. We also recognise the importance of personal privacy, accuracy and access to information—in other words, confidence. On the whole, the 1984 Act commanded confidence, and the Bill must do the same—we shall work hard and constructively to ensure that it does. Its principles are right and unexceptional, and we will be so directed, when the time comes, to make a Second Reading judgment.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: The Liberal Democrats, too, welcome the Bill. Although it has been a long time in gestation, we believe that it should be dealt with with some urgency. It is an important piece of human rights legislation, fitting into a general pattern of reform, which will help to define privacy. We have some concerns, which I shall mention briefly, so that the Government have notice of them—obviously, I shall save the detail for Committee.
  A couple of measures are still missing. First, the Home Secretary referred to enforced subject access, on which the Government gave a clear commitment to legislate in the framework of the Bill. We shall be disappointed if nothing is done about that; we favour the creation of a criminal offence.
  Secondly, there should be an exemption on the holding of sensitive personal data on ethnicity for the purposes of ethnic monitoring. Clearly, great strides have been made in monitoring the work force, and we do not want the Bill to make such monitoring—when it is in the wider public interest—illegal. The Government made a commitment to create such an exemption in response to an amendment moved in another place by my noble Friend Lord Dholakia—we want them to act on that.
  We want the Commissioner to have stronger powers, especially under clause 50, to be more proactive in identifying situations in which the principles are not being complied with. We have concerns about third-country standards, which the Home Secretary mentioned. Moreover, we believe that the media exemptions in clause 31 throw up wider questions, especially in the context of the Human Rights Bill. We are convinced neither that the notion of proportionality in considering the public interest is sufficiently incorporated, nor that clause 31 will stand up when the Human Rights Bill is enacted—we shall want to return to that matter.
  We want the measures on data matching to go further; specific codes of conduct should be referred to and made compulsory. We shall also examine the issue of sensitive data that are held by bodies other than the police or the Secretary of State, as we believe that, for example, organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds should be able to hold information on wildlife offenders.
  We believe that the Bill is sensible, but it is crucial that people register. We welcome the improvement of notification procedures, but, in searching through the information provided by the Data Protection Registrar, I noticed that only slightly more than 100 Members of Parliament are currently registered. I can tell the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that the registrar has proposed new categories of data, including citizens advice bureaux records and the casework of Members of Parliament. I sent off my application form today, and I hope that registration will become more widespread as people become more aware of the issue.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Because of the extraordinary lateness of the hour, I realise that I must condense my remarks on this important Bill, which owes its genesis and genius elsewhere—in our membership of the European Union.
  534
  I want to speak about only one measure, about which I have already teased the Home Secretary. The Bill originally contained a provision—clause 28(4)—which was deleted when the Government were defeated on an amendment moved by Baroness Nicholson in another place. However, the Government have said that the provision may be reintroduced in the House of Commons, which is why I want to highlight it now.
  Clause 28(4) gave the Secretary of State the power by order to remove essential safeguards from unspecified classes of personal data. An order removing those rights could be made where it was thought necessary to prevent or detect crime, apprehend or prosecute offenders, or assess or collect tax.
  The rights that would be set aside are: first, individuals' rights under clause 7 to obtain a copy of any data held about them—the so—called right of subject access; secondly, the first data protection principle, which requires that those processing data do so fairly and lawfully—the term "processing" includes the obtaining of personal information, the use made of it and its disclosure; thirdly, the so-called non-disclosure provisions, which consist of any of the other safeguards in the data protection principles that may prevent the disclosure of personal information.
  The effect of a provision such as clause 28(4) would be drastic. It would allow bodies to obtain information illegally and entitle them deliberately to mislead the individual who asked how the information had been obtained, what use was being made of it, and to whom it was being disclosed.
  There are three reasons why the proposal is objectionable. First, it is unnecessary. The preceding provisions—clause 28(1) to (3), which remain in the Bill—permit those safeguards to be set aside in any individual case where their application would prejudice law enforcement or tax collection. Clause 28(4) permitted those safeguards to be set aside in all cases, regardless of whether compliance would prejudice law enforcement or tax collection.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): As a result of the earlier decision, this matter is being considered, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I am more than happy to discuss it with him in detail before the Bill is considered in Committee.
  Mr. Shepherd: I greatly appreciate that offer, which I shall indeed take up. I am not trying to talk out the Bill, as the Minister will understand; I want to highlight the issue, and ensure that the reasons behind the Government's decision to delete the measure are given.
  My final point is that, in the past—over the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, for example—the Labour party expressed great concern about the ability to amend, by secondary legislation, primary legislation to which rights were inscribed. Having said that, however, I support the general thrust of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  DATA PROTECTION BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Data Protection Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any increase attributable to the Act in—

  (i) the expenses of the Data Protection Registrar (renamed the Data Protection Commissioner by the Act),

  (ii) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in respect of the Data Protection Tribunal or the members of the Tribunal, and

  (iii) any expenses incurred by a government department in complying with the requirements imposed on data controllers,

  (b) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the Act, and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

  Question agreed to.

  DATA PROTECTION BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That any Act resulting from the Data Protection Bill [Lords] may—

  (a) require the payment of fees in connection with notification by, and the renewal of registration of, data controllers under the Act; and

  (b) provide for the payment of those fees and other sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    LEGAL SERVICES
    That the draft Institute of Legal Executives Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.
    VALUE ADDED TAX (S.I., 1998, No. 762)
    That the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) (Amendment) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 762), dated 17th March 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Special Grant Report (No. 34): Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant for 1998–99 (HC 656), which was laid before the House on 24th March, be approved.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
    That the Special Grant Report (Scotland): Grant in aid of expenditure on rail services in the Strathclyde Passenger Transport area (HC 660), which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
    Question agreed to.

  DEREGULATION COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Lock be discharged from the Deregulation Committee and Mr. Andy King to be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mudie.]

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That Norman Baker be discharged from the European Legislation Committee and Mr. Colin Breed be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mudie.]

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
  That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at County Hall, Carmarthen on Tuesday 5th May at Eleven o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103, (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the rural economy in Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)) proceedings being interrupted at half-past Four o'clock—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
  Question agreed to.

  WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  That Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Lloyds TSB Bill [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  It may be appropriate to declare an interest. I contribute to an insurance policy with Abbey Life, which is now wholly owned by Lloyds, and my wife contributes to a pension scheme originally with Target Life which I think went under the control of Abbey Life. Other than that, I have no registrable interests in relation to Lloyds TSB.
  In December 1995, two of the United Kingdom's oldest and best-known financial services groups, TSB group and Lloyds bank, merged, with the aim of providing their customers with the widest possible branch network of services that was available from any high street bank. It may seem strange to some hon. Members that, despite securing the necessary regulatory and shareholder approval at the time of the merger, Lloyds TSB group, as it is now called, is required to promote this measure in Parliament.
  Before dealing with the Bill's provisions and its recent parliamentary history, it may help if I sketch the background of the United Kingdom's current financial services marketplace, which has changed beyond recognition in the past 15 years. Cash-dispensing machines, credit and debit cards and telephone and even personal computer banking are fast becoming features of many people's everyday lives. Customers no longer expect to have to go to their high street bank at a time that is convenient to the bank. They expect the bank to come to them, and do not invariably expect even to have to walk across the threshold of a bank branch. They want the ease and convenience of knowing that they can pick up and use a telephone on a local rate number any time of the day or night. The two words that encapsulate that change are competition and technology, and the combination of the two is having a profound impact on the shape and structure of the financial services sector in the United Kingdom.
  All the major players in the sector are bringing on line ever more sophisticated technologies to tailor their distribution systems to meet the changing and ever more sophisticated needs of their customers. For example, the supermarket chains Sainsbury and Tesco have become significant competitors in the new financial services environment. Sainsbury's bank now has £1.4 billion in deposits from 650,000 customers. Virgin already has more than £1 billion under management through its personal equity plans and pensions business, and intends to enter the banking marketplace later this year.
  It seems that scarcely a day goes by without another company announcing its plans to enter the financial services sector. BMW, British Airways and Daihatsu are the latest in a long line of companies declaring an interest in the sector. The new entrants are playing a crucial role in irreversibly transforming the landscape of the UK's financial services sector, as well as representing a challenge to the major providers of retail financial services. We may legitimately question how substantial or sustainable is the challenge. Most of the new entrants are cherry-picking customers from the clearing banks by offering them a narrow range of products and services—
  538
  and only those that they think will be highly profitable. It is not a universal service aimed at banking for all sections of the community, and nor do the new entrants intend that it should be. The new entrants are not able to offer the breadth of services and products or the specialised staff that traditional providers offer. They do not want to be saddled with the high infrastructure costs of providing an accessible and fully comprehensive banking service.
  That naturally brings me to the sensitive issue of traditional fixed-branch networks. Footfall in branches—the number of customers using fixed branches—is falling year by year for all the major United Kingdom retail banks. As we know, the key drivers of that change are technological advances and increased competition.
  In this new financial services climate, Lloyds TSB group, like its competitors, has needed to respond to rapidly changing customer preferences, and constantly needs to look at the shape of its branch network and at ways of delivering services to customers. One good example of that is that the bank has teamed up with Asda supermarkets, and the first Asda in-store bank providing the full range of TSB products opened in December. Six more pilots have since opened. However, Lloyds TSB is, and will remain, the most accessible bank in the United Kingdom. It has 2,700 branches nationwide—900 more than its nearest competitor. For TSB and Lloyds, the branch network is the bedrock of customer services.
  Mr. John McWilliam: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend's explanation. Why did Lloyds close the only joint stock bank branch in Winlaton in the north-east where I live—a catchment area of some 12,000 potential customers—when there is no competition in the village? Was it just for profit?
  Mr. Illsley: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. Perhaps when he has heard about the initiatives of which I shall speak shortly he will feel more comfortable with the Bill. Before becoming involved with the Bill, I met the banking unions and listened to their concerns about branch closures. Those concerns were addressed by Lloyds TSB to the unions' satisfaction. I shall shortly try to explain how Lloyds will address the issue of branch closures in areas where no other banks are available.
  As I said, for TSB and Lloyds the branch network is the bedrock of customer service and the principal means of maintaining contact with customers in all parts of the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that, with just 500 branches each, competitors such as Sainsbury and Tesco fall short of offering the wide and well-balanced branch network that consumers value and that customers of TSB and Lloyds enjoy.
  When Lloyds TSB has to close a branch, it goes the extra mile—unlike its competitors—to ensure that its customers continue to have easy access to basic money transaction facilities. Lloyds TSB attaches considerable importance to that, not just because it is a sound and commercially sensible judgment, but because it reflects the company's strongly held belief in corporate citizenship—the belief that social responsibility goes hand in hand with commercial success. The TSB movement, as I shall shortly explain, was founded with that principle at the heart of its business ethos.
  In November 1997, Lloyds TSB announced an historic pilot project whereby its customers could cash cheques and withdraw money at selected post offices in their

  539
  locality. The scheme has been so successful that Lloyds TSB intends to roll it out to 500 post offices nationwide. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Mc William) will take that point on board, and I will ask Lloyds TSB whether that pilot project will extend to his area.
  Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but we do not have a post office, either.
  Mr. Illsley: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has got me on that one. It seems that he will have some problems in the future.
  The project is good news not only for TSB and Lloyds but for the continuance of the country's post offices—apart from in Blaydon, of course—and will help to secure the future of branches in rural areas, which will continue to play an important role right at the heart of community life.
  Before explaining in detail the merger of Lloyds TSB, I want briefly to describe the two companies and to say something of their respective backgrounds. The TSB movement was started in 1810 by the Rev. Henry Duncan in the small Dumfriesshire village of Ruthwell, as a means of improving the financial position of what were then termed the labouring classes.
  One might think that there was an element of 19th-century paternalist do-gooding in that, but Henry Duncan's motivation was straightforward and genuine enough. As a result of his and others' endeavours, savings banks were established throughout the United Kingdom, and an early precursor of the savings culture that the Government want to build today was created. From the 1840s onwards, the savings banks' funds were secured by the Government—hence the name Trustee Savings bank.
  Although the savings banks began to explore the possibility of providing commercial services in the 1920s, it took more than 50 years for them to come together to form a modern clearing bank in 1976. At flotation in 1986, there was a massive expansion of the company's equity base, as small shareholders, including many staff, began to share in the benefits of the business: 25,910 staff and company pensioners applied for a staggering 97 million shares.
  By 1995, the TSB had grown to become one of the United Kingdom's leading bancassurers—that is, an integrated banking, life assurance and general assurance business—with branches throughout Britain.
  Lloyds bank, or Taylors and Lloyds, as it then was, was founded in 1765 in Birmingham. By the 1880s, Lloyds was a major banking force in the midlands, and looked increasingly towards London. In fact, as long ago as 1771, the sons of the founding Birmingham partners had opened a bank in Lombard street in the City of London, and in 1884 that business was combined with the mainstream bank. Recently, the group acquired Abbey Life and the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society.
  Before I explain why the group needs a private Bill, I want to give the House a renewed assurance on the separate status for the TSB in Scotland. Lloyds TSB has asked me to confirm that TSB Scotland's separate and special status, as provided for in the undertakings given to Parliament by the then TSB group in 1985, will continue to be honoured.
  540
  At the first annual general meeting of the new Lloyds TSB group in Edinburgh on 11 April 1996, Sir Robin Ibbs, the group's former chairman, said:
  "there will be no change in the status of TSB Bank Scotland … its Chairman will sit on the main group Board … the TSB Bank Scotland will remain headquartered in Edinburgh, and the Lloyds TSB Group will have its registered office in Scotland".
  The group is committed to employing about 4,000 staff in Scotland, and last year expanded its business operations by opening 13 TSB and three Lloyds business banking centres to service the needs of the Scottish small business community. Only last week, the group's annual general meeting was held in Glasgow. I hope that that will reassure Scottish Members that Lloyds TSB is committed to serving all its customers in Scotland.
  The need for a private Bill arises from the fact that a bank may not transfer a customer's money to another body without the customer's consent. Only through a private Bill can a bank's operations be merged without its going through the massive administrative task, and uncertainty, of seeking the agreement of each customer individually to a transfer of his or her account from one entity to another. In this way, 7 million TSB customers are also spared the accompanying inconvenience. That is the recognised way of dealing with bank mergers, and an average of one bank Bill each parliamentary Session testifies to that fact.
  The Bill provides for the transfer to and vesting in Lloyds of the undertakings of TSB and Hill Samuel. Clause 3 allows the directors of Lloyds to name an appointed day on which those undertakings will be transferred to Lloyds and to name different days for each undertaking and for different parts of each undertaking. Clause 4 provides that, on the appointed day for an undertaking, it will transfer to and vest in Lloyds, which will in effect step into the shoes of TSB and Hill Samuel.
  The rest of the Bill is designed to ensure that the transfer is effective, so that, once TSB and Hill Samuel have been transferred to Lloyds, Lloyds will be in the same position vis-a-vis third parties as TSB or Hill Samuel were before the transfer. By the same token, third parties that have dealings with TSB or Hill Samuel before the transfer will be no better and no worse off in their dealings with Lloyds.
  Clause 6 contains supplementary provisions, including subsection (5), to the effect that any account between a customer and TSB or Hill Samuel will become an account between that customer and Lloyds after the appointed day. Clause 7 provides for contracts of employment, notably ensuring that, following the transfer, any contract of employment with TSB or Hill Samuel becomes a contract with Lloyds, as if the employment were a single, continuing employment.
  Clause 8 relates to retirement benefit schemes, although it should be noted that it has no effect on the TSB group pension scheme, which is not part of the business or undertaking of Hill Samuel or TSB that is being transferred into Lloyds.
  The Bill made steady progress through the other place. It received its First Reading in January 1997 and its Second Reading in March 1997. Following the general election and the summer recess, it went to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in November 1997, and received its Third Reading on 19 January this year.
  As some hon. Members are aware, Lloyds TSB undertook exhaustive and free-ranging discussions about its future relationship with the Banking, Insurance and

  541
  Finance Union, BIFU, and the Lloyds TSB Union, LTU, as soon as the merger was announced. It successfully concluded agreements with both unions, to each party's satisfaction, during last year's summer recess.
  The most significant features of the agreements were: equal recognition rights for BIFU and LTU in both the TSB and Lloyds banks; compulsory redundancy continuing to be a policy of last resort, with any necessary reductions in jobs coming from natural turnover, redeployment and voluntary means whenever possible; improvements when harmonising terms and conditions and guarantees on how the new terms will apply to new members of staff; and an agreed process for proposed branch reductions, whereby both unions are notified six months before any such closure.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Can my hon. Friend give us any assurance about what the agreed programme of closures might be in the short to medium term?
  Mr. Illsley: I am sorry that I am unable to assist my hon. Friend in that matter now, but I am sure that I will be able to do so in correspondence. As far as I am aware, there will be closures, but Lloyds TSB has agreed the procedures with the banking unions. I also met the unions to discuss the issue and ensure that they were satisfied with what Lloyds TSB had proposed. Both the banking unions were happy with the suggested procedures for branch closures. Perhaps my hon. Friend can seek the unions' assurances.
  Mr. Cousins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he will recognise that, as representatives, we must be concerned—like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam)—about the impact on the services to our constituents and constituencies of a programme of branch closures. That is an entirely separate issue from whatever assurances may have passed between the banking unions and, now, their employers.
  Mr. Illsley: I share my hon. Friend's concern. In my constituency, a TSB and a Lloyds branch are in close proximity. Obviously, it would make sense for the merged company to merge the two branches, closing one. However, we are talking about a de facto merger that took place two years ago. The Bill would simply give it legal status.
  As I said, Lloyds has piloted a scheme to provide banks within branches of the Asda supermarket chain, and with the Post Office, to widen as far as possible access to the services that my hon. Friend's constituents desire through the widest possible network.
  Mr. Cousins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again; it may be best for us to proceed by means of a dialogue, rather than by making speeches. My hon. Friend briefly referred to the acquisition of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society. Can he give the House some assurance about what the attitude of Lloyds TSB will be to the future of mutual institutions and to the employment and assets locked up in them?
  Mr. Illsley: That matter is not affected by the Bill. The acquisition of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society was based on the premise that it had a cost-income ratio of 26 per cent., making it the cheapest and most
  542
  efficient building society in the United Kingdom—hence the interest of Lloyds TSB. In comparison, at the time of demutualisation the Halifax building society had a cost-income ratio approaching 50 per cent. One can therefore see the advantages of buying the Cheltenham and Gloucester.
  The point was to have that mortgage service—perhaps the most efficient of any building society—available to Lloyds TSB branches throughout the country; ultimately, it might then be available through supermarket branches and post offices. The acquisition was intended to make efficient, low-cost mortgages available to Lloyds TSB customers. As far as I am aware, at present demutualisation of the Cheltenham and Gloucester is not a policy. I may be able to reassure my hon. Friend further on that point in correspondence.
  As I was saying, the relevant features of the agreements include an agreed process for proposed branch reductions, whereby both unions are notified six months before any proposed closure, and a reaffirmation of the assurances previously given regarding the TSB in Scotland. Against the background of the agreements reached with the unions and the assurances given to them, the unions withdrew their petitions after Second Reading in the other place.
  During that period, pensions were discussed with the unions, and the Lloyds TSB group assured both unions that the benefits of the separate Lloyds and TSB pension schemes would remain unaffected by the Bill. The non-contributory elements of the schemes are some of the best funded in the United Kingdom and they provide an excellent package of benefits to pensioners. In addition to the strength of funding, the schemes—as one would expect from a major financial service provider—enjoy a comprehensive framework of statutory, regulatory and fiduciary safeguards for their beneficiaries.
  The natural fit between TSB and Lloyds is multiplied in a geographical context. TSB has a concentration of branches in Scotland and the north of England, while Lloyds is strong in the south and west of England. However, the logic behind the merger was not merely one of geographical reach. Lloyds has a long tradition of providing business services for small and medium businesses, while TSB, with its tradition as a savings institution, has a particular expertise and strong presence in the personal account market.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: The hon. Gentleman referred to the pension arrangements and, as I understood it, said that those were satisfactory. Can he explain why there is such widespread concern about the pension arrangements of Hill Samuel TSB former employees? We are talking about a company that now has a massive revenue—£.3 billion, I think?—with £1 billion in its pension fund and a tax holiday until at least 2015 for current employees, yet many of us have been told that former employees of Hill Samuel TSB are having to apply for welfare benefits.
  Mr. Illsley: I hope to be able to deal with that issue later, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that meetings have taken place as recently as this lunchtime and this afternoon at which the concerns of the Hill Samuel action group, which numbers about 200 people, were addressed by Lloyds TSB. The action group proposed the use of the Hill Samuel pension surplus. Those pensions are unaffected by the Bill and are not part of the assets that

  543
  are being transferred, but a separate entity. The action group asked to use about £500 million of the surplus available in the Hill Samuel scheme.
  A few years ago, I requested from the Opposition side that the surplus from the mineworkers pension scheme be used for the benefit of former mineworkers who were on low pensions and had not been able to earn sufficient from the pensions scheme, which started in 1961, to live well. As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) may recall, the previous Government refused that request. On privatisation of the coal industry, the surplus went straight into the Government's hands.
  This issue is similar, and it is the one with which Goode committee dealt a few years ago. That committee was set up after the Maxwell pensions affair. Its recommendation was simply that a surplus in a pension scheme should be notionally owned by the organisation that supports the deficit; in other words, if the employer has to make good the deficit on any pension scheme, he takes responsibility for the surplus.
  The action group's request for £500 million was unrealistic and against the recommendations of the Goode committee. The pensions of Hill Samuel pensioners are on average £12,000 per annum compared with the UK average of £4,700. I think that the Lloyds average pension payment is about £7,000 per annum. Those average payments show that the Hill Samuel pensioners are perhaps not as low-paid as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—who I see wants to intervene—and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) today met the deputy chief executive and members of Lloyds TSB. They have been sent a letter that deals with many of the concerns of the Hill Samuel action group.
  The letter refers to the position of pensioners on low incomes. Lloyds TSB maintains that it shares the concern that exists. In fact, the company makes ex gratia payments, not out of the pension scheme but out of its funding, to pensioners on poorer pensions—those over 75 with more than 10 years' service. The payments come out of the bank's profit and loss account and not the pensions scheme, which is not reduced by them.
  Lloyds TSB states in the letter that it is "sympathetic", that it is
  "seeking to improve the position of such pensioners",
  that it wants to ensure that any additional payments are not affected by the removal of social security benefits on a pound-for-pound basis, and that it will
  "undertake a comprehensive review to examine the position of such pensioners in order to determine how their pensions can be increased within Inland Revenue guidelines and without reducing their Social Security entitlements … We anticipate that the review will take approximately six months to complete."
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman accurately said that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and I had a very long meeting with senior executives of the bank. It needs to be put firmly on the record that, although the action group suggested that a substantial part of the pension fund surplus should be used to ameliorate the position of poorly paid pensioners, that was an opening gambit to try to get the bank to talk and resolve the issue
  544
  as quickly as possible. The bank's ex gratia payments averaged about £460. We are not talking about a huge sum. I believe that that was a lump sum.
  Mr. Illsley: It is more than the mineworkers get. We asked for their pension fund surplus to be used to provide better benefits for mineworkers. They did not get ex gratia payments at all.
  We must consider what the action group is asking for in context. The whole matter was debated at the time of the Goode committee. In opposition, I called for the previous Government to divvy up the surplus in the mineworkers pension scheme for the betterment of the lower-paid pensioners. My request was refused by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
  Mr. Howarth: In my previous incarnation, I represented a number of mineworkers. I think that I would have supported the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Illsley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have spoken well in support of the mineworkers in his previous incarnation.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the negotiations with my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) are part of the statement issued by the promoters, or a new development resulting from the blocking motion?
  Mr. Illsley: They are not a result of the blocking motion. There have been some half a dozen meetings between Lloyds TSB and the Hill Samuel action group. I think that the last took place on 16 April. Lloyds TSB has tried to meet the action group and identify the issues that it wants to raise. The hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Aldershot raised concerns as recently as today. The negotiations are not a consequence of the blocking motion, because the meetings took place before it was tabled.
  Mr. Brooke: I see no specific allusion to the continuing negotiations in the statement issued on behalf of the promoters in support of the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is moving Second Reading, so I do not think that this matter should be dealt with in a winding-up speech.
  Mr. Illsley: The Hill Samuel action group and the Hill Samuel pensions are not part of the Bill, and therefore cannot be part of the statement. The negotiations took place alongside the passage of the Bill but, because they are not part of the Bill, they are not in the statement. The assets transferred under clause 8 are the assets of the Hill Samuel bank and the TSB bank, not the pension schemes, which stand alone and remain so within the group. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Cousins: I have been following the discussion closely. Does my hon. Friend agree that the presentation of the issues in paragraph 22 of the statement is less full than it should have been in these circumstances, and that it would lead hon. Members to conclude that those issues were irrelevant or had been completely resolved, when they were still under negotiation?
  Mr. Illsley: I believe that the statement was put together last week in preparation for this debate. It was

  545
  sent to the Vote Office to be ready and available for hon. Members this evening. The negotiations continued as recently as today. I have a copy of the letter sent to the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Aldershot. With their agreement, a copy can be made available to my hon. Friend. It met many of the concerns of hon. Members who supported the action group.
  Mr. McWilliam: Some hon. Members are worried that the explanation that we have been given seems to fly in the face of the realities of the fiduciary duties of pension scheme trustees. As a former chairman of a pension scheme, I am well aware of them. Paragraph 15 states:
  "The assets do not form part of the assets of either TSB or Hill Samuel."
  Such assets are not allowed to do so under the law of the land. The trustees should control the assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the schemes and not for the benefit of anyone else. Given the statement and what we have heard so far, I believe that there is concern that that may not necessarily happen.
  Mr. Illsley: I reassure my hon. Friend that the pension assets are not transferred by the Bill. They are not in the Bill. He is right to say that the trustees of the schemes are responsible for the pension scheme and have those duties. The scheme that is the subject of the action group is not in the Bill. As I tried to point out, Lloyds TSB Group has tried as far as possible to accommodate the concerns of the action group and of hon. Members who have added their names to the blocking motion. The letter sent today to the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Aldershot reflects the outcome of their long meeting with Lloyds TSB's deputy chief executive, and can be made available. That letter addresses those anxieties.
  Pensioners on low incomes are the concern of the action group. The letter from the deputy chief executive refers to
  "a comprehensive review to examine the position of such pensioners in order to determine how their pensions can be increased within Inland Revenue guidelines … We anticipate that the review will take approximately six months to complete".
  On security of pension schemes, the letter says that Lloyds TSB is
  "concerned to ensure that the position of pensioners remains fully protected in all circumstances. As you know, there is a comprehensive framework of statutory, fiduciary and fiscal protections in place for members of all of our pension schemes, for the benefit of scheme members."
  It is all in the letter, and reflects the meeting this lunchtime.
  Mr. McWilliam: My hon. Friend does not understand. There are two problems. First, if the Bill becomes law, the company trustees on the pension scheme, who will form a majority, will be appointed by the new company. Secondly, the company contributions to those schemes could be adjusted. That has happened before. British Telecom took a pensions holiday instead of transferring the benefits to the beneficiaries. That could easily happen in this case. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that or to prevent the management from appointing the chief executive, who may be a member of the scheme, and giving him a massive salary the year before he retires; suddenly, he will have raided the scheme. There are no safeguards. My hon. Friend must address those points.
  Mr. Illsley: With the best will in the world, I am trying to address them. The pension schemes are not in the Bill.
  546
  They are unaffected; before and after the Bill, they remain the same. Lloyds has given the assurance that the pension schemes will remain unaffected. The fears voiced by my hon. Friend, although legitimate, are not real.
  To address the point that was the subject of the blocking motion, Lloyds is trying to deal with the issues raised by the action group, such as the problem of low-paid pensioners under the Hill Samuel, Target Life and other pension schemes. Lloyds is very conscious of pensions issues. That was shown by the meetings over the past few weeks—as late as this lunchtime—and by the letter that has been made available. I have gone as far as I can to reassure hon. Members that the pensions remain unchanged.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: The hon. Gentleman is resting much of his case on the fact that the £1 billion-plus pension scheme is distinct from and not part of the Bill, and we accept that technical point. However, when the House considers the ramifications of the new development, it is entirely germane for us to take account of the fact that the present employees of Lloyds TSB are to give themselves a tax holiday until at least 2015; at the same time, we are informed that several former employees of Hill Samuel and TSB are suffering to the point where they have to have recourse to social security benefits to supplement an extremely meagre pension; and that is happening against a background where, for example, the chief executive and senior executives of the former Hill Samuel were awarded significant pension and salary increases. The technicality of the pension fund not being part of the Bill is not enough to satisfy the concerns that have been expressed and echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening.
  Mr. Illsley: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point; however, it is not a technicality but a fact of life that the pension schemes do not fall within the Bill and are not affected by it—they remain as they are. There will be a pensions holiday, as there are in many well-funded pension schemes—in the case of the mineworkers pension scheme, British Coal took both a pensions holiday and the surplus from the scheme. It is not unknown for there to be surpluses in pension schemes.
  The point which I am trying to make is that the pension schemes are unaffected, but the concerns that have been raised by the Hill Samuel action group have been taken into account by Lloyds as far as possible. Lloyds has repeatedly asked the Hill Samuel action group to provide details of the anomalies referred to in the letters circulated to hon. Members, but, as recently as today, the action group has not come forward with a single example. Lloyds has repeatedly asked for information on those anomalies.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot is holding up a piece of paper, but why does he not send it to Lloyds? Why did he not give it to Lloyds today? Why has information on the anomalies not been made available? Hon. Members have had the opportunity to raise those issues with Lloyds, as has the action group, but at a meeting on 16 April, those anomalies were not presented.
  I am trying to get the message through that Lloyds is addressing the issues. Conservative Members have received a letter from Mike Fairey, the deputy chief executive of Lloyds. Lloyds is trying to address the issues, which are in a sense separate from the pension scheme,

  547
  which is unaffected by the Bill. The Hill Samuel action group is using the passage of the Bill to try to address its members' concerns about their pensions, but the Hill Samuel pension scheme does not come within the Bill. As I have pointed out, the average Hill Samuel pension is £12,000 per annum, compared with a national average occupational pension of £4,700. When the Hill Samuel action group comes forward with some concrete examples as part of the review offered by Lloyds, I am sure that they will be taken into account.
  I have digressed a little from my speech, but in doing so I hope that I have addressed the concerns of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I was talking about the geographical and business set-up of Lloyds TSB and the merger. The TSB, with its tradition as a savings institution, has particular expertise and a strong presence in the personal account market; Lloyds is a strong player in the retail mortgage market after the Cheltenham and Gloucester acquisition; and TSB possesses a successful general insurance underwriting business. The natural synergies between the two banks have turned Lloyds TSB into the most successful financial services group in the European Union.
  Generally, the group's staff have seen their job prospects improve as there are broader career opportunities for those working within a stronger organisation. They have also gained through the rising share price of the company: 70,000 members of the group staff and pensioners are members of the company's save-as-you-earn scheme for buying shares.
  Lloyds TSB's 15 million customers have also gained significantly from the merger. They now enjoy access to the largest branch and cash-dispensing machine network in the United Kingdom: Lloyds TSB has 2,700 branches—30 per cent. more than its nearest competitor—and 4,220 cash-dispensing machines. Customers have the use of both TSB and Lloyds cash machines without charge and access to Cheltenham and Gloucester building society mortgages in both Lloyds and TSB branches.
  For business customers, the group's combined spread of business centres will enhance the service provided to business users, especially small businesses. In parts of the country where TSB is under-represented, TSB small business managers will work from Lloyds bank branches offering small business services to TSB customers; previously, that service was not generally available.
  Lloyds TSB's business is rooted in local communities throughout the United Kingdom, and it believes that it has a responsibility to help the communities it also serves as a business. If communities are affected by economic and social deprivation, so too is the health of Lloyds TSB's business. Lloyds TSB foundation will this year distribute £21.1 million, making it the largest grant-making body in the UK after the Diana Princess of Wales fund. The work of the foundation focuses on supporting charities, especially small, local grass-roots charities, which enable people—especially disadvantaged and disabled people—to play a fuller role in society.
  That support ranges from pensioners clubs in Newnham to a disabled access co-ordinator at the British museum. In 1997, more than 3,300 local charities received support from the foundations. The group also positively encourages staff fundraising through a matched giving scheme. From sponsored sheep shearing to bed races, the
  548
  group matches staff fund-raising activities pound for pound; in 1997, £900,000 was raised for the community in that way.
  Lloyds TSB has been working closely with the Department for Education and Employment since the end of 1996, having seconded members of its staff to the DfEE, to ensure that new deal applicants have every possible opportunity to work for Lloyds TSB. Lloyds TSB plays a significant role in supporting the education system: 600 members of its staff are school governors, so it is not surprising to hear that the group is developing a qualification for school governors in partnership with Essex county council's governor development team.
  In addition to all that, Lloyds TSB is promoting excellence in schools through its "quality in education" programme. The business excellence model used extensively with Lloyds TSB has been adapted for use in 300 schools and colleges through a pilot programme. Lloyds TSB has worked in partnership with more than 30 local education authorities to increase excellence in schools. In another move to promote a progressive approach in pursuit of academic excellence, Lloyds bank has initiated an education service "next steps" pack aimed at 16 to 18-year-olds in school. It combines traditional student notes with an interactive CD-ROM designed to prepare students for university life.
  It is not only in pursuit of broadening and deepening the skill base that Lloyds TSB makes its mark; the group is also active on the rugby field and has recently begun a three-year sponsorship of rugby union. As part of that programme, the group is supporting rugby's development in Welsh schools and, in the near future, that programme will be rolled out to include England and Scotland as well.
  Lloyds TSB is one of the largest companies in the United Kingdom, and is also one of Britain's world-beating companies. Its support for grass-roots community-based projects is unrivalled by any other UK company. It leads the City in its support for the Government's welfare-to-work initiative. It is creating wealth for the country—more than £500 million in tax went to the Treasury this year-for its staff, for its customers and for its shareholders, 70,000 of whom are members of staff.
  The merger between Lloyds and TSB is supported by more than 80,000 staff, 15 million customers, 1 million shareholders, the Bank of England and both staff unions—the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union and the Lloyds TSB Union. By anyone's standards, that adds up to overwhelming public support for the merger, and I look to the House to allow 15 million stakeholders to gain from the merger of Lloyds and TSB.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that, although I have allowed a number of lengthy interventions on the question of pensions, pensions are not the principal subject of tonight's debate, which is the Second Reading of a different matter.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) explained at length, the Bill's purpose is to complete the merger between Lloyds and TSB and, as I understand the position, it especially concerns the use of premises, the

  549
  rationalisation of premises, and the ability of staff from either side to operate mutually from either Lloyds or TSB premises. I believe that, for reasons best known to Parliament, banking is the only industry for which a private Act of Parliament is required in the event of a merger.
  I crave your indulgence a little, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to explain how my involvement came about. A constituent is one of the main parties leading the TSB Hill Samuel action group. I became involved in supporting the blocking motion as a result of an investigation of the points raised by the group.
  I believe that there is a technical issue as to whether there is a locus standi in relation to the Bill. I read out the advice of an eminent law firm, to the effect that the purpose of clause 8(2) of the Bill is indeed
  "to rationalise the pension schemes of Lloyds and TSB with the logical consequence that all schemes be merged at a future date."
  Therefore, although there is legal controversy as to what clause 8 is about and its precise relevance, there is a legal case that part of this merger Bill touches on the arrangements relating to the pension schemes—and the ability to merge the pension schemes. When merging two significant businesses, it is good practice—in terms of corporate governance, if nothing else—to study the pension schemes and ensure that the arrangements are satisfactory. If one does not do so, one is bound to receive complaints later when, inevitably, the pension schemes are merged.
  Three separate issues regarding the pension arrangements worry me. The first is that of poor pensioners, who are drawing social security when the pension scheme has a surplus of about £850 million. The second is to what extent the TSB pension scheme is effectively ring-fenced in future; and the third is the extent to which there are anomalous cases, within the TSB scheme, where treatment had differed among categories of staff who had either had their employment transferred or who were deferred pensioners because they had been made redundant.
  The letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and I have received, following a further meeting this morning, goes a reasonable way to addressing those issues. Looking beyond that, it also raises quite an important point for the House, because among the crucial issues is the extent to which pension schemes can address the issue of poor pensioners within the Inland Revenue rules.
  Practices appear to differ somewhat—depending on which Inland Revenue officers the arrangements are being discussed with—as to the extent to which the implications of the two-thirds rule can be waived when people are on a very low income. However, I confirm that the Lloyds TSB management have—to my mind, in good faith—carried out a full investigation and undertaken, in good faith, to negotiate, as best they can, with the Revenue to the advantage of pension scheme members, in order to address the issue of poor pensioners within the pension scheme.
  Similarly, the law already goes a long way to protect the interests of one group—in this case, TSB pensioners—but there is in that letter an undertaking that we had requested. It makes a proposal that is healthy and correct in relation to a business that is likely to have many deferred pensioners. The proposal is that Lloyds TSB should consider appointing a trustee who represents
  550
  deferred pensioners, so that the board of trustees and of the pension scheme is more fully representative of all participants in that scheme.
  Mr. Cousins: I am extremely interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he in a position, as a result of the discussions that he has had, to give the House an assurance that there will be such a trustee, or is that still to be negotiated and agreed?
  Mr. Flight: I am certainly not in a position to give such an undertaking—I am not part of the management of Lloyds TSB. However, to that suggestion, the response by Lloyds TSB has been:
  "we will also consider the possibility of the appointment of a deferred pensioner to the board of the TSB pension scheme"
  in the light of a suggestion that we made. I should like to think that, when the Bill passes into Committee, Lloyds TSB can make a firmer commitment, having at this stage undertaken to consider the proposal. I believe that the response was in good faith, and that the point was seen that the business has very many deferred pensioners, and that it is appropriate that they should be represented on the board of trustees.
  Anomalies appear to exist between people who have been made redundant at similar levels of seniority and among people whose employment has been transferred. There is a further issue as to whether women employees have been treated on an equal basis to male employees. The undertaking by Lloyds is that the TSB Hill Samuel action group will be invited, with its support, to invite anyone who feels that they are an anomaly—that they have not been treated fairly—to present their case to Lloyds TSB. Lloyds TSB will appoint a specific officer suitable in terms of actuarial expertise and knowledge of the pension fund to prepare the material and to look into such cases, and the management have also said that they will undertake to furnish full evidence to the pensions ombudsman if internal agreement cannot be reached.
  I am not entirely clear whether the pension ombudsman is the ideal party to be the ultimate referee in such a matter, or whether it would be more appropriate to have an independent actuary. However, those are the three key issues relating to the position of TSB pensioners that arise because, although the major purpose of the Bill is the merging of premises and operations, beneath it, and to some extent included in it, are measures for the merger of the pension schemes.
  The objectives of the TSB Hill Samuel action group were to address three specific problems: poor pensioners; anomalies; and ring-fencing protection. The responses from Lloyds TSB go a long way, and probably about as far as one can go practically, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central. In Committee, I hope that we shall be able to monitor progress. Lloyds has undertaken to advise my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot and me of the anomalies that come up and how they have been dealt with.
  The most important reasons behind my initiation of the blocking motion have, at the very last hour, been dealt with reasonably by Lloyds TSB. Therefore, I have no wish to stand in the way of the wider rationalisation of the business that is the essential purpose of the Bill. Still, I hope that the House will have the opportunity to review progress on some aspects of what has been promised when the Bill reaches Committee.
  8 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I declare an interest as a customer of the Trustee Savings bank of more than 30 years. I also draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union supports my constituency. I am not aware of any involvement by that organisation in Lloyds TSB, nor have I received any representations from it. I merely draw attention to the fact in the interests of openness.
  The House rarely gets an opportunity to discuss the rapidly developing nitty-gritty of our financial services. I hope that, as Government legislation proceeds in this Session and the next, we may have other opportunities to return to those matters. It is sometimes necessary for hon. Members to use opportunities such as this to bring before the House matters that can appear arcane; indeed, the whole procedure might be described as a contrivance. Be that as it may, if this is the only opportunity we have, then we must use it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) have already mentioned the importance of the Lloyds TSB merger. It is a significant financial institution, not just to this country but across the world. In this House, we have all too few opportunities to discuss those great financial institutions. The Bill comes before us at a time when global financial services are exploding, and there is a great deal of volatility and uncertainty around. It is thus entirely proper that hon. Members should raise the concerns of particular communities, constituencies and individuals in the context of such spectacular institutional developments.
  In the light of the discussions that I have had with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and of the information that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs has given us, I do not feel the need to go into the subject in any great detail; I simply register the point that it is entirely proper that Members should use these opportunities to force some discussion.
  This is by no means a trivial matter. In the context of the emergence of a single group of employees and the amalgamation of property, it is quite understandable that hon. Members should wish to discuss the importance of branch networks to their communities—not to mention the employment created by those networks and the services that they represent. It is beyond dispute that Lloyds and TSB branches sit side by side, so we are entitled to seek an assurance from the promoters that employment will not be lost as a result of the Bill.
  What we have been told tonight, and common sense, shows us that some employment will be lost as a result of the merger. We are entitled to press the case of the employees, and to make the point that any reduction in those networks, and in the services they represent and the employment they create, should be kept to an absolute minimum—especially at a time when the Government are proposing imaginative developments in an area of financial services in which Lloyds TSB may want to play a part. I hope that, by the time that the Bill returns to us, there will be a general outline of the assurances we seek.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central referred to the acquisition of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society. Many Members are extremely worried about the integrity of the remaining insurance and building society mutual institutions. What
  552
  will be the likely attitude of this huge merged institution to the acquisition of such mutual institutions? What will be the general strategy of the merged institution to the integrity and independence of the remaining mutuals? We need some answers before the Bill enters Committee.
  Of course, one can see the financial advantages to Lloyds TSB of being able to acquire a building society; that enables it to offer a wider range of services, including mortgages. We are nevertheless entitled to ask the promoters about their longer-term intentions to the acquisition of mutual institutions, whether in the insurance or the building society sectors. We have been given some welcome signs of the intentions of the merged institution this evening—for instance, the creation of a pilot scheme allowing access to savings and financial services through the Post Office. We are entitled to ask for more information of that kind: how does the scheme fit in with some of the Government's proposals to extend the habit of saving to parts of the population that have no net financial assets at all? Again, I hope to have some information about the attitude of Lloyds TSB to those issues before the Bill returns to us in Committee.
  During the past week, the Government have made some welcome proposals in Newcastle for health action zones and education action zones—this in a city with a long history of commitment to the TSB and the trustee savings bank movement. I am entitled to press the case for some specific commitments on the part of Lloyds TSB to those Government initiatives, both in my city and on Tyneside generally. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and the promoters of the Bill will take due note of my remarks.
  In my closing remarks, I return to the subject of pensions. I am conscious of your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they do not directly and explicitly form part of the topic of the Bill, and I shall not dwell on them unduly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central made clear in his appropriate and general riposte to Opposition Members, there is a principle behind the specific proposals: that pension funds are not simply financial assets to be deployed by their owners in any way that may be chosen. They are the deferred income of the contributors.
  That is the principle that we established in the Goode Committee report. That is the principle, to which my hon. Friend correctly referred, that was at issue in the mineworkers pension scheme changes that he so much, and in my view properly, regrets. That is the principle that we must preserve. If it produces some apparent peculiarities—there may be pension funds that are asset-rich—so be it, but the principle must be preserved, because it means so much not just for the employees of Hill Samuel and Lloyds TSB, but for pensioners everywhere. Hon. Members should not take the matter lightly or pass up an opportunity to register the point.
  A particularly significant aspect of the proposals is the need to respect the rights and interests of deferred pensioners. In today's flexible labour market, deferred pensioners are becoming an ever-growing client body of pension schemes whose proper interests are too little recognised and too often ignored. The sign that there may be a specific representative of the interests of deferred pensioners on the trustee bodies of the pension scheme is important. I hope that that will happen.

  553
  In my attitude to Second Reading, I shall be guided by the remarks of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. I shall bear in mind the account that he gave of his discussions today with Lloyds TSB. That will greatly influence my actions tonight.
  The subject matter that forms part of the Bill is not some arid technical detail. There are important human principles involved that matter to many hon. Members. If the debate has given hon. Members on both sides an opportunity to raise those matters and to register those points with a great financial institution, the House of Commons will indeed have been doing its duty.
  8.12 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Like several hon. Members, I was drawn to the debate by the concerns of the action group, and its members in my constituency and in the constituencies of my parliamentary colleagues. It has become clear from the debate, especially from the effective contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), that there is a wider context that we must address—the merger process in the banking sector, and its implications.
  Some of the forces driving that process are inevitable or desirable, and we should endorse those factors. An enormous process of technological change is clearly under way, and it is altering the face of retail banking. I have in my constituency the multimedia centre of one of the big banks that is developing internet banking, which will make much of the face-to-face contact in retail banking superfluous in years to come. In addition, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central described, an international process is taking place. What used to be a national industry is becoming international. That helps to explain the logic behind the Bill coming before the House.
  We should not be deceived into taking such matters on the nod. There is undoubtedly a purely financial phenomenon taking place. There is at present a shareholder bubble in the financial sector which has driven bank shares up to extremely high and probably unsustainable levels, in the process making shareholders very well off, but fuelling the merger mania that surrounds the financial sector, often with questionable benefit.
  It has been suggested that the House has a unique constitutional role in looking at merger activity in the financial services sector. No one has explained to me as a new Member how that originated, but it seems to me to be a valuable part of the scrutiny process, and we should take advantage of it.
  It seems a little odd that, in such a major merger, the only legal considerations that have been entered into hitherto are the interests of the shareholders and the directors. It is a good discipline to ask whether customers benefit. The House is effectively being asked to deliver the customers, and we should act for them. It is not entirely clear that bank customers have benefited from merger activity in the past. Customers have often experienced slipshod services and rising costs, and that should be questioned. That is part of the scrutiny process in the House tonight.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and others have dealt well with the pensions issue. The hon. Gentleman made a useful distinction
  554
  between the concerns of the present—concerns about past disparities between different groups of pensioners in the TSB Hill Samuel fund and the poor pensioners, and the ring-fencing problem.
  There is a little more to be said about the ring-fencing issue. There will be serious challenges to the trustees of the pension fund in future from two directions in particular. First, if this bank merger proceeds like most others, waves of redundancy will follow. Many current bank employees will be made redundant. The issue of deferred pensions and the need to protect them will be important.
  The second issue, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, is that this is probably not the end of mergers and acquisitions in the retail banking sector. There is already a good deal of speculation in the City about the possibility of mergers between one or other of the big four, involving possibly Lloyds TSB and Barclays, National Westminster or Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. That could well happen, and we need to be assured that the pension arrangements contained in the Bill will be protected in any future change of ownership arrangements.
  In the course that we now take, we are guided by those who have been negotiating on behalf of the action group. I welcome the opportunity to put on the record the interests of the action group and the wider concerns about where this financial amalgamation is leading.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: This is proving to be a useful and interesting debate. I am reinforced in my conviction that I was right in the first place to join my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) in adding my name to the blocking motion, so that the matter could be aired and the issues arising from the merger could be considered in greater detail than the House is usually able to do.
  I make it clear from the outset that it was never my intention to stand in the way of a commercial decision by the shareholders of the relevant institutions to join forces. I have a background in the City. Before I entered the House, I spent my last two and a half years in the City working for a merged bank, which was called Standard Chartered bank. I am aware that even today, there are those in the Standard Chartered bank who are the Standard bank people and those who are the Chartered bank people. I wish Lloyds TSB every success in merging, but I dare say that for a long time to come, there will be TSB people and Lloyds people.
  It is not the role of the House to second-guess the commercial judgment about whether the shareholders were right to make that decision. However, it is right that we should have the opportunity of debating these issues. I was drawn to the debate because one of the leading lights in the TSB Hill Samuel action group, a chap called Billy James who was at Hill Samuel when I was at Standard Chartered, and who took me through the intricate business of interest swap deals, raised the issues with me.
  I do not for a moment claim to be a pensions expert, but I understand something about the politics of the issue, which has caused concern throughout the House and among former employees of some of the constituent parts of the proposed merged group.

  555
  I do not think that the bank has addressed the politics of the move properly or effectively. Dismissing the action group as simply representing 200 people and questioning its motives are not favourable grounds for launching an assault on that group's case. In large measure, the action group comprises former senior executives of the bank. The former chairman of Hill Samuel bank, Sir Robert Clark, is chairman of the action group, and he is not a man to be dismissed lightly. I do not think that it is good politics to question the motives of people such as him. He and his colleagues have been anxious to draw to the attention of the House the difficulties experienced by poorer pensioners.
  The politics seems fairly straightforward: a pension fund had almost £1,000 million in surplus and the employer declared a contributions holiday not for three, five or 10 years, but for nearly 20 years. That is a long time. I have been told that pensioners belonging to the pension fund of the world's most profitable bank—Lloyds bank—were claiming or were eligible for income support. That is something of an affront, and the problem should be addressed.
  It is not sufficient for the bank to say, "We were constrained by rules that apply to other pension funds." The House cannot ignore that situation, and clause 8 addresses the question of pension funds. It is not sensible politics for poorer pensioners to claim income support when there are huge top-ups to the pension funds of former and existing directors. The Bill's sponsor, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), has told us that £460 is being made available to poorer pensioners. I do not think that the politics of that decision is favourable.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central was correct in saying that the action group has sought to use the passage of the Bill through the House to draw attention to its concerns. It has made no secret of that fact: that is precisely what it is doing. It is unfortunate from the point of view of the bank, its employees and shareholders that, unlike other commercial amalgamations, the procedure is subject to the approval of this place. The hon. Gentleman explained very lucidly—I must confess that it was the first time I had heard it—exactly why the banks must do it this way. In a sense, that is bad luck for the bank concerned.
  One of my constituents is a senior executive of the bank, and he appreciates the rationale underlying the merger. We do not wish to impair the effectiveness of our financial institutions or the City. They make a tremendous contribution to the British economy and we do not want them to be constrained. My constituent believes that it is unfair that pension anomalies or the problems of the pensions industry should be resolved on the back of this Bill. I understand his point of view, but we cannot ignore what is before us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and I are grateful to the senior management of Lloyds TSB for sparing considerable time today—they spoke to my hon. Friend last week as well—attempting to address the concerns that we relayed on behalf of the action group. The management made several very fair points, not least of which is that this pension fund is only one of about 14. This pension fund is significant because it is in substantial surplus.
  556
  The only other fund in a comparable position is the Lloyds bank pension fund, which I believe is in surplus to the tune of £1.1 billion. However, that pension fund has more members than the TSB Hill Samuel fund. There is a pension holiday in that fund as well. Senior management pointed out that any treatment of anomalies or improvements in the lot of those on small pensions in the TSB Hill Samuel fund would, in equity, have to be dealt with across the range of other pensions in the enlarged group. I understand that argument.
  As my hon. Friend said, we obtained certain undertakings today, for which we are grateful, and we received a letter from the bank, which has been referred to frequently this evening. Although that letter was sent to my hon. Friend and me—it is marked "strictly private and confidential"—I am glad that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central was able to read it into the record. I am sure that he was right to do so. We are invited to accept those undertakings in good faith, but I believe that they should also be given to Parliament, as the legislation is before the House. I invite the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central to agree with senior people at Lloyds TSB that the undertakings given to my hon. Friend and me should be made specifically to the House. That would be extremely helpful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned the key issues as far as we are concerned. We understand that the fund cannot be ring-fenced. I am grateful to Mike Fairey, the deputy chief executive of Lloyds TSB, for pointing out that the bank would not contemplate using the assets of one fund—particularly this one—to bolster another less healthy fund. We seek some assurance that the bank does not envisage having to seize part of that surplus in the foreseeable future to bolster a weaker pension fund. Such an assurance would go a long way towards meeting the concerns of the action group.
  I am conscious of the fact that the fund is not the property of the members: it comprises contributions from the bank over the years. As we are invited to understand from the advertisements on Classic FM and elsewhere, investments can fall as well as rise. The fund is enjoying a substantial surplus at present, in part because of the state of the market.
  However, it is worth reinforcing the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that these pension funds represent the deferred incomes of employees. In exchange for accepting a lower salary when they joined the bank—many TSB employees were on low salaries compared with those offered by other banks—the deal was that they had jolly good pension arrangements. One could argue that those pension arrangements may have influenced people's decisions to join that institution.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) made the point that, although the scheme is not being transferred—it remains intact—the trustees will be appointed by the bank. Perhaps the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central can assist me on this point. Once the legislation is passed and the merger is completed, the bank will be able to nominate its people to serve on the board of trustees. Although they will not be in the majority, they will nevertheless enjoy parity with the chairman and other members who will constitute the board, as we discussed before lunch today.

  557
  The power of the new, merged bank to appoint its nominated trustees would clearly move from TSB Hill Samuel to the new bank of Lloyds TSB. If the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central can give us an undertaking that the bank will make clear its intentions vis-a-vis the fund to the House rather than to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and me, that would be welcome.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central said that ex gratia payments were made to a number of low-paid pensioners. However, these payments were not hugely significant. I have some examples of inequalities, which were sent by Billy James to Lloyds TSB on Friday. The paper that I was waving earlier was in the hands of Lloyds TSB, and I quoted part of it this morning. If a former secretary aged 70 with about 15 years of service is receiving £102 a month, how does that sit with someone like Hugh Friedberg, who picks up £650,000 of enhancement to his pension? There must be some equity. The concern of some of us that there is not equity has brought us to question the passage of the Bill.
  We are told that a pensioner with 29 years of service, now aged 83, is too proud to disclose her exact pension, but admits that it is well below the poverty line. The pension scheme representatives suggested that she should approach the bank's benevolent fund to pay for her hearing aid. Come off it! We are talking about the richest or most successful bank in the world, so we are told. Such issues must be seriously addressed because they represent poor politics.
  I do not claim to understand all the intricacies of the Inland Revenue rules. However, I know that the National Association of Pension Funds has suggested that the rulebook, containing about 1,300 rules, should be burned and thrown away, and that life might be much better thereafter. The bank, in good faith, should deal with the anomalies that have arisen.
  There has been discrimination against women. I understand that one of the corporate financiers transferred to Close Brothers—she was transferred from the Hill Samuel corporate finance department—discovered that a male colleague of equivalent rank and length of service was being offered a deferred pension entitlement about 30 per cent. more than that offered to her. Inquiries were made and the relevant actuary admitted that as on average the promotion prospects of women were less good than those of men, female executives were offered lower deferred pension entitlements than their male equivalents. That is not fair, and the issue should be addressed. I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central will be able to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to the suggestion that he made to the bank today that it should appoint a deferred pensioner to sit with the trustees of the fund. The bank has said that it will consider that. I invite the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central to consult the bank and ask it whether it will give a clear-cut assurance that it will appoint such a pensioner, rather than saying that it will consider so doing. It would not be a great commitment to give; indeed, it is one that the bank should be able readily to give. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will so consult the bank.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and I are relying quite substantially—I think that the House is looking to us to some extent because we are
  558
  in possession of information which, I may add, I saw only at 6 pm, through no fault of the promoter, because I was otherwise engaged—on the good faith of the bank in terms of what it has undertaken to do. I think that the bank should agree to the appointment of an independent assessor. The pensions ombudsman will not be too keen to act as a court of appeal. It would be better if an independent actuary were appointed, with the agreement of both sides, so that he or she could take up anomalies and the position of lower-paid pensioners. If that were done, there would be a considerable improvement.
  The House has raised some important questions, and it is important to understand that there is real concern outside the House. I think that the bank is now aware of that concern and is anxious to resolve problems. It has demonstrated its good faith to us. If it can give the assurances to the House that my hon. Friend and I have received from it, enhanced as I have suggested to the House, the Bill is likely to have a swift passage.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to be called after my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I shall come on to what he said, with which I broadly agreed, in a moment. The blocking motion tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is of considerable benefit to the House, in that it has provided us with the occasion for the debate.
  I must declare a series of brief and fairly minor interests. About 30 years ago I was a consultant to Hill Samuel when it was an independent company. My wife is a shareholder in Lloyds TSB in a general personal equity plan, and I must say that it has done her very well. The corporate headquarters of Lloyds TSB is within my constituency. The bank has not sought to make any representations to me in a constituency capacity, other than those represented by the general vehicle of the statement issued on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, which was placed in the Vote Office. One of the senior Lloyds TSB executives, who is referred to in the Hill Samuel action group briefing, is one of my oldest friends. Finally, I am the chairman of the building societies' ombudsman council, which has not been without its passages of arms with the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society.
  I came to the issue that is before the House, as have other hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, as a consequence of correspondence from constituents. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) referred to the action group as consisting of only 200 people; indeed, the promoters' statement does likewise. I know that no one intended to be derogatory by quoting that figure, but those constituents who wrote to me were, in their day, household names in corporate finance. It seemed significant that they were writing, as much as on behalf of anybody, on behalf of the 600 or 700 pensioners who were being looked after under the present TSB arrangements.
  I acknowledge the benefits that flow from rationalisation in the financial sector. The present stock market is considerably influenced in an era of price stability by the gains that can be made from the proposed rationalisation. I believe that, until the recent price fall,

  559
  Lloyds TSB had the greatest market value of any bank in the world. I recognise the need for the Bill. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central spoke eloquently to its advantages and what would flow from it.
  I recall that, in 1992, one of the factors that was thought to handicap Lloyds in making a bid for the Midland bank when the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation made its bid was that it would have to go through just such a Bill as the one that is before us, and would not be able to realise the benefits from the merger as quickly as the Hongkong and Shanghai would do from outside.
  In addition to the impact on market behaviour, there will be an effect on customers in such circumstances, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said. I have previously quoted in the House C. S. Lewis's observation that, if one hears of someone doing good to others, one
  "can always tell the others by their hunted expression."
  When banks write to me about the benefits that will flow to me as their customer from a reorganisation of their affairs, I find that that is not always the case to the last iota, although I salute the TSB Foundation, which has done remarkable work and is a friend to hon. Members.
  The pensions issue which has driven much of the debate comes back to old arguments about risk against reward. For a long time, commercial banking on either side of the Atlantic—I am looking back to before and after the war—was an industry in which people did not expect to be especially well rewarded, but were certain of a job for life. Market circumstances in the 1970s and early 1980s changed that. What was effectively an unspoken contract between employees and the banking industry—I am talking about the clearing banks—was inevitably disturbed and overturned. Ructions have subsequently flowed from that. Those observations apply obviously and particularly to TSB. Hill Samuel was in a different business where risks were greater but so were rewards, and there were pension differences, to which the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central referred.
  Hon. Members have quoted material put out by the Hill Samuel action group about discrimination and fair treatment. The speed of events has created a gap in the briefing of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central about what the action group has provided to Lloyds TSB in the past week. I do not hold that against him in any way, but there should be a sense of transparency and a perception that people are being fairly treated, especially in the climate of concern about pensions which the Government have clearly and directly reinforced.
  Although it is alleged that the Bill has nothing to do with pensions, the sponsor of the Bill referred to pensions and clause 8 deals with retirement benefits schemes. There has been continuing activity and negotiation, but there was no reference to that in the statement that was put in the Vote Office. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, I am not left thinking, "These are deep waters, Watson," but they seem a little deeper than on first impression from the information that we were vouchsafed. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs says that there is a connection between the recent flurry of negotiations and the blocking motion, although the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central says that there is not.
  I acknowledge the virtues of the Bill; given the current climate and perceptions, however, hon. Members would be failing in their scrutiny of such legislation if they took
  560
  everything on trust. That applies as much to the network, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) referred, as to the pensioners. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central should deal with an issue to which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have alluded. In the Hill Samuel Action Group briefing, there is a parenthesis in the section that refers to the pension scheme surplus, which states:
  "Lloyds TSB appear to have told friendly current employees that the TSB Group Pension Scheme is already ring fenced, which it is not and which Lloyds TSB categorically refuse to do."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot told us what the deputy chief executive said to him. It is not totally clear from that sentence in the briefing where truth lies. A specific contradiction of evidence is involved, so the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central would do the House a service if he dissected the sentence and said precisely where truth lies and why. We should find out what has been said to give that contrary impression.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs for his diligence in dealing with Lloyds TSB. As he said, we can return to the matter on Third Reading. I hope that, by then, Lloyds TSB will have concluded its consideration of whether to have a pensioner trustee, so that we shall know one way or another.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Illsley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall address the concerns that have been raised: we have had a frank and open exchange of views; whether it has been generated by the blocking motion remains to be seen.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was gracious in his comments about the meetings, and referred to issues in the letter, which should be taken at face value and in the spirit in which it was offered. I am sure that Lloyds TSB will honour assurances given in it.
  I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) that the letter was marked "strictly private and confidential". I have referred to it at length and apologise for that, but those references have contributed to the debate. I am sure that the assurances given by Lloyds TSB to hon. Members will count and that it will stand by them.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that private Bills can be an obscure method of achieving an outcome, and could be described as a contrivance. Perhaps the procedure will be improved in the fulness of time. I also agree that the issues are not trivial and that interesting matters have been raised. I take on board what he said about employment issues. As a Member of Parliament, I have always defended employment and jobs, and would not have agreed to sponsor the Bill had I not been reassured on closures and jobs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central mentioned the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society, which was given five years' autonomy and independence at the time of the acquisition. It is now part of Lloyds, but I have been assured that there is no plan to change its status as a consequence of the merger or of any other issue. As far as I am aware, it will remain

  561
  independent. I undertake to give my hon. Friend any information that is available from Lloyds TSB about the post office initiative.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) questioned the benefits to customers. I listed some of them earlier, and will not bore hon. Members by repeating them. His remarks about internet banking in his constituency reinforces my point about footfall in branches: people with access to the internet and direct banking prefer that system to going to branches. He also referred to a further acquisition, but in view of the problems that I have had getting the Bill through the House, I hope that it is a long way down the line.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Aldershot that this is a good opportunity to debate the issues. Without wishing to be derogatory to any of its members, I said that the Hill Samuel action group had only 200 members and mentioned in the same breath the number of shareholders, customers and people who want the House to approve the de facto merger.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot also graciously referred to meetings with Lloyds over the past few days, and asked for further undertakings about the deferred pensioner trustee. I cannot go further than the letter that has been sent to him, but Lloyds will have taken his remarks on board. I shall ask Lloyds TSB to consider whether the assurance can be reinforced and made more concrete. However, I am sure that Lloyds will genuinely and sincerely consider what has been said in the debate. It will study the speeches closely and try to deal with those as far as it can.
  562
  I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said about differences in pensions, particularly in relation to male and female employees. I have always supported equal opportunities and, if what he says is true, obviously that is a cause for concern. Again, I am sure that Lloyds TSB will address that in future meetings, either with Conservative Members or with the action group.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for a clear-cut assurance on an independent assessor. Again, I will put that to the bank. It has taken on board what has been said. If it can go further than what is in the letter about an independent assessor and pensions ombudsman, I am sure that it will wish to accommodate the action group's wishes and those of Conservative Members.
  I take on board what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said about the membership of the Hill Samuel action group, but I still think that that has to be weighed against the number of customers and shareholders who have voted for the merger to go ahead. I thank him for his comments regarding the TSB Foundation, of which he is obviously aware in view of his constituency interest.
  I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman said about the decreasing levels of pensions, the steps by the present Government to deal with that and the pension reviews that are taking place. On the assurance about ring fencing, which appears in the Hill Samuel action group briefing material, I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to what was said at the meeting with his two colleagues and the deputy chief executive. I am sure that the deputy chief executive will stand by that and by what was said as recently as this lunchtime.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

  Agriculture (West Dorset)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I read in the summary agenda that is now helpfully provided that we have until 10.30 for this debate, but I hasten to reassure both you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister who kindly attends that I have no intention of dragging out my remarks for any such period.
  Just before the recess, perhaps somewhat mischievously, I asked a question—at what should have been Prime Minister's Question Time, but turned out to be questions to the Deputy Prime Minister due to the absence of the Prime Minister on more important business—about whether there was a place for dairy farming in particular in the Prime Minister's vision of cool Britannia. I was reassured to hear the Deputy Prime Minister tell us that, in the view of Ministers', there was a place for dairy farming.
  I asked that question partly because of my experiences in West Dorset of the current state of farming and of allied industries, and partly because of the evidence, which I think is mounting, of the attitude of Ministers in the relevant Department to that state of affairs, and their vision of how it might evolve. It is those two points that I want to deal with this evening.
  The first of those concerns—the concern about the actual state of farming and of allied industries in West Dorset—is born in on me, as I am sure it is on many of my hon. Friends and many Labour Members, almost daily by correspondence, meetings and visits to farms. As the Minister will be aware, West Dorset is a constituency that happens to contain an economy that, apart from some high-tech activity and tourism, depends almost entirely on the welter of services that administer to farming, and on farming itself. Therefore, for anyone representing such a constituency, what is going on in farming in such a place is of urgent concern.
  The pattern revealed in the dry statistics, where we are frequently reminded that farm incomes have dropped by between 30 and 40 per cent., is not the pattern in West Dorset, where it is far more exaggerated. I hope that, without unduly trying the Minister's patience, I can do something that I fear, from my experience in Whitehall and perhaps from his experience as a Minister, too seldom happens: to try to bring home to him and to his Department issues that come to a constituency Member directly, but that often for a Minister are filtered through layers of charming and intelligent bureaucrats, to the point where perhaps some of the poignancy is evened out.
  I quote just a few of what are in fact several hundred such letters from West Dorset farmers and people in industries connected with farming there. A well-known farmer writes:
  "We … rear first class, quality beef, pork and lamb and we can assure you that the fluctuations in the livestock market over the last year have crippled our business. Over the last twenty years our situation has never been more difficult."
  Another equally well-known farmer writes:
  "We are established farmers"—
  564
  we are talking here of a substantial farm—
  "working hard against the odds to avoid going out of our profession and becoming a drag on the public purse."
  We are talking here not of a diminution of income, but of making losses and going out of business.
  A third farmer writes:
  "My own farm income"—
  this is a smaller farm—
  "is so reduced that after all the long hours worked by myself and my family—"
  I am sure that the Minister will not want to deny that farmers are a hard-working breed—
  "at the end of the day our business is running at a loss.
  How long can we carry on like this?"
  However, it is by no means true that such letters come only from farmers. I have one from a concern that perhaps even in the Minister's view and certainly in that of the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister, might have nothing to do with farming: structural engineers, steel stockholders and building contractors in my constituency. It says:
  "I also remind you of the problems in the rural areas of the traders and people who run businesses and employ people serving agriculture. Farmers are the first to reinvest in the economy when they have the opportunity but clam up when things go against them. This results in terrible hardship for support industries."
  Nowhere is the case more poignant than in relation to dairy farms in my constituency. One writes to me:
  "the milk price has dropped.
  That has resulted in a fall of income of £85,000 in our business.
  Currently our milk is trading at 5 p a litre less than 12 Months ago and we certainly expect 1998 … will be dramatically worse."
  Another dairy farmer writes to me:
  "If things do not improve in the foreseeable future, I may possibly have to move to Greece … This would not be an easy decision to make as my family have been farming in Dorset for at least 3 generations."
  Therefore, a group of small and medium farmers and people who work in industries supporting farming, who are well-established, hard-working people, operating fairly efficient businesses—often very efficient businesses—face not a drop of a third or so in their incomes, but, perhaps because they have borrowed from the banks, leased quota or some combination, or because they have a debt burden stretching back some years, which they are now unable to finance, the likelihood of going out of business in the near future. The problem extends not just to them but to large farms.
  One farm in my constituency comprises more than 900 acres, and has a dairy herd and considerable cereal crops. Its owners have presented me not only with anecdotes but with accounts, as have many other farmers. They are experiencing a drop in income not of 30 per cent. but of 80 per cent. for 1997 compared with 1996. As the Minister will realise, that is for a year which by no means reflects the full effects of the pound on farming in general. In 1998, we can expect that the 900-acre farm, which is perhaps one of the larger and more efficient general farms in the United Kingdom, will be making a loss.
  Mr. Robert Walter: My hon. Friend and I both represent Dorset, and many of the businesses to which he referred cover both our constituencies. Like him, I have received many letters, and I should like to

  565
  read briefly from a piece written by a firm of chartered surveyors which has offices in both our constituencies. It states:
  "There is a sense of impending agricultural recession and gloom. Farmers by nature have for many years complained about prices and the weather and to some extent I feel have "cried wolf' but now the wolf has arrived … farmers accounts which in many cases end on 31 March will show a significant difference for this year compared to last. For instance I have seen accounts from a 240 acre farm which is farmed by three brothers and their wives; last year they made a profit of £60,000, this year they expect half this … this is only £10,000 a family which is very little return compared with all the work put in and the capital employed."
  I hope that that helps my hon. Friend, and makes it clear that the problem he is outlining is common throughout the county of Dorset.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I do not want the debate to spill beyond the borders of West Dorset.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he makes clear a situation that is poignantly felt in West Dorset. I shall not try the patience of the House, but I could echo many times over the sentiments that he describes. I have presented only a small selection of the several hundred letters that I have received.
  I referred to the attitude of Ministers. I in no way accuse Ministers of bad faith or irrationality, but I do not think that I am speculating or being unfair in what I am about to say, because the evidence is mounting that they have adopted a clear and ostensibly rational position which is remarkable, and quite contrary to that adopted over the past 50 to 100 years by Ministers concerned with agriculture. The evidence comes not only from their public statements but from what they have said in private when visiting my constituency, and from what they have said to the National Farmers Union when discussing such matters with it.
  It is clear that Ministers believe that farming, and, I suppose it has to be said, all the allied trades, have to be seen in much the same light in which Baroness Thatcher once saw the coal mines. At least, that is how we see it in West Dorset.
  Ministers appear to believe that farms in constituencies such as mine—farms ranging from perhaps 50 to 1,000 or 2,000 acres—are intrinsically uneconomic. They believe that such farms have been propped up by years of unfair subsidy, and that, in a new wave of Blairite Thatcherism, they should be driven out of business by a harsh but entirely scrupulous and detailed attention to economic reality. I think that Ministers feel that farmers need to be made to face that harsh cold reality, just as Baroness Thatcher felt that it was necessary to make the miners face reality when she removed the subsidies that propped up their pits.
  It is not ignoble for Ministers to wish to create circumstances in which businesses—farms are certainly businesses—have to face economic reality. I suppose that I have spent the whole of my so far paltry political life supporting that general view, but I fear that an error is now being made. Perhaps it stems from the fact that Ministers have not attended closely enough to the origins of the theory that they so devoutly espouse.
  When Baroness Thatcher and others attacked the subsidies that propped up uneconomic industries, they did so precisely because they believed that those industries
  566
  were intrinsically uneconomic. Therein lies the vast gulf between the coal mines and fanning. I cannot speak for all of them, but the vast majority of the farms in West Dorset are not intrinsically uneconomic. They can compete on a level playing field and in an open market, and, to my considerable surprise, I find that they are willing to do so.
  When I was first chosen as a candidate in West Dorset, and when I was subsequently elected, I thought that I would face a near lynch mob when I addressed farmers and I espoused free market principles. I found the very opposite—farmers in West Dorset are quite content to face a genuine open market on a genuine level playing field. However, there is not a level playing field; there is not an open market.
  On the contrary, the Agriculture Minister constantly tells us that it is part of his agenda to undo the common agricultural policy. Therefore, Ministers must have fully realised that there is such a thing as the CAP. What is it? It is a massive array of props and subsidies, in the main for farmers on the continent, who are much smaller and less efficient. They are being kept in business by that array of subsidies. It is against those farmers—not wholly, but predominantly—that the farmers of West Dorset must compete. There is no open market or level playing field; there is a multifarious and hugely complex system of changing subsidy.
  In fact, the situation is worse than that. My farmers have to face other obstacles, quite apart from the subsidies enjoyed by farmers against whom they are competing—they have to face particularly intense environmental, health and safety, and animal welfare legislation. If it would not try the patience of the House, I could read out letter after letter on those issues. My farmers daily find, when they compare their lives and working habits with those of their competitors, that they are constantly at a disadvantage.
  I shall cite just one example, but it is a striking one. When the whole vexed issue of beef on the bone arose, the Minister of State and the Minister of Agriculture had the opportunity to insist that beef could be imported only if it satisfied the ultimate test that would have ensured that it could not have infected ganglia, if we are to believe the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee report. The Minister could have insisted that only beef under 30 months old could be imported, because the SEAC report makes it perfectly clear that only beef over 30 months old has shown any trace of infected ganglia.
  Had the Minister done that, he would have had to ban all imports from all countries that have had the slightest trace of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, other than the United Kingdom, because no other country where there has been BSE has instituted an over-30-months scheme. The Minister chose not to do that, and so failed to remedy one of the aspects that we can describe only as a non-level playing field.
  The over-30-months scheme happens to have attached to it the subsidies that make it tolerable for my farmers, but there are many other cases of schemes, rules or laws being introduced—sometimes European directives being enforced too vigorously by our officials—that make it extraordinarily difficult for our farmers to compete on a fair basis against, for example, Italian farmers, who benefit from a somewhat more lax—some may say more realistic or less rigorously proper—application of European directives.

  567
  The burden of my argument is that West Dorset farmers are not in the position suggested by dry statistics. They are not suffering a one-third drop in income—in many cases they are suffering drops of 70 to 80 per cent.—
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I, too, represent a farming constituency, and the problems are the same in Shropshire as they are in Dorset.
  Is it not incredibly frustrating for dairy and beef farmers that world demand for their products is increasing in a straight line? Indeed, world demand for dairy products is increasing annually at a rate of 10 to 15 per. cent. Because of the astonishing improvement in the nutritional demands of the huge Chinese population, demand for beef is growing. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is making sceptical gestures. He is ignoring the reality that, given a free market and an unshackling of the appalling burdens placed upon them, farmers in Shropshire and Dorset could prosper and take advantage of an expanding world market for their products.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as that is exactly the burden of the second part of my argument. My farmers could prosper in an open market, but they do not face an open market—it is a rigged market in many different respects. It is partly rigged by things beyond Ministers' immediate control, such as the CAP and the failures of the World Trade Organisation, and partly by things which are, to a degree, within Ministers' control—our regulations.
  Together, those matters mean that the farmers of west Dorset—and hence the chain of suppliers that depend upon them—are not the intrinsically uneconomic coal miners whom the noble Lady Thatcher wished to deprive of their subsidies. They are a different breed. They have been reduced to their present state by Government and intergovernmental action. It therefore behoves the Government to take action to remedy the problem.
  Within the CAP are the means to remedy, in part, the particular deficiencies from which my farmers suffer. For example, there is agrimonetary compensation. I hate the CAP in all its devices. I hate nothing more than the device of the green pound, which I associate—emotionally and partly intellectually—with single currencies and other abhorrent devices. However, the green pound had the one great advantage of having associated with it agrimonetary compensation. That was an effort to ensure that, in this "Alice in Wonderland" world of subsidies—and hence intrinsically unlevel playing fields—the playing field could be relevelled by adjusting for exchange rate differentials.
  I do not suppose for a moment that Ministers wish to continue with the CAP, and nor do 1. However, neither they nor I can do anything about the fact that the farmers of West Dorset must live with the CAP. Ministers can and ought to play the game by the crazy rules which have been set. It is only if one plays by all the rules that some of the craziness is removed. Ministers ought to be applying for full agrimonetary compensation, but they are not doing so. The Minister of Agriculture has said that he has applied for a small amount of compensation, but it is not enough.
  568
  Ministers could try not to impose any further regulatory burdens on my farmers—which stretch back, inevitably, to the supply industries which serve them—which are not suffered by their competitors at this time of the high pound and the failure of agrimonetary compensation. My farmers regard with dismay the proposition that fertiliser or pesticide levies might be imposed. They see all these moves as an effort not to deal fairly with them and not to try to put them in a position where they could compete, but to try to pretend that they can absorb an infinite amount of regulation when their competitors have far less, and to pretend that they can absorb a situation in which "Alice in Wonderland" subsidies prop up their competitors but corresponding subsidies are not provided for them.
  That situation will not last. The Minister of State and his right hon. Friend may believe that farmers are, by and large, rich people with large cars or Range Rovers, who have a wealth of capital to fall back on. They may believe, genuinely, that, in the end, they can squeeze the oranges until the pips squeak, and it will all be all right with a bit more efficiency. In West Dorset, it will not be all right, because of three factors: small farmers will quickly go out of business; the supply industries will disappear permanently from west Dorset; and middle and large-sized farmers will be consolidated into great going concerns.
  Over time, the face of West Dorset, and its society, will crumble. That inheritance is terribly precious—not just to farmers and suppliers in my constituency, but to people throughout the country. West Dorset is a special kind of society, which works in social terms. People know and support one another. Children grow up in such a way that they become decent people. As they are growing up, people around them look after them in a way that is seldom seen in our cities and is difficult to replicate except in a deeply rural society.
  That is a model which the Ministry does ill to attack, and which the country should support. That is why, without the slightest trace of shame or any sense of special pleading, I argue that the Minister should reconsider the Government's attitudes and policies, which will drive the society in places such as West Dorset out of existence, never to be recreated.
  9.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on securing this debate, and on being fortunate enough to have more time than perhaps he envisaged—I welcome that. I shall not operate Parkinson's law and expand my comments to fill the time available, but I shall try to answer his points. He has raised these matters with the Deputy Prime Minister, and was active at Agriculture questions on 19 March, although the answer that he was given about extra Government compensation was not as he described it.
  I make it absolutely clear that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Government do not have the slightest intention of doing to farming what the previous Government did to coal mining. Indeed, the analogy somewhat diminishes his case, especially as he was a special adviser in the Prime Minister's policy unit between 1983 and 1986—at the time of the year-long

  569
  strike—actively seeking to close down the coal mining industry. The Government make no analogy between the two industries, and he does himself a disservice in suggesting that we do.
  The hon. Gentleman represents a beautiful part of the country. Indeed, I was almost there today—I found myself in Hampshire, on campaigning, rather than ministerial, duties. However, Dorset is different from the surrounding counties in respect of the dairy herd. It has a high proportion of dairy herds, which account for some 20 per cent. of the dairy cattle in the county—it is second only to Cheshire in that respect—so it is a very important part of the dairy industry, and we pay tribute to the work that goes on there. There are 90,000 dairy cows in Dorset, which is 5 per cent. of the total in England. The dairy industry there makes a substantial contribution to the economy.
  Obviously, farms come into and go out of business. For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that, between the middle of 1996 and the middle of 1997, 20 farms in Dorset ceased milk production, which is in line with what we would expect in terms of the national average. Because of pressures on the industry, that trend is likely to continue.
  We are well aware, and we do not shy from the fact at the Dispatch Box—we say the same things privately—that there has been a fall in farm incomes. Agriculture is going through a very difficult time, and the past year has been a bad one for farm incomes generally and for the livestock sector in particular.
  The income from farming is estimated to have fallen by 37 per cent. in real terms in 1997. I accept that average figures are always misleading—some sectors fare better than others—but there has been a fall across all sectors. On average, the fall in income in the dairy sector has been 36 per cent. in one year, and some of those engaged in lowland cattle or sheep farming have faced a drop in income of 63 per cent. in one year. Those figures are in real terms, and I accept that they are substantial.
  The principal cause of the across-the-board fall in farm incomes has been the lower prices attracted by all commodities, particularly the major commodities. The relative strength of sterling over the past year has had a major effect on the prices attainable in the United Kingdom—we do not seek to deny that. Unfortunately, while sterling remains high and while there are structural surpluses in most agricultural sectors in the European Union, the prospects for increased commodity prices and improved incomes in the short term are not good.
  We have spoken in the House and outside about commentators who have predicted that in 1999 there should be an upturn in farm prices and incomes on the back of a weakening in sterling and more buoyant world markets. Those are the forecasts for 1999 by independent commentators and some banks. The current situation is expected to be temporary.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister confirm that those expectations are not shared by the Chancellor?
  Mr. Rooker: It is expected that the situation in agriculture will be temporary. For the past year, farm incomes have been bad, and expectations are not good for this year. As I have said, independent commentators have looked at the figures, and have forecast a different situation in 1999.
  570
  I accept that there are difficulties in all sectors of agriculture, but we expect them to be temporary. In the five years from 1990 to 1995, farm incomes and agricultural prices were looking up. They were five good years, but I do not use that as an excuse for saying that one has to take the rough with the smooth. However, to take one year in a large industry and react to it as if it reflected the long-term future is not sensible in economic terms, and it would not be good Government conduct.
  I accept that farm incomes this year are bad, and I shall deal with the serious consequences of that fall, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, affects not just farmers.
  Since we came to government, we have discovered that myths are perpetuated in parliamentary and departmental questions. It is not generally appreciated that, after the 20 March 1996 statement about BSE and new variant CJD, the previous Government laid a statutory instrument on, I think, 16 or 19 April—I cannot remember the exact date—banning the import of beef from animals aged over 30 months from wherever they came. The idea that there is not some sort of level playing field for imports is incorrect, because the previous Government legislated for that.
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee advice, which I shall not go into in great detail because it has been done before, was to de-bone meat from animals of more than 30 months. The previous Government went beyond that, on a precautionary principle, and said that 30 months would be the limit for all beef. They took powers to stop the import of beef from animals that were over 30 months. Therefore, whatever the hon. Gentleman has been told, it is not right to say that vast imports of beef are not subject to the over-30-months rule. Different countries have different rules, and about a dozen countries are BSE-free.
  The Government took unilateral action on 1 January on specified risk materials, which requires that point-of-sale imported beef should comply with the same rules as home-grown beef. There is a requirement on the producer and the seller to make sure that that is the case. In that respect, there is not unfair competition, but, of course, we suffer from the inability to export our products. We have laboured consistently on that, and hope fairly soon to start exporting from Northern Ireland.
  I shall now deal with the impact of falling farm incomes.
  There is no question that there has been a dramatic fall in farm incomes in West Dorset. Detailed figures on a constituency basis are not available, but I fully accept that the hon. Gentleman has reported to the House the footprints or fingerprints of his constituents, and I understand what they say about their individual circumstances. Government cannot collect information in a detailed fashion, but we know that a dramatic fall in incomes in West Dorset occurred simply because of its dependence on dairy production.
  We must keep a sense of perspective in looking at the damage to the industry as a whole. There were five good years, when sterling was relatively weak and commodity prices were firm. The hon. Gentleman talked about farmers' debt, but in fact 45 per cent. of all farm businesses carry no debt whatever, although that is not an

  571
  excuse to create more debt. We expect the present circumstances to be temporary. Debt will rise in the farming industry, but it is not massive.
  Mr. Letwin: I am doubly grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Does he accept that those figures can be misleading? In my constituency, many farmers are severely burdened with off-balance-sheet debt in the form of leased quota, which can be just as important to a dairy farmer as debt on the balance sheet.
  Mr. Rooker: I fully accept that. Some farmers will be badly hit by extra investment or debt that they did not expect, because they did not foresee the ban, the drop in commodity prices or the strength of sterling. I freely accept that debt will vary enormously: I have simply given an overall figure, and draw no general point from it.
  The effect of last year's fall in farm incomes may not be so dramatic in the long term. There is good reason to believe that most farmers—I will not argue about semantics: by most, I mean the majority, or more than half—will be able to ride out this difficult period. We are not being complacent, but we must take a rational, long-term view of the industry's prospects.
  I take on board what the hon. Gentleman said about allied industries. To my astonishment, I was the first Minister ever to visit the only British plough producer, in Warwickshire. It is a real success: a family business less than 30 years old that exports ploughs to Japan. It survives on exports, and is obviously desperate for more, simply because it can foresee a decline in home orders because of the drop in farm incomes; when those go down, farmers naturally order less capital equipment.
  There is a knock-on effect on allied industries, some of which are wholly involved in agricultural production, while others have a wider spread of customers, so it is not always easy to track exactly what happens. I know from my time in manufacturing industry that there is a downturn when one's customers are suffering because of particular problems in their own industry. I accept that point fully.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned agrimonetary compensation, which is a bit of a mouthful.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No. I want to make the point about agrimonetary compensation. I have answered enough questions from North Shropshire, and I want to stick to West Dorset for the moment.
  I know that there is a desire for us to pay more of the compensation that is available under the schemes, but the money is not free. More than most Conservative Members, the hon. Member for West Dorset knows that it is not free money. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Minister of Agriculture do not simply have to pick up the phone and ask for the money: there is a massive contribution from the British taxpayer. It is worth repeating that it is not free money, there for the taking at no cost to the taxpayer.
  I am not going down the byways with this. Everyone knows of the public expenditure limits and constraints that we freely entered into in our contract with the electorate.
  572
  That contract is what we are sticking to, and there is a downside to restricting public expenditure, in terms of collateral damage.
  I understand the concern among farmers about the possibility of further green rate revaluation, but we have to look at the wider picture. The agrimonetary compensation system has provided protection for the United Kingdom farmer against the consequences of the strength of sterling. It is difficult to say that the money is in pocket, but the freeze in green rates for direct payments has benefited farmers by about £400 million in the past two years, and that is not always fully appreciated.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the package of measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister announced initially in December, and reaffirmed, slightly adjusted, in February. The grand total of £85 million was the same, most of which went to the beef sector with a minority to sheep.
  The livestock industry faces exceptional circumstances and we had to go to the European Commission to get approval for our proposal. Most of the payments have now been made. We intended to get them all paid by Easter, and I regret that we have not fully complied, but most of the cheques were in the post to farmers early in March. However, that package was exceptional, and must be seen against a tight background on public expenditure. We will keep the situation under review. We have promised to do so, and will do it at each step in the process.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the milk price and the difficulties that his dairy farmers have suffered as a result. The Government do not control the price of milk. He, more than most Conservative Members, must know that the dismantling of the milk marketing boards and going for market prices for milk has had consequences. One is that Ministers do not fix farm prices.
  I understand that many farmers rightly look at the prices of goods in supermarkets. Raw materials make up a smaller proportion of our food prices than they used to because of the massive amount of food processing and we have to consider the problem in the round. We have to take account of the fact that supermarket prices are largely determined by competitive pressures, which in the main are good, as competition brings greater efficiency and lower prices to consumers.
  I accept that there can be a downside for the original producers, but we live in a market economy, constrained, of course, by our membership of the European Union and by the common agricultural policy.
  Mr. Letwin: The Minister has been extremely patient, and I am grateful to him for giving way again. I cannot resist asking him whether, in the light of his remarks, he will take special care to join those of us who have been urging the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its current inquiry into the milk market to consider not merely the wholesale but the retail part of the market. There is an abundance of evidence to show that margins have not responded in the way that competitive pressure should have suggested, and that in fact supermarkets have been taking an increased margin at the expense of farmers.
  Mr. Rooker: It would be unwise of me to give a detailed response off the top of my head. I think that the Minister of Agriculture has sent a note to the inquiry, although I could stand corrected, and if I am wrong I will

  573
  write to the hon. Gentleman. I should not comment on the details of the MMC inquiry. I see that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) wants to intervene; I will give way to him, as he also represents Dorset.
  Mr. Robert Walter: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that the value of sterling and world prices expressed in sterling have a far greater effect on prices than competition in the domestic market—whether in milk or other products—the effects of supermarkets or the milk regime? It is the value of sterling that has had the significant effect.
  Mr. Rooker: No, the value of sterling has an impact, but it is not the sole impact. From where the hon. Gentleman sits, it might look easy to target the one area that he thinks the Government might be responsible for. It is not like that. The value of sterling does not stand alone: other factors are at work, on which I touched earlier.
  I want also to touch on aspects of reform of the common agricultural policy, to which the hon. Member for West Dorset rightly referred. A central plank one of our key manifesto commitments is to seek reform of the CAP. We cannot demand or impose such reform; we can get it only by consent. The Agenda 2000 document was tabled by the Commission. It is the only game in town, and it is the one we have to run with. That is what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is seeking to do. It does not go far enough for us, particularly on milk quotas.
  We oppose milk quotas, and find extending them to 2006 unacceptable. We want them abolished. They stand directly in the way of the British dairy industry competing in world markets with world-quality first-class products that would sweep the board in many countries if only we could get into them. We have said that repeatedly. That is why we are pressing for reform and the abolition of quotas. We cannot impose it unilaterally, given our membership of the European Union. We have made clear the ends to which we are working. We fully understand that the quota system stands in the way of our quality dairy industry making the best of its business.
  We need substantial reform of the CAP, to move it away from production-related support mechanisms. We have to get to a more market-oriented policy for agricultural products. We have no fear of that. We could then redirect much CAP money—not all of it, and we do not have a figure or anywhere near one at the moment—to the rural environment and agri-environment measures.
  I was a bit upset that the hon. Member for West Dorset said that his farmers were upset about animal welfare legislation, and thought that it stood in their way. I am
  574
  unaware of complaints from farmers that animal welfare legislation approved by this House stands in the way of their running their businesses properly.
  We are not prepared to bend the rules on animal welfare. I am not au fait with the point that the hon. Member was making, because he did not give a specific example, but read out a list of barriers, one of which was health and safety. During a recent spot check in one county—not West Dorset—on 4,000 farms by the Health and Safety Executive, 40 tractors were seized and taken off the land because they were unsafe. There will be no diminution of health and safety rules. The farming industry is highly dangerous in some ways. We have no policies for cutting animal welfare legislation. I am not au fait with his point. If he has a particular point, perhaps he will write to me.
  The Government have left no one in any doubt that one of our main priorities is reform of the CAP. That is not to say that, within the CAP, we are powerless to do anything. We have shown that by our announcement of the £85 million—extra money that did not come lightly and had a consequence for the British taxpayer—and by our other measures announced a few weeks ago in respect of the Government picking up the tab for the full start-up costs of the cattle tracing system and the first year's costs as well. That is an important measure. The system will benefit the cattle industry. We will have it up and running—going live—this summer. That will greatly benefit the industry.
  We have taken on board some of the costs of the specified risk material controls in the abattoirs. We understood the pressures that were piling up on the industry. They were put there not by this Government but by lower commodity prices, the strength of sterling and other factors. Where we could take action, such as with the £85 million and imposing lower costs on the industry, we did. I do not expect a lot of thanks for that, but it is the reality.
  We recognise the concern of farmers about the pressure on their industry. I and my colleagues in the Ministry meet farmers regularly, as well as food producers and food consumers. We are working to ensure a long-term future for the UK farming sector.
  We are not seeking to put farming out of business—far from it. We want it to be viable. If we came along today or next month with a cheque for whatever amount, that would stop a problem for a week, a month or a quarter, but it would do nothing at all to improve the industry's long-term prospects. We are determined to make sure that we have a long-term viable agriculture.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Electronic Voting
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council what estimate she has made of the cost of electronic voting in the House. [38471]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The cost of any possible electronic voting system would depend on what form of electronic voting, if any, was chosen. The Modernisation Committee will shortly be writing to all Members inviting their views on a range of options, which include retaining the current voting system. Cost will be one of the factors taken into account when reviewing these options.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings have been requested with his Department's Ministers by(a) Labour and (b) Conservative hon. Members; and how many meetings have been granted in each category. [31289]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Records of the number of requests for meetings with Ministers are not kept. My Ministerial colleagues and I have met approximately 114 Labour Members and 15 Conservative Members since 1 May 1997. This does not include meetings with or addresses to Parliamentary bodies such as All Party Groups.

  We are happy to consider requests for meetings from hon. Members of all parties and as a general rule these have been granted.

  Fishing Vessels (Searches)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which dates during March United Kingdom fishing vessels were stopped in British waters and searched by Irish patrol boats; and what representations he has made to the Irish Government about this matter. [37558]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  UK fishing vessels were stopped by the Irish naval vessel, the LE Emer on 18 March in UK fisheries limits. We have raised the matter with the Irish authorities who regret that boarding took place inside UK fisheries limits.

  Kenya
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the Kenyan Government over abuses of the human rights of students. [38585]
  396
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We maintain a vigorous dialogue with Kenya on human rights issues, including the treatment of students, through our High Commission in Nairobi and at Ministerial level.

  We pressed last year for the repeal of the Public Order Act, the principal legal instrument that had been used to break up meetings organised by Opposition politicians and students. We welcomed its repeal in November, and look to the Kenyan authorities to ensure that non-violent student activities and protests are not obstructed. Our High Commission raised specific cases in which students' human rights had been violated with the Kenyan Attorney General in February.

  Business Ambassadors
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 1998,Official Report, column 771, concerning ambassadors for British business, if he will list the duties of each of the ambassadors. [38895]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Ambassadors for British Business have volunteered to give some of their time when overseas to promote the UK's wider commercial interests; for example by giving keynote speeches, calling on Ministers or talking informally to prominent local business people. Their exact activities will depend on what they and the diplomatic post concerned agree would be most effective at furthering the UK's commercial interests in a market.

  British Ambassadors
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries where the British Ambassador or High Commissioner is female; and how many ambassadors and High Commissioners are male. [38894]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Britain is represented by a female Ambassador or High Commissioner in the following countries: Belarus, Chile, Irish Republic, the Netherlands, Rwanda, South Africa and Uzbekistan.

  One hundred and twenty eight Ambassadors or High Commissioners are male. A further ten Permanent Representatives hold the personal rank of Ambassador. They are all male.

  Camilla Carr and Jon James
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding the situation of the hostages Camilla Carr and Jon James in Chechnya. [38617]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Chechen authorities have said that Camilla Carr and Jon James are alive, but we do not know where or in what conditions they are being held. We are working hard, with the Centre for Peacemaking and Community Development, to ensure that the Russian and Chechen authorities give top priority to securing their safe release. Any news we have is shared with Camilla's and Jon's families, who are withstanding their ordeal with great courage and dignity. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is looking forward to meeting the families on 23 April.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has had from the Spanish authorities to his representations over the incident of dangerous flying by a Spanish coastguard helicopter in Gibraltar waters on 13 March. [38983]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The immediate response of the Spanish authorities was to reject our protest. They have since agreed to examine our video and photographic evidence of the incident.

  South Africa
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of talks between the EU and South Africa during the United Kingdom presidency. [38652]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are committed to a swift and favourable outcome to the negotiations between the EU and South Africa for a Trade and Cooperation Agreement. We hope a conclusion will be possible during our Presidency. The General Affairs Council on 30 March was a useful step forward in preparing the next round of negotiations later this month.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with GCHQ regarding its proposed re-siting; and if he will make a statement. [38768]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I approved the initiation of GCHQ's PFI project in May last year, and fully support the aim to consolidate their operations onto one site. The project is at an advanced stage and four tenders for a single-site solution are currently being evaluated. I will consider GCHQ's recommendations for the final stages of the project next month. An announcement on the future location of GCHQ is expected during the second half of the year.

  UN Member States
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the member states of the United Nations with which the United Kingdom does not have diplomatic relations. [39172]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom does not have diplomatic relations with four of the 185 Member States of the United Nations. These are: Bhutan, Iraq, Libya and North Korea.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning their ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [38735]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I discussed this subject with the Indian High Commissioner on 2 April. The UK has made its position clear to the Indian and Pakistani governments 398
  in the past and will continue to do so in the future. We continue to urge India and Pakistan to sign both treaties and to support other measures to promote non-proliferation. Our aim is to promote global non-proliferation and efforts to improve security in the region.

  Nuclear Smuggling
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken to combat nuclear smuggling. [38791]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We believe strongly in the need for an effective and proportionate range of national and international mechanisms to prevent the theft of nuclear material and, on the rare occasions where this does occur, to ensure that there are effective mechanisms to combat nuclear smuggling.

  This Department has focused on implementing the G8 Programme for Preventing and Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear Material, agreed in 1996. We continue to encourage expanded participation in this programme. Most recently, the UK led a successful exercise to test a Points of Contact system which provides for the immediate exchange of information on those few cases where nuclear material of proliferation concern is smuggled.

  The UK also works extremely closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which for some years has had a programme for collecting and sharing information on confirmed trafficking incidents. In the face of increasingly effective action by governments, the number of incidents has declined significantly over the last couple of years. None has been recorded in the UK.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the average marginal tax rate for those families who qualify for the working families tax credit. [38220]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 April 1998]: About 65% of families who qualify for the Working Families Tax Credit will face a marginal deduction rate of between 66.7% and 69.9% (depending upon the exact rate at which they pay tax and NICs), with marginal rates cut for about 540,000 families, most by over 10 percentage points.

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a description of the way childcare for tax credits will operate, including the operation of the fast path to help new employees with childcare costs before their first payment of wage or salary is received; and if he will ensure all benefits agencies and jobcentres are made aware of this provision. [38235]
  399
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 April 1998]: The childcare tax credit is an integral part of the "Working Families Tax Credit". An important priority for the WFTC will be to ensure that it gets to recipients efficiently and quickly. The design of the WFTC—whether paid through employers or direct from the Inland Revenue—will aim to deliver the tax credit to individuals reliably and on time. Work is continuing on the administrative arrangements and the Inland Revenue is consulting representatives of employer and other appropriate organisations on the details of how the WFTC will be paid through the wage packet. We aim to make the new literature for WFTC claimants widely available, and to enable both Benefits Agency and Employment Service staff to help clients with the WFTC.

  Open-ended Investment Companies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the timetable for the introduction of legislation to enable cash and fund-of-fund open-ended investment companies to be launched in the United Kingdom domestic market; and if authorisation of cash and fund-of-fund open-ended investment companies will be achieved in time for prospective ISA providers to promote such companies as an alternative to authorised unit trust schemes. [38854]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have announced my agreement in principle to the establishment of fund of fund and cash fund oeics and am currently considering the most appropriate way of introducing them. Whether they will be introduced in time for the launch of ISAs in the spring of 1999 depends on which method for introducing them is adopted.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the proposed Budget changes in capital gains tax have been introduced as simplifications of the current system. [36790]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The Budget changes in capital gains tax will lead to eventual simplification of the current system by:
  progressively eliminating indexation and substituting the taper which is easier to understand;
  phasing out retirement relief;
  merging CGT reinvestment relief and the Enterprise Investment Scheme;
  introducing a single rate for trusts and the estates of deceased persons.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes will be made in the treatment of National Lottery expenditures in the definition of general Government expenditure and in the national accounts following the implementation of the National Lottery Bill[Lords]. [38559]

  Mr. Darling
  None.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been collected in fines from people who 400
  have been caught illegally reselling cheap duty paid tobacco bought in Belgium in each year since 1979. [38306]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that central figures are not kept in this form.

  Energy Products
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in discussions with the European Commission on harmonising taxation of energy products; and if the Government will continue to maintain a duty exemption on fuel for navigation in private pleasure craft. [38111]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A meeting of the technical working group which is examining the draft Energy Products Directive is expected towards the end of April. The Government have made it clear in negotiations that one condition of our eventual acceptance of the Directive is that the future of existing derogations be unambiguously settled.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the changes to acceptance in lieu of tax announced on 17 March alter the accounting treatment of such transactions. [36771]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under the proposed change, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will no longer reimburse the Inland Revenue for the amount of tax satisfied by the acceptance of heritage assets, and the Inland Revenue's accounting procedures will be altered accordingly. The change will simplify the operation of the scheme within the Government.

  Income Tax
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for the current tax year the income tax and national insurance paid and child benefits received by(a) a single person without dependants, (b) a lone parent with one child aged four years, (c) a lone parent with two children aged four and six years, (d) a single earner married couple with one child aged four years and (e) a single earner married couple with two children aged four and six years, where the gross income is (i) £150, (ii) £200, (iii) £250, (iv) £300 and(v) £400 per week and is wholly from employment; and if in each case he will show the equivalised income before housing costs on the assumption that there are no child care costs, housing costs are £75 per week and all available benefits are claimed, and showing also the tax and national insurance contributions net of benefits as a percentage of the equivalised incomes. [32428]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is contained in the tables.
  401

  Gross earnings (£)

  150

  200

  250

  300

  350

  Single Person

  National Insurance

  10.04

  15.04

  20.04

  25.04

  35.04

  Income Tax

  14.44

  25.74

  37.24

  48.74

  71.74

  Child Benefit

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Family Credit

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Tax and NICs, less child benefit and family credit, as a percentage of gross earnings

  16.3

  20.4

  22.9

  24.6

  26.7

  Net Income

  125.52

  159.22

  192.72

  226.22

  293.22

  Equivalised Net Income

  205.77

  261.01

  315.93

  370.85

  480.68

  Lone Parent (1 child aged 4 years)

  National Insurance

  10.04

  15.04

  20.04

  25.04

  35.04

  Income Tax

  9.16

  20.46

  31.96

  43.46

  66.46

  Child Benefit

  17.10

  17.10

  17.10

  17.10

  17.10

  Family Credit

  32.70

  9.11

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Tax and NICs, less child benefit and family credit, as a percentage of gross earnings

  -20.4

  4.6

  14.0

  17.1

  21.1

  Net Income

  180.59

  190.70

  215.10

  248.60

  315.60

  Equivalised Net Income

  228.60

  241.40

  272.27

  314.68

  399.49

  Lone Parent (2 children aged 4 years and 6 years)

  National Insurance

  10.04

  15.04

  20.04

  25.04

  35.04

  Income Tax

  9.16

  20.46

  31.96

  43.46

  66.46

  Child Benefit

  26.10

  26.10

  26.10

  26.10

  26.10

  Family Credit

  44.75

  21.16

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Tax and NICs, less child benefit and family credit, as a percentage of gross earnings

  -34.4

  -5.9

  10.4

  14.1

  18.9

  Net Income

  201.64

  211.75

  224.10

  257.60

  324.60

  Equivalised Net Income

  201.64

  211.75

  224.10

  257.60

  324.60

  Single Earner Married Couple (1 child aged 4 years)

  National Insurance

  10.04

  15.04

  20.04

  25.04

  35.04

  Income Tax

  9.16

  20.46

  31.96

  43.46

  66.46

  Child Benefit

  11.05

  11.05

  11.05

  11.05

  11.05

  Family Credit

  32.70

  9.11

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Tax and NICs, less child benefit and family credit, as a percentage of gross earnings

  -16.4

  7.7

  16.4

  19.2

  22.6

  Net Income

  174.54

  184.65

  209.05

  242.55

  309.55

  Equivalised Net Income

  147.92

  156.49

  177.16

  205.55

  262.33

  Single Earner Married Couple (2 children aged 4 and 6)

  National Insurance

  10.04

  15.04

  20.04

  25.04

  35.04

  Income Tax

  9.16

  20.46

  31.96

  43.46

  66.46

  Child Benefit

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  Family Credit

  44.75

  21.16

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Tax and NICs, less child benefit and family credit, as a percentage of gross earnings

  -30.4

  -2.9

  12.8

  16.2

  20.4

  Net Income

  195.59

  205.70

  218.05

  251.55

  318.55

  Equivalised Net Income

  140.72

  147.99

  156.87

  180.97

  229.17

  The figures in the table are weekly amounts for the 1997–98 tax year. They assume that the earner in the household is working over 30 hours a week for family credit purposes.

  The standard McClements scales have been used to determine equivalised income. This is the same process that is used in the DSS's Households Below Average Income publication.

  Income tax and NICs, less child benefit and family credit, are shown as a percentage of gross earnings, with negative figures where the family is a net gainer overall from direct taxes and benefits.

  Some of these families may also be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit. However, as this will depend upon the composition of the housing costs (between mortgage payments, council tax, and rent) housing benefit and council tax benefit has been left out of these figures.

  Cash Ratio Deposits
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about cash ratio deposits. [39315]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government's Response to Consultation on Cash Ratio Deposits (CRDs) is published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government's decision that the initial CRD ratios should be zero on Eligible Liabilities up to £400m and 0.15 per cent. on Eligible Liabilities over £400m reflects the responses to consultation, taking into account the desire for administrative simplicity and clarity. I believe this is a fair outcome.

  Earnings
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many employees currently earn more than £450 per week. [39193]
  403
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 20 April 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on weekly earnings.
  The latest available information, from the New Earnings Survey 1997, is contained in the table below:

  Percentage of employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay-period was unaffected by absence, gross weekly earnings, Great Britain, April 1997

  greater than £450

  Full-time

  23.3

  Part-time

  1.1

  All

  18.3

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Great Britain-based workers earned less than(a) £2, (b) £72.50, (c) £3, (d) £3.50 and (e) £4 per hour in April (a)1996 and (b) 1997. [38293]

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

  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Mr. Jon Trickett, dated 20 April 1998:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on hourly earnings.
  This information is shown in the table below using estimates available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Percentage of employees1 hourly earnings in their main job, Great Britain, not seasonally adjusted

  less than

  less than

  less than

  less than

  less than

  £2.00

  £2.50

  £3.00

  £3.50

  £4.00

  Spring 19962

  2.2

  4.1

  7.9

  15.5

  23.3

  Spring 19972

  1.8

  4.0

  7.1

  13.6

  20.8

  1Excluding those whose workplace was outside the United Kingdom

  22 March to May

  source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey
  Work is being undertaken to assess the quality of earnings data from the LFS and the New Earnings Survey (NES). Current indications are that the LFS provides the more reliable estimates of workers on low pay, but nevertheless tends to overestimate the proportion of low paid workers. The figures in the table should therefore be taken as upper estimates of the proportions. Details of this assessment of the quality of earning data are expected to be published in the May issue of Labour Market Trends copies of which will be available from the House of Commons Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was, for the last five years for which figures are available, the proportion of the total legal aid bill incurred in(a) Counsel's fees and (b) QCs' fees; what was the proportion of the legal aid bill in each of the last five years spent on white collar fraud trials; and if he will make a statement. [38796]

  Mr. Hoon
  For criminal higher legal aid, the proportion paid to counsel and to QCs in each year was as follows:

  percentage

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  All counsel

  54

  55

  55

  53

  55

  QCs

  21

  24

  27

  26

  26

  For civil legal aid, criminal magistrates' legal aid, and advice and assistance, the proportion paid to counsel was as follows:

  percentage

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  All counsel

  11

  11

  11

  10

  15

  It is not possible to identify separately payments made to QCs as the rank of counsel is not recorded on the Legal Aid Board's computer systems.

  Nor is it possible to identify separately expenditure on white collar fraud. Fraud related offences are recorded under the general headings of "fraud", "false accounting" and "other forgery". In each of those categories, in completed Crown Court cases, the proportion of criminal higher expenditure was as follows:

  percentage

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Fraud

  10.8

  10.3

  15.1

  14.4

  10.5

  False accounting

  0.6

  0.7

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  Other forgery

  0.8

  1.1

  0.9

  0.6

  0.6

  Learning Disabilities (Training)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the need for(a) barristers, (b) judges and (c) magistrates to receive training to increase their awareness of the needs of people with learning disabilities, when they appear in courts. [37597]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which is a non-departmental governmental body. The JSB has held a number of sessions in both induction and continuation training on equal treatment, including dealing with people with learning difficulties. The JSB has an advisory committee whose remit has recently been extended to cover all aspects of equal treatment training, including training on increasing awareness of the needs of people with learning
  405
  disabilities. The Committee will be considering guidance for members of the judiciary on handling those with learning difficulties.

  Lay Magistrate training is delivered by Magistrates' Courts' Committees but the JSB has a role in setting the syllabus. Lay Magistrates already address the issue of equal treatment of all in the light of their judicial oath but the JSB has recently completed a project identifying the skills and knowledge required by Lay Magistrates to ensure equality of treatment for all who appear in their courts.

  Training of barristers is a matter for the General Council of the Bar.

  Judicial Appointments Commissison
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 1998,Official Report, column 679, if he will list the groups and individuals his officials consulted informally about the possible appointment of a judicial appointments commission. [38226]

  Mr. Hoon
  The groups and individuals informally consulted by officials on the possible establishment of a judicial appointments commission included the following:

  The Lord Chief Justice

  The Master of the Rolls

  The President of the Family Division

  The Vice-Chancellor

  The Senior Law Lord (Lord Goff of Chieveley)

  The Senior Presiding Judge

  The Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges

  The Association of District Judges

  The Registrar of Criminal Appeals

  The Director of Studies, Judicial Studies Board

  The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

  The Chairman of the Association of Stipendiary Magistrates for England and Wales

  The Right Hon. the Lord Kingsdown (Association of Lords Lieutenant)

  The Chairman of the Magistrates' Association

  The Duchy of Lancaster Office

  The President and senior officials of The Law Society

  The Chairman and the Chief Executive of the General Council of the Bar

  The Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary

  Kate Malleson, University of Westminster

  Dr. Cheryl Thomas, Wolfson College, University of Oxford

  Professor Rodney Brazier, University of Manchester

  Senior officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department

  The Magistrates and Tribunals Training Adviser, Judicial Studies Board

  The Commission for Racial Equality

  The Equal Opportunities Commission

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what factors he took into account in deciding to consult informally rather than formally on the possible creation of a judicial appointments commission. [38208]
  406
  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor decided that officials should conduct informal consultations with a view to identifying the issues of principle and practicality that would need to be addressed in any formal consultations on the possible creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission. Following this consultation, the Lord Chancellor announced in October that he had decided not to proceed with further work, including any formal consultation process, on the possible creation of a Commission in view of the other substantial priorities facing his Department and his decision to concentrate on making changes in the existing judicial appointments process to improve its openness, flexibility and effectiveness.

  Welsh Language Schemes
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Court Service and the Legal Aid Board have to implement Welsh language schemes. [38080]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Court Service and Legal Aid Board must comply with the Welsh Language Act 1993. The Court Service has prepared a draft scheme, which is acceptable to the Welsh Language Board. However, the Board before approving the scheme had indicated it will wait until Rules of Court are settled for hearing arrangements. As yet, no date has been given for the Rules to be settled. However, the Court Service has, since April 1997, provided most of the services referred to in the draft scheme. An information sheet is available in all court offices in Wales which explains the scheme.

  The Legal Aid Board is also working with the Welsh Language Board on a Welsh Language Scheme which will set out how the Board will comply with the Act. The Legal Aid board has been asked to prepare a scheme and submit it to the Welsh Language Board by 26 February 1999.

PRIME MINISTER

  Trade Union Recognition
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from(a) trade union leaders and (b) business leaders in respect of the Fairness at Work White Paper. [37959]

  The Prime Minister
  I have met TUC and CBI representatives on several occasions to discuss trade union recognition and related issues.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he has had with other heads of Government to discuss the issues of millennium compliance. [37961]

  The Prime Minister
  I have recently chaired two major international conferences at which the Millennium Bug issue was highlighted. Leaders at both the European Conference on 12 March and the ASEM 2 Conference on 3–4 April agreed the importance of international co-operation to ensure millennium compliance.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 376, what valuation figures relating to the accommodation and furnishings provided to Ministers are prepared for tax purposes. [38212]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 April 19981]: The situation remains the same as under the previous administration. It is accepted by the Inland Revenue that Government Ministers occupying official residences by reason of their office meet the statutory conditions (mainly in Section 145(4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) for exemption from a tax charge on provided living accommodation. So no valuation figures are required by the Inland Revenue in relation to provision of such residences. There will be a charge where furnishings or other services are provided and figures will be prepared for inclusion in Ministers' tax returns.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Banking Supervisory Authorities
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries her Department provided support to banking supervisory and regulatory authorities in 1997–98; and what plans she has for such support in 1998–99. [39185]

  Clare Short
  In 1997–98 the Department for International Development provided support to banking supervisory and regulatory authorities in the following countries:

  India

  Russia

  Ukraine

  Moldova

  Slovak Republic

  Czech Republic

  Bosnia

  We have also provided some support to the Bank of England's Centre for Central Banking Studies.

  For Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS regions, in 1998–99 we will continue to support the Central Bank of Russia and other authorities where we have a useful contribution to make. Support to the Reserve Bank of India will continue and, in view of the recent events in South East and East Asia, we intend to make available support to banking authorities in this region. We are also currently exploring, in collaboration with other organisations, the role we can play in building sound regulatory structures for microfinance institutions.

  Micro-finance Institutions
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development with which central banks her Department has held discussions concerning the introduction of legislation for the regulation and supervision of micro-finance institutions. [39182]

  Clare Short
  The growth in numbers and in size of microfinance institutions (MFIs) has been significant only in the last couple of years. Most MFIs have received their 408
  capital as grants from donors which means that supervision and regulation was not an immediate issue. Only recently have a relatively small number of MFIs become sufficiently mature to be seeking to raise more capital from depositors. It is at this stage that supervision and regulation become particularly important as individuals' savings are at stake. To date the performance of central banks in regulating and supervising formal financial institutions has been weak due to problems of political corruption.

  The Department for International Development are at the forefront of the donor winning, by supporting the work being done by the Microfinance Network and by CGAP in this important area. Bilaterally, we are at the most advanced stage in Bangladesh, where DFID are supporting a supervision and regulation project, which includes dialogue with the central bank. As more MFIs mature, we anticipate providing further support to this area.

  Development Programme Support
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries in 1997–98 governance problems interrupted her Department's programme support. [39186]

  Clare Short
  During 1997–1998 development programme support was interrupted in Sierra Leone and Ethiopia.

  All aid was suspended to Sierra Leone when the democratically elected government were overthrown in a military coup on 25 May 1997. During the coup period we supported the government in exile to prepare for their return to Freetown; selected refugee programmes for Sierra Leoneans in neighbouring countries; and the humanitarian work of the international committee of the Red Cross in Sierra Leone. Following the return of the democratic government to Freetown, we provided immediate technical and logistical support to assist the re-establishment of the functions of government and further humanitarian assistance.

  Following our expression of concern over a policing incident, the Ethiopian government requested that the UK should undertake no new development projects in July 1997. Following constructive discussions between the governments, aid talks with the Ethiopian government were held in March 1998 and it was agreed to consider new development projects.

  Poverty Assessments
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries her Department conducted participatory poverty assessments in 1997–98; and in which it plans to in 1998–99. [39187]

  Clare Short
  We supported a participatory poverty assessment in 1997–98 in Kenya, and commenced work on a participatory poverty assessment in Egypt. In 1998–99 we are committed to supporting national level participatory poverty assessments in Pakistan and Uganda, and to carrying out one for urban poverty in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India. Work on the participatory poverty assessment in Egypt is continuing. Work on the Poverty and Inequality Report in South Africa (for which
  409
  the participatory poverty assessment which we supported has been a major component) has been ongoing throughout this period.

  Drug Smuggling (Caribbean)
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which Caribbean countries her Department is currently providing assistance to combat drug smuggling; and at what estimated cost. [39177]

  Clare Short
  We are providing assistance to all Caribbean countries, including the Overseas Territories, as part of the Caribbean Drugs Initiative (CDI). This is an EU/UNDCP co-ordinated initiative aimed at combating the drugs trade which involves widely based support for Governments in the region. The Initiative aims to include improved planning at national level, law enforcement, demand reduction, treatment and rehabilitation. This programme is the most ambitious and comprehensive attempt so far to tackle the drugs problem in the region.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced at the Caribbean Forum in February that we have earmarked £7.5 million as DFID's contribution to the Caribbean Drugs Initiative (CDI). This will be used to help build capacity at the local level in police and customs in some of the more vulnerable Eastern Caribbean countries.

  International Development Act
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has held on proposals for a new international development act; and if she will make a statement. [39188]

  Clare Short
  During preparation of the White Paper on International Development we received a number of representations supporting a new development act.

  As we said in the White Paper and my Departmental Report, the Government are committed to consulting further on the desirability of a new act.

  South Africa
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the estimated cost of her Department's support for the pilot land reform programme in the Republic of South Africa. [39179]

  Clare Short
  We have been assisting the Republic of South Africa with its land reform programme since 1995. Our support aims to help them to devise and test efficient, equitable and replicable means of transferring land to the rural poor. The expenditure for this pilot programme amounted to around £2 million to March 1998, and we expect to spend in total over £5 million over the next two years. The EU has also committed over £6 million to the programme, to which Britain's contribution is approximately 15 per cent.

  Civil Service Reform Projects
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries her Department is currently funding civil service reform projects; and at what estimated cost. [39178]
  410
  Clare Short
  Commitments of development support for civil service reform since 1995–96 have been as follows:

  £000

  Country

  Commitment

  Anguilla

  190

  Baltic States

  716

  Bulgaria

  750

  Colombia

  400

  Czech Republic

  185

  Ethopia

  120

  Ghana

  5,000

  Grenada

  240

  Hungary

  534

  Indonesia

  670

  Jamaica

  2,000

  Kenya

  628

  Lesotho

  660

  Malawi

  474

  Mexico

  110

  Montserrat

  70

  Namibia

  701

  Poland

  967

  Sierra Leone

  1,200

  Slovak Republic

  539

  South Africa

  4,840

  Tanzania

  3,125

  Uganda

  802

  Ukraine

  165

  West Bank/Gaza

  770

  Zambia

  160

  Zimbabwe

  235

  Determining the precise current status of these activities would involve consultation with DFID offices worldwide and involve disproportionate expense.

  Central and Eastern Europe
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she will publish the results of her Department's survey of the extent of poverty in Central and Eastern Europe. [39183]

  Clare Short
  A literature review has been carried out for my Department by the University of Warwick. There are no plans at present to publish it, but it is available from Dr. Simon Clarke at the University.

  Zimbabwe
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department's officials have held with the Government of Zimbabwe about land reform; and if she will make a statement. [39165]

  Clare Short
  Officials held discussions with the Zimbabwean delegation to the recent conference on land reform in Zimbabwe at the University of London, and keep in contact with the Government and other stakeholders in Zimbabwe. I also met with the Finance Minister in the margins of the World Bank Spring meeting.

  Financial Reform Projects
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries her
  411
  Department proposes to promote replication of the Shanghai Municipal Financial Reform Project in 1998–99. [39184]

  Clare Short
  We have no current plans to promote replication of the Shanghai Municipal Finance Reform project although we will draw on the positive experience of this project in developing proposals in other countries. Opportunities for replication in China will be discussed with the Chinese Government as part of a project review later this year.

  Land Tenure Group
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the members of her Department's Land Tenure Group. [39180]

  Clare Short
  This Group is an internal Working Group of officials in my Department chaired by the Head of Natural Resources Policy and Advisory Department. An initial comparative study prepared for the Group by the Natural Resources Institute was published last month; a copy is being placed in the Library.

  Centre for Humanitarian Aid
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to fund the Centre for Humanitarian Aid's Moscow newspaper, BEZDNA. [38600]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not provide direct funding for Russian newspapers. We have no plans to support BEZDNA. But we have engaged "The Big Issue in Scotland" to provide technical assistance to a similar street newspaper which benefits the homeless in St. Petersburg called "Na Dye" ("The Depths"). We are considering how the experience gained from this project might be extended to other regions in Russia.

  Indonesia (Forest Fires)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help and assistance she is giving to the Government of Indonesia to contain and extinguish forest fires. [38978]

  Clare Short
  We have provided, through the United Nations, the services of a fire-fighting and logistics expert for a 2 month period. In addition officials from my Department will be participating in a United Nations meeting on 20 and 21 April which will examine the most effective methods to deal with the fires and will also discuss possible joint efforts of the international community to assist—including the European Union and United Nations agencies. For the longer term it is important that the Government of Indonesia tackles the underlying causes of these fires: we are supporting work on appropriate forest policy and regulation through practical field experience.

  Refugee Health
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations she has had about the provisions of the forthcoming field manual to be published by the United Nations High 412
  Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Population Fund on the subject of reproductive health in refugee situations; and what response she made. [38637]

  Clare Short
  Officials have been consulted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on a draft manual on Reproductive Health in Refugee Situations. We have highlighted the importance we attach to appropriate standards of care in the provision of all health services, taking account of the dangers to health faced by individuals who are seeking care.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the United Nations' budget for the health needs of refugees, per refugee, for(a) the emergency phase and (b) the post-emergency phase of refugee situations in each of the last 10 years; and what are the projected figures for the next three years. [38641]

  Clare Short
  A full breakdown along the lines requested is not available. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is responsible for most UN expenditure on refugees, has provided the following figures on the amount of its annual budget spent on health for the last five years.

  Year

  Total budget US$ Millions

  Health budget US$ Millions

  Health budget as percentage of total

  1994

  1,320

  106.1

  8

  1995

  1,301.4

  96.6

  7.4

  1996

  1,358.2

  83.8

  6.2

  1997

  1,214.4

  70.3

  5.8

  1998

  1,123.7

  51.1

  4.5

  UNHCR is not able to provide projected figures for the next three years.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the principal causes of mortality in order of prevalence in those refugee camps to which her Department provides assistance. [38642]

  Clare Short
  Globally the principal causes of mortality in refugee situations, in order of prevalence, are diarrhoea, acute respiratory infection and malaria. The specific prevalence is dependent upon the area in which a given camp is situated.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what meetings officials in her Department(a) have had and (b) plan to have with NGOs to discuss the use of manual vacuum aspiration for elective abortions in refugee camps. [38639]

  Clare Short
  My Officials maintain regular dialogue with a large number of non governmental organisations working in the field of reproductive health in refugee situations. These discussions underscore the duty of providers of reproductive health services to ensure that quality health care is provided, making use of technologies that are safe and appropriate to the setting. The subject of manual vacuum aspiration for elective abortions was not raised at a recent discussion with representatives of over twenty agencies active in the reproductive health field; though informal representations
  413
  received more recently from personnel working for three non governmental organisations have been received and taken up with the UNHCR.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding from independent sources was received by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in each of the last 10 years; and what assessment she has made of the extent to which such sources are also involved in funding population control activities. [38640]

  Clare Short
  UNHCR receives voluntary contributions from many sources. The table gives a breakdown of contributions received for 1994–1997.

  US$ million

  Year

  Governmental

  Inter-governmental

  Private

  Total

  1994

  791.8

  234.7

  29.1

  1,055.6

  1995

  754.2

  225.4

  16.7

  996.3

  1996

  809.8

  147.7

  12.4

  969.9

  1997

  679.9

  117.9

  8.8

  806.6

  No assessment has been made of the extent to which such sources are involved in reproductive health care. UNHCR seeks to provide comprehensive reproductive health care within primary health care programmes and engages no population control activities.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make it her policy to support programmes to protect women in refugee camps from pressures to use inappropriate post-coital and abortion techniques; and if she will make a statement. [38645]

  Clare Short
  It is my Department's policy to support programmes that offer all women and men essential health care, including reproductive health care, information and services, that responds to their demands and offers them informed choices. My view is that women in refugee camps are entitled to free and informed choice in line with best medical practice.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has recently received about the use of manual vacuum aspiration for performing abortions in refugee camps; whether her Department issues guidance to refugee workers about complications arising from the use of such techniques in refugee camps and other non-sterile environments; and if she will make a statement. [38636]

  Clare Short
  My Department has received comments from personnel who work with three non governmental organisations on a draft manual on Reproductive Health in Refugee Situations which is being prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). They have questioned sections of the manual which relate to procedures for managing incomplete abortions, or miscarriages, experienced by women in refugee situations. We have conveyed these concerns to UNHCR.

  The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines international standards for safety of elective and emergency gynaecological procedures and this guidance is of course available to refugee workers.
  414
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the extent of the compliance of the distribution of post coital contraception in refugee camps with the terms of the safety information provided by the manufacturers; and if she will make a statement. [38644]

  Clare Short
  The World Health Organisation defines standards for the appropriate provision of emergency contraception in all settings. It is our assessment that all women should have access to the information, services and commodities that they need to have children by choice, and be able to use them safely.

  EU Aid
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representation she has made to the World Bank, IMF, regional development banks and other OECD aid donors about the increasing share of international aid accounted for by the EU and its member states and the decreasing share accounted for by others; and if she will make a statement. [38378]

  Clare Short
  We, and other donors have agreed an International Development Strategy which acknowledges that, to make progress towards its goals, the international community needs to sustain and increase the volume of development assistance. We hold discussions with other donors on aid levels, and respective contributions, mainly in the course of replenishment negotiations for Lome, IDA and the Regional Banks, and in discussions with the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD on reviews of individual donor programmes, most recently that of the United States.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received on the effects of monetary union on(a) UK and (b) EU official development assistance; and if she will make a statement. [38536]

  Clare Short
  I have received no such representations.

  Children (War Areas)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much financial aid has been donated to international funds for the protection of children in war areas in the last year. [37369]

  Clare Short
  It is not possible to provide separate details for our support to protection of children from our overall support to international organisations working in war areas. My support for protection work was £37.8 million (preliminary estimate) in financial year 1997/98. This funded a variety of programmes run by the International Committee of the Red Cross, United Nations Children's Fund, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UN Department for Humanitarian Affairs/Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict. In addition, we have supported many projects managed by non governmental organisations who are working with vulnerable communities in war areas.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Ships Lost at Sea
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what statutory or other authority a High Court judge can exercise the power to look into the reasons for the loss of a ship at sea. [38446]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In circumstances where the Secretary of State orders a re-hearing of a Formal Investigation which took place in England or Wales, Section 269(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 enables him to order that re-hearing to take place in the High Court as an alternative to re-hearing before a Wreck Commissioner.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the powers of a wreck commissioner and assessors when inquiring into the loss of a ship in respect of(a) ruling on the scope of an inquiry within its terms of reference, (b) deciding whether evidence should be given on oath, who should be called to give evidence and whether the civil or criminal rules of evidence should apply, (c) awarding of witness expenses and of costs to or against any party, (d) deciding on the relevance and admissibility of evidence, and (e) reaching a conclusion on the reasons for the loss and making recommendations arising from it; and under what statutory or other authority they exercise these powers. [38441]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is given.

  (a) The questions to be raised at a Formal Investigation are determined by the Attorney-General;

  (b) The procedure to be appointed is in general a matter for the discretion of the Wreck Commissioner who may hold a preliminary meeting to give directions as to procedure. Witnesses are called initially on behalf of the Attorney-General and then by the other parties.

  (c) Costs of the investigation and of the parties, and the question by whom such costs are to be paid are in the discretion of the Wreck Commissioner.

  (d) Relevance and admissibility of evidence are matters for the Commissioner, although affidavits, statutory declarations and other written evidence are admissible unless the Commissioner considers it unjust for such evidence to be admitted.

  (e) These are matters for the Wreck Commissioner. The Assessors are required to sign the report with or without reservations or to state in writing their reasons for dissent.

  This is a summary of the powers which are exercised under Sections 268–270 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and the Merchant Shipping (Formal Investigation) Rules 1985 as amended (SI 1985 No. 1001 amended by SI 1990 No. 123) to which reference should be made for more detail of the powers and procedures.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the powers of a High Court judge when inquiring into the loss of a ship; and how they differ from those of a wreck commissioner and assessors in respect of(a) ruling on the scope of an inquiry within its terms of reference; (b) deciding who should be called to give evidence, whether evidence should be given on oath, and whether
  416
  civil or criminal rules of evidence should apply, (c) awarding of witness expenses and costs to or against any party, (d) deciding on the relevance and admissibility of evidence and (e) reaching a conclusion on the reasons for the loss and making recommendation arising from it. [38440]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Where a re-hearing has been Ordered to take place in the High Court the matter is assigned to the Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court and the Judge exercises wide powers of that Court set out in Orders 55,57 and 77 of the Rules of the Supreme Court as to the issues identified by my hon. Friend. The powers of a Wreck Commissioner are the subject of my answer today to a separate question from my hon. Friend.

  Waste Disposal
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in which local authorities in the North West Region landraising was assessed to be the best practical environmental option for waste disposal in each of the last three years. [38468]

  Angela Eagle
  No one form of waste treatment can be identified as the best practicable environmental option for all waste streams in any given area. Properly engineered and licensed landraising remains one option. Policy Planning Guidance note No. 10 on waste disposal and management, which will detail the relevant considerations that local authorities must take into account when addressing this issue, is due to be published later this year. Meanwhile, the draft waste local plans of the authorities in the north west region, which are currently under discussion, include their intended use of landfill/landraising.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authorities in the North West have published maps for areas of search for new landfill/landraising sites for non-inert wastes in each of the last three years; and which he expects to publish such plans in 1998–99. [38465]

  Angela Eagle
  Although the Government Office for the North West maintains copies of draft waste local plans, unitary development plans etc. for local authorities in the North West region, it would involve disproportionate expense to collate the information in the form requested. This can be obtained directly from the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what evidence he has evaluated of leakage of toxic materials from waste dumped in porous limestone quarries; [38873]

  (2) what investigations his Department has carried out on the effects of waste-tipping in limestone quarries. [38875]

  Angela Eagle
  The disposal of waste in landfills is controlled under the waste management licensing system in force under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The objective of the licensing system is to ensure that waste is disposed of in a manner which protects the environment and human health. The Environment Agency are responsible for the consideration of applications for licences to dispose of waste in landfills and the supervision of licences which are issued.
  417
  My Department published in 1993 the results of research that it commissioned from WRC (formerly the Water Research Centre) on the pollution characteristics of landfills in quarries in magnesian limestone areas. The research report was entitled "Monitoring for leachate migration from landfills in Magnesian Limestone quarries at old Wingate and Joint Stocks, Durham: 1984–1992". I have sent a copy of the report to my hon. Friend and arranged for copies to be deposited in the Library of the House.

  In 1995 the Department's evaluation of this and other research was incorporated into the recommendations of Waste Management Paper 26B, "Landfill Design, Construction and Operational Practice". This paper indicates that former quarries may be used for the landfilling of waste provided that the design incorporates adequate arrangements to contain and monitor leakage.

  Rail Accident, Glynde
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the conclusions of the investigation into the recent railway accident at Glynde station; and what action has been taken subsequently. [38714]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The conclusions of the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate investigation into the accident at Glynde Railway Station, East Sussex on 20 April 1997 were that serious breaches of health and safety legislation had taken place, resulting in the prosecution of Amec Rail Ltd.

  On 4 November 1997, Amec Rail Ltd. pleaded guilty to two charges: failing to ensure the health and safety of their employees and failing to ensure the safety of persons not in their employment. Amec Rail were fined £15,000 on each charge and ordered to pay costs of £2,007.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the roadworks whose completion will benefit road access to the Millennium Dome, giving the expected completion date in each case. [38718]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Millennium Experience will be a car-free event, but it is essential to secure good access for the traffic that has yet to get to the Dome such as coaches, taxis, disabled drivers and delivery vehicles. The following road improvements are taking place.

  Al2 Hackney to M11 Link Road
  The road is planned to be opened in Autumn 1999.

  A102(M) Access Improvements
  Works are due to commence in July 1998 for completion in June 1999.

  Blackwall Tunnel
  Work to refurbish the ventilation system for the southbound Blackwall tunnel is due for the completion in summer 1999. An exit ramp to divert overheight lorries from the northbound entrance to the tunnel was completed in October 1997.

  418
  Primary Route Network Re-signing
  Scheme replace the green backed Primary network signing in London. Tenders for the East London sector affecting routes to Greenwich have been invited with completion programmed for Autumn 1999.

  Woolwich Road Improvement Scheme
  The London Borough of Greenwich are receiving funding to upgrade to dual carriageway, the remaining single carriageway section of the Woolwich Road (A206) Completion is planned for May 1999.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for improvements to the transport infrastructure in preparation for the opening of the Millennium Experience. [37437]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  By the Millennium, there will be a variety of attractive and convenient means of travel available for visitors to the Dome which involve new and improved transport infrastructure as part of an integrated approach to provide access to the Millennium Experience. The following improvements are planned:The construction of the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) with a major new station by the gates of the Dome.
  A new bus station next to the JLE station with bus routes from several directions.
  A new pier for river services to central London (and historic Greenwich).
  A dedicated bus service linking the North Kent rail line at Charlton Station to the Dome.
  Completion of the Al2 Hackney to Ml I Link road.
  Replacement of green-backed Primary Route Network signs on east London routes to Greenwich.
  A refurbished ventilation system for the southbound Blackwall tunnel. An exit ramp to divert overheight lorries from the northbound entrance to the tunnel was completed in October 1997.
  New road links from the A102(M) onto local roads on the Greenwich Peninsula to provide access for those who need to come by road (such as coach parties and disabled drivers).
  A new riverside cycle/walk way linking Greenwich Town Centre to the Dome, plus facilities for visitors to leave their bicycles and motorbikes securely
  A new cable car system is planned by a private company to cross the Thames.
  A purpose built coach park at the Dome site with driver and passenger facilities.

  Former Coalfields
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what priority the Planning Inspectorate gives to planning applications on brownfield sites in former coalmining communities. [38654]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The determination of planning applications is the responsibility in the first instance of local planning authorities. In the case of planning applications that have been called in for determination by my right hon. Friend, no one form of development proposal is given priority over another.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the Coalfields Task Force will report on its programme of action; [38656]
  419
  (2) what priority his Department gives to employment creation measures in former coalfield communities. [38655]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister established the Coalfields Task Force last October to consider what more might be done to assist communities affected by pit closures. Their report will be published in May. In response to their recommendations on employment creation and other issues, the Deputy Prime Minister will launch a programme of action for the coalfields at a National Coalfields Conference to be held on Wednesday 24 June at 011erton Miners' Welfare in North Nottinghamshire.

  European Regional Statistics
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what meetings he has had with representatives of the European Commission to discuss the adoption of the English regions for the purposes of producing European regional statistics; and if he will make a statement. [39259]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter from the Director of the Office for National Statistics to my noble Friend Lord Bruce of Donington, published on 2 February 1998,Official Report, House of Lords, column 82, following his Question to my noble Friend Lord McIntosh, which reports progress on the adoption by the European Union of the Government Offices for the Regions for the classification of statistics for English regions.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to develop economic instruments to support planning policy guidance. [39000]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As was set out in a policy statement in February, we are seeking to open up the debate about the scope for using economic instruments to help achieve our planning objectives. The scope for detailed proposals has not yet been determined, and final decisions on taxation are, of course, a matter for the Chancellor.

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 2, if he will make a statement on the issues raised in the 306 letters received by his Department about rail services provided by Connex South Central. [39297]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A wide range of issues has been raised in correspondence, including performance, fares, service patterns and quality, capacity, investment and proposals to extend the franchise. The Franchising Director is responsible for overseeing Connex South Central's performance and managing their franchise contract.

  Canals
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the re-opening of canals with the potential for 420
  recreational use; what sources of public funding are available for such projects; and if he will make a statement. [38794]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government recognise the economic, environmental and amenity benefits that inland waterways can bring and are keen to maximise the full potential of the canal network. Our policy on upgrading British Waterways' canals is that this should not add to their existing liabilities: this usually involves third party funding for the extra costs of maintaining a navigable canal.

  Volunteers and the many canal restoration societies play a valuable part in restoring canals. We have provided financial help to a range of canal restoration projects through the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund, Land Reclamation Programme grant and the Environmental Action Fund. Projects are also eligible for funding from the various Lottery distribution boards, from local authorities and from Europe. We look forward to receiving the report from the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council on their prioritisation of restoration projects which should ensure that available funding is more effectively targeted.

  Unified Business Rate
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will allow new businesses to pay 25 per cent. of the unified business rates in their first years, 50 per cent. in the second and 75 per cent. in the third year; [39033]

  (2) if he will reduce the unified business rate where the owner or proprietor lives on the premises in lieu of council tax. [39031]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 30 March we published our consultation paper "Modernising local government: Business Rates", setting out our proposals on the future of non-domestic rates. We indicated there our willingness to consider reducing the rate bills of small businesses, and invited views by 1 June on the approach to be adopted.

  Bye-laws
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures his Department follows when considering an application to introduce a bye-law from(a) a district, (b) a borough, (c) a town and (d) a parish council; and what mechanisms his Department has for verifying the application. [38734]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In all cases, my Department ensures that an application meets the stringent tests as to the validity of byelaws which have been laid down by the courts, namely, that a byelaw should be within the power of the enabling legislation, that it is not repugnant to the general law, nor uncertain nor unreasonable.

  In verifying an application, my Department ensures that it is accompanied by a copy of the council's resolution; the sealed byelaws; the draft byelaws previously approved by the Department; a copy of the newspaper(s) containing the notice; the proper officer's certificate as to deposit of a copy of the byelaws; copies of objections, if any, received by the council and confirmation of compliance with additional requirements of Local Acts (if any).

  Parking Restrictions (Schools)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make parking restrictions outside school entrances mandatory, allowing local authorities powers of variation. [39198]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Local traffic authorities already have responsibility and the appropriate powers for deciding where, whether and when parking outside school entrances should be prohibited, and whether "Keep clear" markings should be advisory or mandatory. We have no plans to change this.

  Public Transport (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to provide funding for making buses accessible for people with disabilities. [38760]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Bus manufacturers and operators are already recognising the commercial benefits of accessibility not only for disabled people but also for those passengers travelling with prams or baby buggies.

  Government do provide funding to local authorities through the Local Transport Settlement in order to improve the physical environment, such as pavements and bus stops to provide better access to existing buses.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to set a deadline for all buses to be accessible for people with disabilities. [38761]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently consulting with disability organisations, industry and local authorities on our proposed timetable for implementation of the bus and coach provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  We have suggested that new large single deck buses should be accessible from 1 January 2000 and all large single deck buses by 2015, all new double deck buses from 1 January 2002 with an end date of 2017 for all double deck buses to be accessible. For coaches and small buses we are proposing 1 January 2005 for new vehicles and 2020 for total compliance of all vehicles.

  We will be consulting on our final proposals in the form of draft regulations when we have considered the responses to the current consultation exercise.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on encouraging implementation of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with reference to public transport for people with disabilities. [38763]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are committed to comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Accessible public transport, within the framework of an integrated transport policy, is fundamentally important to delivering this commitment.

  We have drawn up detailed proposals on the transport provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act covering bus and coach, rail and licensed taxis. We are consulting
  422
  with disability organisations, industry and local authorities both on the technical details and on the timetable for implementation.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans there are to adapt London Underground stations to provide access for people with disabilities. [38762]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All new stations on the Jubilee Line Extension will be fully accessible to people with disabilities. London Transport also has plans for developing a step-free network of around 60 key stations. The Government have asked LT to look at how these plans can be accelerated by the extra funding which the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 20 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1539–42.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he will verify the accuracy of the Eurostar traffic forecasts submitted to him by those organisations bidding to(a) construct the Channel Tunnel rail link and (b) run the Eurostar franchise. [39002]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Any forecasts produced by these parties are done for their own purposes and are not for endorsement by the Government. The Government have however commissioned an independent view based on information provided by the parties.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the timetable for the establishment of a Eurostar service from Birmingham to the Continent; and if he will make a statement. [38619]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The provision of these services is the responsibility of Eurostar (UK) Limited which is a subsidiary of London & Continental Railways Limited (LCR). LCR have assured me that Eurostar (UK) Limited are continuing to work with Rai1track in search of a solution to the continuing technical difficulties of operating Regional Eurostar rolling stock on parts of the existing network. These difficulties have prevented the issue of the safety clearances that are required before passenger services can be operated. LCR say that progress is being made, but regret that it is likely to be some months before the safety issues can be fully resolved. In the meantime LCR tell me that the traffic projections for these services are being considered as part of the forecasts for the business referred to in my answer of today to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what expenditure his Department has incurred on the provision of a sleeping car service to run to Europe, via the Channel Tunnel, for the regions of Britain; and if he will make a statement. [38618]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The rolling stock for this service was procured in 1992 by European Night Services Limited (ENS) using a lease purchase facility. ENS is a joint venture company owned by Eurostar (UK) Limited along with the national railways of France, Germany and Holland. Whilst there has been very little actual public financing of this venture, Eurostar (UK) Limited's share
  423
  of the capital value of the lease was scored as public expenditure when the company was in the public sector. The liabilities of Eurostar (UK) Ltd under the lease purchase facility are the subject of a Government Guarantee which was notified to Parliament under the normal procedures in 1996. If this Guarantee were to be called the Government's actual exposure is likely to be in the order of £105 million.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applicants to the boards of regional development agencies are under the age of(a) 25 years, (b) 30 years and (c) 35 years; and if he will make a statement. [38969]

  Mr. Caborn
  Applications for Regional Development Agency board membership have been received from a variety of sources and full monitoring details are not yet available. Of the applications made to the Government Offices, 4 are from people under 25 years, 6 are between 25 and 29 years and 20 are between 30 and 34 years. I will write to the hon. Member when the full information is available.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to ensure that the boards of regional development agencies include young people; and if he will make a statement. [38968]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information pack provided to candidates made it clear that service on the board of a Regional Development Agency may be a useful development opportunity for young people. In identifying board members, consideration will be given to candidates who have demonstrated significant potential early in their careers.

  Environmental Statements
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he requires the Environmental Statement submitted as part of an application for any project which will have an effect on transport volumes or patterns to include(a) an assessment of the number of journeys, by any means of transport, which are generated and saved, (b) an estimate of the projected distances of those journeys, and (c) an assessment of the total increase or reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases and other pollutants caused as a result. [38980]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The requirements for the content of Environmental Statements are set by the provisions of Annex III of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment (the EIA Directive). These requirements are implemented, in the main, through the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988 No. 1199). Developers are required to describe the likely significant effects of the project on the environment and to describe the forecasting methods used. To assist developers, the Department issued a Good Practice Guide on the preparation of Environmental Statements in 1995. This includes guidance on assessing the impacts on air and climate and of traffic and transport.

  National Parks
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy towards the use of the Sandford Principle in protecting national parks. [38981]

  Angela Eagle
  Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995 reflects the Sandford Principle. It places a general duty on all relevant authorities to have regard to National Park purposes and, if it appears that there is a conflict between them, requires that greater weight be attached to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park. My Department's policy is to promote this legislation.

  County Structure Plans
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the applicability and enforcement of county structure plans drawn up before the announcement of the Government's policy on the proportion of new dwellings to be on brownfield sites. [38956]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on 1 April 1998,Official Report, columns 530–31. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires all decisions on planning matters to be made in accordance with the adopted development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

  Government Planning Guidance has for many years required local authorities to make full and effective use of previously developed land for new development, both when drawing up their development plans and in deciding planning applications. The recent statement reinforces this position. There are at the moment no regional or local land recycling targets in development plans, although authorities will be working towards developing these in the next round of regional planning guidance.

  Home Buying Task Group
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Ministerial Task Group on home buying to report. [38825]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We expect to make an announcement in the autumn.

  Shipping Working Group
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Shipping Working Group assessing measures to assist the United Kingdom shipping industry to report. [38827]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Shipping Working Group submitted its report to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister last month.

  London Water Table
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to arrest the rising water table in
  425
  London; what impact rising water levels are having on subterranean structures; and if he will make a statement. [38747]

  Angela Eagle
  Thames Water plc are currently developing a strategy for alleviating groundwater levels across the area of London most likely to be affected. We expect to receive their report in about a month's time, and shall then be able to consider how to take the strategy forward. The only subterranean structures so far affected are certain parts of the Underground network. London Underground have considerable experience of dealing with groundwater and are taking action as the need arises.

  Cosmetic Surgery Clinics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) percentage and (b) number of private cosmetic surgery clinics were inspected in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [39034]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is unavailable. The Health and Safety Executive does not record its contacts with duty holders at this level of detail.

  Mink
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to classify mink as a pest. [38878]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans to classify the mink as a pest species.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to control the spread of wild mink in the United Kingdom. [38877]

  Angela Eagle
  Mink are controlled in the UK, by and large, by individual landowners.

  In the 1960s Agriculture Departments carried out an eradication scheme by means of an extensive trapping campaign. The campaign ceased in 1970 when it was accepted that feral mink had become too well established and widespread for eradication to be possible. There are no plans at present for such a scheme to be revived, as any such campaign would be very unlikely to succeed.

  Development Land
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for new ways of taxing development land to promote balanced development between greenfield and brownfield sites. [38872]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As was set out in a policy statement in February, we are seeking to open up the debate about the scope for using economic instruments to help achieve our planning objectives, including the possibility of a greenfield tax. The scope for detailed proposals has not yet been determined, and final decisions on taxation are, of course, a matter for the Chancellor.

  Planning
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evaluation his Department has carried out of the benefits of section 106 planning agreements. [38871]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As announced in our January 1998 Policy Statement "Modernising Planning", we are holding seminars this month with a number of stakeholders to evaluate these agreements and to discuss options for changing policy.

  Subsidence
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for making compensation available to home-owners affected by subsidence caused by limestone quarrying. [38874]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no proposals to compensate home-owners for subsidence caused by limestone quarrying.

  Subsidence damage to houses is generally covered under normal household insurance whatever the cause. The only statutory compensation scheme is for subsidence due to coal mining under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, as amended by the Coal Industry Act 1994. In other cases of subsidence damage, it is open to home-owners and/or their insurers to take action in Common Law against the person who caused the damage. It would not be appropriate for the Government to act as insurer of last resort in such cases.

  Liverpool Lifeboat Station
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the implications of the possible closure of the lifeboat station at Liverpool; and if he will make a statement. [39012]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No representations have been received on the possible closure of Liverpool lifeboat station. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution state they have no plans to close any lifeboat station in the Liverpool area.

  Nuclear Waste
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will(a) impose restrictions on and (b) eliminate in the long-term the transportation of nuclear waste. [39048]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department implements and enforces appropriate regulations to ensure that all radioactive material, including nuclear waste, is transported safely. These regulations are subject to continuous review to ensure they are kept up-to-date and effective.

  London Referendum Campaign
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what public funds are available for the London Referendum Campaign; and who may apply for them. [38738]
  427
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have made it clear that no public funds will be made available to groups campaigning on the London referendum.

  London Mayor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to set limits on election expenses for candidates for the London Mayoralty; and what statutory provision applies to the date on which election expenses are first incurred. [38736]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We said in our White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London", that there will need to be a limit on the amount that candidates for the Mayor and Assembly can spend. Subject to a "Yes" vote in the referendum on 7 May we will introduce legislation to establish the Greater London Authority. The legislation will set the level of these expenses and we will consult the Association of London Government before taking decisions.

  The date from which election expenses might first be incurred is not prescribed in statute.

  Building Control Services
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure local authorities are able to compete on equal terms with the private sector for building control services contracts. [38741]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Wider competition between approved inspectors and local authority building control should be a stimulus to greater efficiency and higher standards of service to the customer. To help bring about this result, I am working to devolve the setting of charges for local authority building control to individual local authorities. I also wish to see arrangements put in place for setting and monitoring compliance with common standards of building control applicable across the public and private sectors. I therefore welcome the establishment by the Local Government Association, the Construction Industry Council and the Association of Corporate Approved Inspectors of a Steering Group to draw up recommended standards and monitoring arrangements.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in respect of the provision of building control services by private contractors. [38740]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department receives letters from time to time about the performance of approved inspectors carrying out building control functions, as well as about the performance of local authority building control officers.

  A46/47 Link Road
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the original side road orders for the Leicester A46/47 link road scheme have been superseded by temporary closure side road orders; and what factors underlay the length of time taken between the posting of the side orders and commencement of work. [38957]
  428
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The A46/47 link road is a local road for which Leicester City Council are the local highway authority. Following a public inquiry in 1995 the Side Roads Orders were confirmed in August 1997. Before implementing the authority of a Side Roads Order a local highway authority must ensure that there already exists, or they have provided, a reasonably convenient alternative to highways being stopped up by an authority of that Order. This often entails the making of temporary closure orders under the Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Temporary closure orders under this Act may also be required to enable some construction works to be carried out. I understand that Leicester City Council have recently advertised their intention for some temporary closures to enable construction works. Under the Traffic Regulation Act highway authorities must give not less than 7 days' notice of their intention to make such temporary closures, which includes dates of commencement and duration of the closure.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the supplementary credit approval awarded to Leicester City Council for the construction of the A46/47 link road scheme has been used(a) effectively and (b) within the time period allowed. [38958]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  When my Department issues supplementary credit approvals (SCA) for a scheme such as the A46/47 link road the certificate that formalises the arrangement makes it clear that the resources are to be used only on the named scheme. It is for the Audit Commission to determine in due course whether an authority has made proper use of all the resources it receives under the Transport Policies and Programme system. The continuation of funding to a participating authority under that system is dependent on my Department' s receipt of satisfactory annual audit certificates. SCA are issued for a specific financial year. Local authorities know that if they are unable to use the resources fully in that year they must surrender the unused portion for reallocation. It is a function of the audit procedure to verify that authorities have fulfilled this requirement.

  Valuations (Commercial Properties)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the regulations concerning the valuation arrangements for commercial properties which include domestic areas within the overall property. [39199]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None. Where a property is used for both commercial and domestic purposes, the rateable value is based only on the commercial use. It does not include the value of the property as living accommodation. This is dealt with entirely separately, through a Council Tax assessment.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects
  429
  to publish his White Paper on the UK strategy to meet the target of 20 per cent. reduction on carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. [38985]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government plan to publish a consultation paper on climate change this summer. This will focus on policy options for meeting our legally binding target from Kyoto, but also look at measures that would move beyond that towards our aim of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions. We are inviting views from all sectors throughout this consultation process.

  £ million (1997–98 prices)

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000x2013;01

  2001x2013;02

  2002–03

  Anglia Railways

  26.0

  22.1

  16.0

  13.0

  8.6

  Cardiff Railways

  18.1

  17.1

  15.8

  15.0

  14.3

  Central Trains

  122.9

  109.0

  103.4

  99.9

  96.9

  Virgin Cross Country

  98.1

  82.2

  73.9

  67.8

  50.5

  Gatwick Express

  -7.9

  -9.8

  -10.7

  -11.5

  -12.0

  Great Eastern

  14.0

  8.1

  2.8

  -0.3

  -5.1

  Great Western Trains

  53.9

  47.8

  41.4

  34.0

  27.3

  Great North Eastern Railway

  36.3

  16.5

  6.2

  2.0

  0.1

  Virgin West Coast

  68.4

  56.1

  53.7

  52.3

  -3.9

  Island Line

  1.9

  1.8

  1.8

  1.0

  -

  LTS Rail

  25.1

  23.4

  21.9

  20.6

  19.3

  Merseyside Electrics

  6.5

  5.9

  5.7

  5.4

  5.5

  Midland Mainline

  2.4

  0.9

  -0.6

  -2.6

  -4.4

  Connex South Central

  54.8

  46.9

  43.4

  38.3

  35.9

  Silverlink

  35.5

  29.6

  26.4

  23.0

  20.0

  North Western Trains

  89.8

  81.6

  74.9

  71.7

  69.0

  Regional Railways North East

  122.9

  109.5

  102.3

  97.3

  93.7

  Scotrail Railways

  120.5

  114.0

  106.9

  100.3

  95.2

  Wales & West Railway

  62.2

  57.4

  51.4

  47.5

  44.0

  South West Trains

  60.8

  55.7

  50.5

  45.2

  35.7

  Thames Trains

  24.8

  17.0

  13.5

  7.6

  3.8

  Thameslink Rail

  -6.7

  -16.2

  -22.5

  -23.2

  -27.0

  Chiltern Railway

  12.6

  9.9

  6.7

  4.7

  3.3

  Connex South Eastern

  85.1

  61.1

  49.1

  40.4

  32.6

  West Anglia Great Northern

  34.7

  25.4

  13.1

  4.3

  -14.6

  Total

  1,162.7

  973.0

  847.0

  753.7

  588.7

  Total with gross PTE costs

  1,575.7

  1,352.3

  1,203.3

  1,092.3

  915.0

  Total with net PTE costs

  1,494.5

  1,271.1

  1,122.1

  1,011.2

  833.9

  Environmental Task Force
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the access to set-up funding for organisations acting as deliverers of the Environmental Task Force options of the New Deal to ensure adequate investment in infrastructure. [35908]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Chief Executive of the Employment Service recently announced a scheme whereby voluntary organisations, including those delivering ETF provision, can have some of their first year's contract value in advance, to meet set-up costs, immediately a contract is signed. The maximum amount available is whichever is the lower of £30,000 or 20 per cent. of the first year's expected contract value.

  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken to increase the national profile of the voluntary sector and Environmental Task Force options of the New Deal. [35927]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Rail Subsidies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the next five years the Government subsidy to be paid to(a) Railtrack and (b) each train operating company. [37919]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [pursuant to her reply, 8 April 1998, c. 291–92]: The information in the table was incorrect, the following table gives the correct figures.

  Our national advertising campaign features a range of voluntary and environmental organisations and from April will include two new television commercials to specifically promote these options. Inquiries generated in this way are answered by the New Deal Information Line and Website, for example by sending information packs. Factsheets and other publicity material aimed at both clients and option providers are also available through Jobcentres and local partner organisations. The New Deal Task Force is also working to raise the profile of these options.

  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 479, if he will publish the set of environmental objectives developed by his Department, against which Environmental Task Force projects will be assessed. [35951]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The list of environmental objectives, developed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, against which Environment Task Force (ETF) bids will be assessed was published as an Annex to the

  431
  specification for the ETF, which was issued by the Employment Service to organisations wishing to bid to deliver ETF provision.

  A copy of the list has been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those visits made within the United Kingdom since 1 May on which(a) she and (b) other Ministers within her Department have been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code indicating (i) those persons accompanying and (ii) the cost to public funds. [23763]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is not available in the form requested. However, the following information is available:

  Dates

  Person accompanying

  Total cost1 (£)

  Secretary of State

  30/05/97 to 15/02/98

  Spouse, children, parents

  7,364

  Adam Ingram, MP

  09/05/97 to 16/03/98

  Spouse

  3,044

  Tony Worthington, MP

  13/06/97 to 02/03/98

  Spouse

  1,839

  Lord Dubs

  16/05/97 to 06/03/98

  Spouse, child

  1,588

  1Includes cost of cars, flights and duty weekends in Northern Ireland

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people employed by(a) her Department and (b) the agencies for which her Department is responsible earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour, (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £4 per hour and (iv) between £4 and £4.62 per hour. [30755]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (iv)

  Non Industrial Staff1

  81

  1,656

  555

  1,797

  Industrial Staff

  Department

  -

  -

  21

  177

  Agencies

  -

  -

  -

  960

  1The split of non-industrial staff between Departments and agencies is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Conferences
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of her officials attended 432
  conferences (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas; and how many and what percentage made (i) oral and (ii) written contributions to the matters under discussion in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [31171]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments for 1997 is as follows:

  (a) 1,563

  (b) 305

  (i) 406 (21.7%)

  (ii) 229 (12.3%)

  Information relating to United Kingdom conferences attended by Department of the Environment Officials is not included as this could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Surveys
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list each information, promotional, marketing and opinion survey contract, with its value, concluded by her Department and its agencies for the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–2001 and (e) 2001–2002. [32019]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council were held in 1997. [33592]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Three: on 7 February, 8 May and 14 November. These were meetings of the Education and Culture Sub-Committee. There were also 3 meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference was established under the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council.

  Radio Telefis Eireann
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the cost to United Kingdom public funds of the onward transmission of Radio Telefis Eireann into Northern Ireland; who will pay the costs incurred within the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement on the discussion of the matter at the Anglo-Irish Conference on 6 March. [34614]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for broadcasting policy. His officials and UK broadcasters are currently discussing with their Irish counterparts proposals to increase power to extend the coverage of RTE services within Northern Ireland. Before my right hon. Friend can agree to any such increased power transmissions, the necessary engineering work to protect UK services will have to be undertaken. The costs of any engineering work required in the UK which forms part of any UK-Irish agreement to extend RTE reception in Northern Ireland will be wholly funded by the Irish.
  433
  We discussed plans for the early extension of RTE transmission throughout Northern Ireland at the Intergovernmental conference meeting on 5 March.

  Lawther Day Centre, Belfast
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for the future use of the Lawther Day Centre in College Park Avenue, Belfast. [37159]

  Mr. Worthington
  I understand that the South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust is seeking planning approval to develop an Adolescent Resource Centre on this site which will provide a focus for its Adolescent Services and facilitate an improved inter-agency and multi-disciplinary approach to young people and their families.

  Mobile Phones
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the maximum effective radiated power permitted from a mobile phone base station. [37097]

  Mr. Worthington
  I am advised by the Radio Communications Agency, which is the licensing authority for these operations, that the maximum effective radiated power permitted from a mobile phone base station should not exceed 30 dBW (decibel watts).

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the long-term effects of exposure to radiation from mobile phones and base stations. [37099]

  Mr. Worthington
  No specific research has been commissioned in relation to Northern Ireland. However, the Department of Health has commissioned two studies on biological effects of microwaves as part of its Radiation Protection Research Programme. The first is investigating the influence of radiation on learning ability and behaviour. The other is a laboratory study looking for biological responses from human cells in the electromagnetic radiation field. That Department is also contributing to the World Health Organisation's International Electromagnetic Field project, which includes the health effects of microwaves.

  The Government obtain advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) on the risks to health of exposure to electromagnetic fields. NRPB's advice is that mobile phones and base stations currently operating in the United Kingdom comply with the recommended exposure limits.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of radioactive discharges from Sellafield on the health of people in Northern Ireland. [37104]

  Mr. Worthington
  None.

  Mediation Network
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 27, under whose authority Mediation Network facilitates links between the RUC and others, (a) nationally and (b) internationally; with what activities relating to the RUC it has been involved; to whom the body is accountable in respect of Government funding received; and what accounts have been published. [37385]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Mediation Network is an independent association formed to develop alternative, non-violent approaches to conflicts and disputes in different settings in Northern Ireland. It therefore needs no authority other than the agreement of those it works with.

  The Mediation Network has already worked with the Royal Ulster Constabulary training branch on the RUC's Community Awareness programme. The current project is intended to develop with the RUC, as service providers, and others ideas for the evolution of policing and community relations in Northern Ireland.

  The Mediation Network is accountable to the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council for its financial assistance and the latter is in turn accountable to the Department of Finance and Personnel, by which it is funded under the Community Relations Programme.

  The last published accounts for both the Mediation Network and for the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council cover the financial year ending 31 March 1997.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 27, what studies have been commissioned by her Department from Mediation Network, and what studies or recommendations have been offered to her Department by Mediation Network, in relation to the future structure or operation of the RUC; and if she will place a copy of such papers in the Library. [37380]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Office, through its Statistics and Research Branch, is currently part funding a Mediation Network project entitled 'Policing Our Divided Society'. This particular project was proposed by the Mediation Network in consultation with the RUC, and contributes to the RUC's Policing in Partnership strategy. The Mediation Network approached the Northern Ireland Office, amongst others, to seek funding.

  The Mediation Network has identified the aim of the project as 'To Assist the Evolution of Policing and Community Relations in Northern Ireland'. Work will involve discussions with various groups about policing in Northern Ireland including with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the service providers.

  The Mediation Network will produce a report for the NIO which summarises points of significance emerging from the process. In due course, a summary of the main conclusion will be published.

  Peace Process (Public Relations)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been set aside for
  435
  public relations exercises relating to a possible talks agreement; what PR companies are involved; what budget has been identified for the exercise; and if she will make a statement.[37382]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  My principal concern in this area is to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have available to them all of the information which they need in order to take a decision on any agreement which may be reached, in a referendum.

  Accordingly, I propose to make arrangements to have an agreement circulated as widely as possible to the people of Northern Ireland.

  The total budget for printing and distribution of the agreement, the related costs of making known both its availability and the arrangements for the referendum cannot yet be predicted.

  I have no proposals to involve any PR company in this work. Any advertising necessary to publicise arrangements for making the agreement available publicly will be handled by an advertising agency already contracted to the Northern Ireland Office for other ongoing work.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 724–725, on Sinn Fein, if she will place a copy of the RUC Code Regulation in the Library. [37812]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC Code Regulation is a Confidential document and therefore cannot be made public.

  Maze Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents involving violent behaviour or assaults have been reported in each of the past four years in HMP Maze; how many complaints have been registered of assaults on prison officers; how many disciplinary charges have been initiated as a result; of these, how many charges led to further punishments; how many complaints have been registered as assaults on inmates; how many disciplinary charges were initiated as a result; and of these how many charges led to disciplinary action. [37679]

  Mr. Ingram
  There was a total of 67 incidents involving violent behaviour or assaults reported in HMP Maze 1994 to 1997. The total is broken down as follows:

  1994–11

  1995–25

  1996–18

  1997–8

  There have been a total of 208 complaints which have been registered as assaults on Prison Staff at HMP Maze, 179 disciplinary charges were initiated as a result, of which 38 charges led to further punishments.

  There have been 26 complaints registered as assaults against inmates during the four years in question. 3 disciplinary charges were initiated as a result, but disciplinary action is still pending.

  Prisoners (Remission)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the number of existing prisoners convicted of scheduled offences remaining in prison in each year until the last is released, assuming no new convictions, under(a) the current, (b) a 66 per cent. and (c) a 75 per cent. rate of remission. [37829]

  Mr. Ingram
  Statistical information in the precise form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am nevertheless able to provide statistical information on a similar point which has been previously produced. The following table is based on prisoners serving determinate sentences of three years or more; held at Maghaberry or Maze for offences connected to terrorism; and who will be released after 30 April 1998.

  Number of prisoners convicted of scheduled offences remaining in prison at the end of each year under current arrangements, 66% and 75% rates of remission

  End of year

  Current arrangements

  66% remission

  75% remission

  1998

  250

  109

  38

  1999

  182

  59

  9

  2000

  126

  26

  3

  2001

  84

  8

  2

  2002

  47

  2

  2

  2003

  31

  2

  1

  2004

  18

  1

  -

  2005

  8

  1

  -

  2006

  3

  1

  -

  2007

  1

  -

  -

  2008

  1

  -

  -

  2009

  1

  -

  -

  2010

  1

  -

  -

  2011

  1

  -

  -

  2012

  -

  -

  -

  Notes:

  1. Current prisoners for whom 66% and 75% remission would mean prior or immediate release, are included in figures for 1998.

  2. Determinate sentenced prisoners serving sentences of three years or more; held at Maghaberry or Maze for scheduled offences; and who will be released after 30 April 1998.

  3. Excludes: Life Sentence prisoners and prisoners detained at Secretary of State's Pleasure; remand; and fine default prisoners.

  Accident Treatment Costs
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the total cost of treating accidents and other injuries in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. [37322]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: The information requested is not available in the format requested.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the projected number of osteoporotic fractures in Northern Ireland in the next 12 months and the number of(a) orthopaedic beds and (b) days of hospitalisation required to treat them. [37334]
  437
  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Services are not planned in the detailed way pre-supposed by this question and therefore no estimate of the numbers referred to are available. However, in 1996/97, a total of 96 persons with a primary diagnosis of osteoporotic fracture were treated as inpatients in Northern Ireland hospitals. This treatment involved 1,685 bed-days.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the number of visits and repeat visits to GPs in Northern Ireland occasioned by osteoporosis. [37306]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Information on the number of visits and repeat visits made to GPs about specific conditions is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the cost of treating osteoporotic fractures in the last 12 months. [37323]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Based on the number of finished consultant episodes during 1996/97 in relation to osteoporotic fractures, expenditure amounted to approximately £582,000. The latter figures refer to inpatient episodes only.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the incidence of osteoporosis; and what estimate she has made of the cost of osteoporosis to the NHS in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. [37314]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Information on the incidence of osteoporosis is not available centrally. The data available, however, show that, during the financial year 1996/97, 1,167 persons with a primary diagnosis of osteoporosis were treated as inpatients in Northern Ireland hospitals. Data are not collected in such a way that allows the cost of osteoporosis to the Health and Personal Social Services in Northern Ireland to be estimated.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many health boards have an osteoporosis strategy in place; and if she will list them. [37310]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: The four Health and Social Services Boards are aware of the significance of this condition as a public health problem and are at various stages in the development of strategies; these include guidelines for the secondary prevention of osteoporosis, protocols for onward referral and treatment of patients with osteoporosis; and measures intended to prevent the occurrence of osteoporosis.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of(a) accidents and (b) orthopaedic hospital admissions in Northern Ireland are directly attributable to osteoporosis. [37327]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Data on (a) accidents are not collected in the form required. It is not therefore possible to answer the question. However, by way of information, in 1996/97, 145 (or 1 per cent.) of emergency inpatient admissions were assigned a primary diagnosis of osteoporosis.

  With regard to (b) there are no orthopaedic hospitals in Northern Ireland. During 1996/97, a total of 39 (or 0.25 per cent.) persons with a primary or secondary
  438
  diagnosis of osteoporosis were treated as inpatients in the Trauma & Orthopaedics (T&O) specialty in Northern Ireland hospitals.

  Bill of Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will take steps to ensure that the terms of the UN Basic Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal and Summary Executions are included on the proposed Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. [37888]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 8 April 1998]: We will bear this in mind.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Computer Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to ensure that the Serious Fraud Office has the human and technical resources to tackle successfully computer fraud. [38979]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office has a team of staff dedicated to deal with all computer-related issues on all cases: for example the seizure and processing of material during an investigation as well as presentation of material at trial.

  If the SFO were to require a particular expertise or technical resource that was not available internally then a competitive arrangement for selecting the provider on value for money criteria would be put into operation.

  Crown Business Communications
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he authorised the employment of Crown Communications by the Director of Public Prosecutions. [38719]

  The Attorney-General
  I was aware that CPS management was considering how to handle the Glidwell Report and the Government's response to it with a view to informing their staff of the Government's decisions. I was not aware that Crown Business Communications were being considered for this purpose. Internal communications within the CPS are not my responsibility but that of CPS management subject to my general power of superintendence. I shall be considering the handling of the Glidwell Report with the Director of Public Prosecutions in due course.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total cost to the public purse of the employment of Crown Communications by the Director of Public Prosecutions. [38720]

  The Attorney-General
  Nothing. No contract has been signed between Crown Business Communications and the Crown Prosecution Service. If it is decided to use the company it will be paid for items of work only when they have been identified and agreed.

  Thefts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from(a) his office

  439
  and (b) the offices of the Crown Prosecution Service in the last five years indicating the approximate value of each item stolen. [37974]

  The Attorney-General
  I am able to provide the following information:

  (a) A laptop computer worth approximately £700 was stolen from the Attorney-General's Office in July 1996. There is no record of any other theft of equipment in the period specified.

  (b) Equipment stolen from the offices of the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last five financial years together with approximate values, is as follows:

  Non IT Equipment

  IT Equipment

  Year

  Number

  Cost (£)

  Number

  Cost (£)

  1993/94

  8

  1,650

  24

  19,375

  1994/95

  12

  6,672

  17

  8,524

  1995/96

  14

  4,327

  22

  22,035

  1996/97

  11

  1,884

  15

  21,755

  1997/98

  2

  1,200

  1

  2,200

  Total

  47

  15,733

  79

  73,889

  Full details of stolen CPS equipment is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) organisations and (b) individuals he has consulted concerning the Social Exclusion Unit; and if he will make a statement. [38291]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Officials in the Welsh Office have had informal discussions with a number of bodies in Wales about ways to construct an effective programme to tackle Social Exclusion. These include the Welsh Local Government Association, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, Swansea City Council and the University of Glamorgan. We intend to publish proposals for formal consultation in early May.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to secure the future of post offices in rural Wales, with particular reference to Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [38461]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government fully recognise the importance of the post office network, especially in rural areas, and are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices. In announcing recently the next stage of the Review of the Post Office, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade reaffirmed this commitment. In the context of the Review, we shall be examining closely further scope for sustaining and strengthening the viability of the post office network as a whole.

  New Deal (Delinquency)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to monitor the impact of the New Deal on young people with a history of delinquency. [38458]
  440
  Mr. Hain
  The term "delinquency" is very broad and could legitimately be defined as including a range of anti-social behaviour, some of which could not be identified formally, for example through a criminal record.

  As a key part of the evaluation of the New Deal, we will seek to relate the outcomes of the New Deal participants to their individual characteristics, circumstances and labour market history, and to assess the extent to which these outcomes might have occurred in the absence of the New Deal.

  As part of this work, we shall be addressing the significance of a criminal record in employment and the success of the New Deal in overcoming barriers it may create.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the venue for the National Assembly in Cardiff will be announced. [38452]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I will announce the venue when I have made my decision.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 399, if he will make a statement on the way in which the Welsh Health Common Services Authority accumulated its reserves; and if he will give figures on the level of these reserves at the end of each of the past five financial years. [38462]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Welsh Health Common Services Authority has accumulated its reserves in the course of its normal trading activity within the NHS.

  £000

  Year

  1992–93

  5,185

  1993–94

  17,271

  1994–95

  16,776

  1995–96

  12,121

  1996–97

  7,249

  Source:

  Annual accounts of Welsh Health Commons Services Authority 1992–93 to 1996–97.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the savings to his Department's expenditure on the Welsh Health Common Services Authority budget in relation to the Authority's fully repairing and insuring lease on Crickhowell House by extending the defects liability period beyond(a) 12 months, (b) 24 months, (c) 36 months and (d) 48 months. [38442]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information is not available in the form requested. The landlord has paid for all repair work during the Defects Liability Period and there has been no effect on the budget of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority who are responsible for managing the building.
  441
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what period the defects liability period on the lease of Crickhowell House has been extended. [38443]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The defects liability period has not been formally extended beyond 31 March 1998. Discussions are taking place with the landlord over the scope and length of a further extension.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the consultancy study by Ove Arup Facades commissioned jointly by Welsh Health Common Services Authority and ABC into the water ingress problems in Crickhowell House. [38558]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Welsh Health Common Services Authority have not commissioned a study jointly with ABP or seen a report prepared by Ove Arup Facades.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the areas of the fabric of Crickhowell House which(a) have been signed off as defect-free by his Department indicating the date on which they were signed off and (b) have not been signed off as defect-free; and if he will make a statement. [38557]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information is not available in the form requested since defects are dealt with by the landlord in response to specific faults in particular locations. My Department have no responsibility for the day to day management of the building which is a matter for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department's lease of Crickhowell House is conditional on the whole building being signed-off as defect-free. [38783]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  No. There are remedies contained in the lease for the rectification of defects.

  Dyfed-Powys Health Authority
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates when the appointments of the members of the Board of the Dyfed-Powys Health Authority are due to terminate. [38658]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Dyfed Powys Health Authority Membership:

  Mrs. Vanessa J. Bourne: 30 June 1998

  Prof. John Williams: 31 March 2000

  Mr. Kenneth Cross: 31 March 2000

  Dr. Morton Davies: 31 March 2000

  Dr. Ainsley Reid: 31 March 2000

  Mr. Peter Swanson: 31 March 2000

  Ms Carys Evans: 31 March 2002

  There is one vacancy.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has taken to encourage increased investment in the railway service in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [39280]

  Mr. Hain
  Investment in rail infrastructure is primarily a matter for Railtrack, with the Government supporting rail services through the franchise agreements with 442
  operators. One of the main objectives of the Government's new integrated transport policy will be to win more passengers and freight on to the railways. The policy will be set out in a UK White Paper to be published later in the spring, together with a complementary transport policy statement for Wales. In the meantime, I am discussing with train operators the scope for improving services from North to South Wales.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the proposals for the dairy industry in Wales. [39273]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The proposals for the dairy industry are part of the Agenda 2000 reform package which has recently been published by the European Commission. The proposals have been broadly welcomed by the UK Government. The Welsh Office will continue to work closely with farming unions in Wales to identify and argue for the needs of both Welsh dairy farmers and Welsh agriculture in general as discussions move forward.

  Quangos
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Black and Asian people have been appointed to Welsh quangos since 1 May 1997. [38946]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I am keen to secure a wider field of candidates for public appointments who are representative of all parts of Wales. In particular, I want to encourage more candidates from those groups currently under-represented in public appointments which includes people from ethnic minorities.

  Information about the ethnic origin of candidates for appointments is provided in confidence. Whilst I have appointed people from ethnic minority backgrounds to public bodies in Wales it would be a breach of that confidence to disclose the details because the numbers are such that the ethnic origin of individuals could be identified.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how the action plans for endangered species and habitats prepared by Forest Enterprise would be taken forward and adapted in Wales under the separate exercise of forestry functions in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [38626]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  That part of Forest Enterprise's action plan for endangered species and habitats which relates to Wales is subject at present to direction by the Secretary of State for Wales. After devolution it will be subject to direction by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if an order under subsection 1(1)(b) in Schedule 6 to the Government of Wales Bill could exempt Forestry Commissioners in Wales from applying the recently agreed UK Forestry standard; and if he will make a statement. [38627]
  443
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Assembly will inherit the UK Forestry Standard. Subsequently, it will be for the Assembly to decide the standards which the Commission will apply in Wales.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, following the proposed separation of functions in relation to Wales, the Forestry Commission will(a) produce a framework document and supporting corporate plan for Wales and (b) address nature conservation objectives and targets previously agreed on a Great Britain basis; and if he will make a statement. [38625]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Forestry Commission will prepare separate corporate plans for England, Scotland and Wales covering all the Commission's objectives including nature conservation.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the requirements which could be disregarded by Forestry Commissioners in Wales subject to a order under subsection 1(1)(b) in Schedule 6 to the Government of Wales Bill; and if he will make a statement. [38624]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The purpose of the powers provided by subsection 1(1)(b) of Schedule 6 of the Government of Wales Bill is to allow the Forestry Commissioners to exercise their functions in Wales separately and distinctly from England and Scotland. In exercising their functions in Wales, the Forestry Commissioners would not be obliged to have regard to the circumstances of, or requirements in, England or Scotland.

  NHS Trusts
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the review of the number and share of NHS trusts in Wales to report. [38813]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I intend to consult on proposals to reduce the number of NHS trusts in Wales between June and September this year. This should enable my right hon. Friend and Ito make final decisions during October 1998.

  Trunk Road Programme
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the strategic review of the Welsh trunk road programme to report. [38819]

  Mr. Hain
  Details of the strategy for, and the role of, the Welsh trunk road programme will be included in the report on the review which will be published later this year.

  Childcare Working Group
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the review of the Welsh childcare strategy working group will be published. [38812]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I met the Welsh Childcare Working Group on Friday 17 April. Their views will contribute to my proposals for the Childcare Strategy in Wales, which I expect to publish soon.

  Environmental Task Force
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implementation of the work of the Environmental Task Force in Wales. [38731]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The New Deal for 18–24 year olds began in West Wales in January and in the rest of Wales on 6 April. The Employment Service has contracted with lead organisations to deliver the environment option of the New Deal. This option offers opportunities for young people to train and gain valuable work experience whilst meeting broad environmental objectives.

  Nursery Education (Welsh Language)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister for School Standards of 24 March 1998,Official Report, columns 398–99, if he will make a statement on the accessibility of Welsh-medium nursery education in all parts of Wales. [37145]

  Mr. Hain
  In securing nursery education places under early years development plans, each early years development partnership must give full consideration to parental demand for Welsh-medium provision. In cases where a change in the balance of provision between the maintained and voluntary sectors is proposed, the plan must state how this will enhance and not damage the accessibility and sustainability of Welsh-medium education.

  These requirements are clearly set out in the Welsh Office guidance on early years education issued this year. Plans have to be submitted to the Welsh Office by 31 May for approval.

  Public Appointments
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appointments he has made to Welsh non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997; how many of the appointments were(a) men and (b) women; how many existing appointees hold more than one post; and if he will list them. [38753]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have made it my general practice to advertise publicly and widely for candidates for the appointments which I make, to attract a new kind of candidate who is more representative of the whole life and community of Wales. This especially applies to the efforts to secure applications from women for these appointments, and I am determined to increase their representation on public bodies in Wales.

  Recent initiatives in the media have attracted interest from a number of potential women candidates from across Wales. My Department and I are committed to building on the success of these initiatives with similar exercises in the future.

  Between 1 May 1997 and 1 March 1998, I made 110 appointments, either singly or jointly. 78 were to men, and 32 to women. The number of appointments held by women has risen from 26 per cent. to 28 per cent. in the period between December 1997 and March 1998.
  445
  There are currently 54 people who hold more than one appointment. I will write separately with the details.

  Information on all appointments that I make is published in "Appointments made by the Secretary of State for Wales". A copy of this publication is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Gwent Tertiary College
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if all the ESF funding received by Gwent Tertiary College for each project in the 1995 to 1997 period has been used for the purpose intended; [38900]

  (2) if he will list the amount of ESF funding received by Gwent Tertiary College for each individual project for the period 1995 to 1997, together with the amount each project has already received from the college. [38899]

  Mr. Hain
  I am anxious that my hon. Friend receives all the information he has asked for on this matter. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have obtained the information from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment as detailed questions of this kind on the European Social Fund are either matters for his Department or for the College itself.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on employment of the Territorial Army in Wales. [38457]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply.

  As at 1 April this year, there were 3,282 members of TA units based in Wales, and these were supported by 138 Regular Army personnel, 79 Non Regular Permanent Staff and 194 other civilian staff.

  No assessment has been made of the overall impact of the Territorial Army on employment in Wales.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Footpaths
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have for improving footpath access and maintenance on their estates. [37444]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners are committed to protecting footpath access and ensuring that public rights of way are respected.

  Royal Peculiars
  Mr. Key
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what are the duties and responsibilities of the Church Commissioners in respect of Royal Peculiars, with particular reference to Westminster Abbey. [38592]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Royal Peculiars exercise their own jurisdiction and the Commissioners have no responsibility for their affairs.

  Policy and Finance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, to whom the Church Commissioners are(a) answerable on policy matters and (b) financially accountable; and if he will make a statement. [38594]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners are answerable on policy and financial matters to Parliament and to the General Synod of the Church of England. Their annual report and accounts together with any resolution passed by the Commissioners with reference thereto are laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and before the General Synod by its Secretary General.

  Appointments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list by name and title(a) the Church Commissioners, (b) the Board of Governors of the Church Commissioners with their dates of appointment and retirement and (c) the membership of the Estates and Finance Committee of the Church Commissioners. [38593]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The information that the hon. Member requires is listed below. It should be noted that the duties of the former Estates and Finance Committee are now largely the responsibility of the Assets and General Purposes Committees.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS AS OF APRIL 1998
  Chairman: The Most Reverend and Right Hon. G. L. Carey—Archbishop of Canterbury

  Church Estate Commissioners appointed by:

  Her Majesty

  Sir Michael Colman Bt—First Church Estates Commissioner

  S. Bell MP1—Second Church Estates Commissioner

  The Archbishop of Canterbury

  Mrs. M. H. Laird—Third Church Estates Commissioner

  Elected by the General Synod:

  The Venerable G. G. Gibson—Archdeacon of Auckland

  The Venerable S. R. Lowe—Archdeacon of Sheffield

  The Venerable D. K. R. Gerrard—Archdeacon of Wandsworth

  The Reverend Canon R. M. Baker

  The Reverend Canon J. A. Stanley

  The Reverend S. J. Trott

  The Reverend Canon H. E. Wilcox

  The Reverend Canon D. G. Williams

  Mrs. J. M. Atkinson

  The Viscountess Brentford OBE FCA

  P. N. E. Bruinvels

  Mrs. D. Chatterley

  A. Cooper OBE

  Mrs. P. R. Granger

  P. A. Lovegrove

  J. F. M. Smallwood CBE

  447

  T. J. P. Stevenson AIA APMI

  D. E. S. Webster

  Elected by the deans and provosts:

  The Very Reverend P. A. Berry—Provost of Birmingham

  The Very Reverend D. Frayne—Provost of Blackburn

  The Very Reverend H. E. C. Stapleton—The Dean of Carlisle

  The Very Reverend J. H. Moses—Dean of St. Paul's

  Nominated by:

  Her Majesty

  Sir Richard Baker Wilbraham Bt

  R. Heskett FRICS

  J. H. M. Newsum FRICS

  R. M. Shaw

  The Archbishop of Canterbury

  D. E. Fellows FIA FPMI

  Miss P. M. Lancaster

  M. J. Moriarty CBE

  E. G. Nugee QC

  Aldermen of the City of London

  P. A. Bull FRICS

  Sir Christopher Leaver CBE

  Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University

  The Rt. Hon. Sir Patrick Nairne GCB MC

  Board of Governors

  Appointed

  Expiry

  The Most Reverend and Right Honourable G.L.Carey,Archbishop of Centerbury— Ex-officio (Chairman)

  19April 1991

  —

  The Most Reverend and Right Honourable D.M. Hope RVCO, Archbishop of York— Deputy Chairman

  30 June 1993

  AGM 1999

  Sir Michael Colman Bt, First Church Estates Commissioner—Ex-officio

  1 April 1993

  —

  S. Bell MP, Second Church Estates Commissioner—Ex-officio

  12 June 1997

  —

  Mrs. M. H. Laird, Third Church Estates Commissioner—Ex-officio

  1 January 1989

  —

  The Right Reverend A. D. Chesters, Bishop of Blackburn

  (as Archdeacon of Halifax)

  19 July 1984

  2 May 1989

  as Bishop of Blackburn

  24 September 1992

  AGM 1999

  The Right Reverend A.M.A Turnbull, Bishop of Durham

  28 April 1988

  AGM 2002

  The Right Reverend and Rt. Hon. R. J. C. Chartres, Bishop of London

  12 December 1995

  AGM 1999

  The Right Reverend P. J. Nott, Bishop of Norwich

  30 June 1993

  AGM 1999

  The Very Reverend D. Frayne, Provost of Blackburn

  19 June 1996

  AGM 2002

  The Very Reverend J. H. Moses, Dean of St. Paul's

  28 April 1988

  AGM 1999

  The Venerable G. G. Gibson, Archdeacon of Auckland

  1 April 1993

  AGM 2002

  The Venerable S.R. Lowe, Archdeacon of Sheffield

  28 April 1994

  AGM 2002

  The Reverend Canon R.M Baker

  27 April 1995

  AGM 1999

  The Reverend Canon J.A. Stanley

  28 April 1988

  AGM 1999

  The Reverend Canon H.E. Wilcox

  29 February 1996

  AGM 1999

  The Reverend Canon D.G. Williams

  23 January 1997

  AGM 2002

  The Viscountess Brentford OBE FCA

  1 April 1993

  AGM 1999

  A. Cooper OBE

  1 April 1993

  AGM 1999

  Mrs. P. R. Granger

  1 June 1991

  AGM 2002

  Miss P.M. Lancaster

  28 April 1995

  AGM 1999

  P.A. Lovegrove

  28 April 1988

  AGM 1999

  E. G. Nugee QC

  23 August 1993

  AGM 2002

  J.F.M. Smallwood CBE

  17 November 1966

  AGM 2002

  D.E.S. Webster

  29 February 1996

  AGM 1999

  Sir Richard Baker Willbraham Bt(co-opted)

  27 April 1995

  AGM 1999

  O.N. Dawson (co-opted)

  27 April 1995

  AGM 1999

  D.E. Fellows FIA FPMI (co-opted)

  29 February 1996

  AGM 2002

  GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE
  Has a general duty to advise the Board and, in Particular, makes recommedations on the distribution of available money and on General Stipends Authority matters; is aslo responsible for staff matters.

  Sir Michael Colman Bt, Chairman

  The Bishop of Blackburn, Deputy Chairman

  S.Bell MP

  448
  Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University

  O. N. Dawson

  Ex officio:

  The Archbishop of York

  The 41 Diocesan Bishops

  The Lord Chancellor

  The First Lord of the Treasury

  The President of the Council

  The Speaker of the House of Commons

  The Secretary of State for the Home Department

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer

  The Lord Chief Justice

  The Master of the Rolls

  The Attorney-General

  The Solicitor-General

  The Lord Mayor of London

  The Lord Mayor of York

  Secretary to the Commissioners

  P. Locke CBE

  1 Entitled to attend and speak at any Committee.

  BOARD OF GOVERNORS
  The Board transacts the functions and business of the Commissioners except where, by statute or with the Board's approval, these are exercised by Committees.

  Mrs. M. H. Laird

  The Bishop of Norwich

  The Dean of St. Paul's

  The Archdeacon of Auckland

  The Reverend Canon J. A. Stanley

  A. Cooper OBE

  M. J. Moriarty CB

  449

  J. F. M. Smallwood CBE

  T. J. P Stevenson AIA APMI

  Committee Secretary—P. Locke CBE

  ASSETS COMMITTEE
  Subject to any general rules made by the Board, has an exclusive power and duty to act in all matters relating to the management of the Commissioners' assets

  Sir Michael Colman Bt, Chairman

  Sir Richard Baker Wilbraham Bt, Deputy Chairman 0. N. Dawson

  R. Heskett FRICS

  J. H. M. Newsum FRICS

  R. M. Shaw

  The Reverend Canon H. E. Wilcox (clerical alternate)

  P. A. Lovegrove (associate member)

  Committee Secretary—P. Locke CBE

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on funding for national museums. [37419]

  Mr. Fisher
  Funding for the national Museums and Galleries has been protected for the 1998–99 financial year. Allocations to individual institutions are unchanged from those announced by the previous Government, except for an extra £1.3 million held in reserve for the British Museum and the Tate Gallery to maintain free entry pending the outcome of the Department's spending review.

  The March Budget also included the announcement of a £9 million package to promote access to Museums and Galleries.

  An announcement will be made in the summer on the outcome of the Departmental Spending Review, which will inform spending decisions for 1999–2000 and beyond.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make a statement on the criteria which he used to allocate money to(a) the British Museum, (b) the Victoria and Albert Museum, (c) the Natural History Museum and (d) the Science Museum for the year 1998–99; [38757]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the criteria which he has used to allocate money for museums in 1998–99; and what plans he has to review those criteria. [38756]

  Mr. Fisher
  Funding for the museums and galleries sector has been protected for the 1998–99 financial year. Allocations to the national institutions are unchanged from those announced by the previous Government, except for an extra £1 million held in reserve for the British Museum (and £300 thousand for the Tate Gallery) to maintain free entry pending the outcome of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's Spending Review.

  In addition, the March Budget included the announcement of a £9 million package to further promote access to museums and galleries.
  450
  We are reviewing funding criteria for the museums and galleries sector as part of the Spending Review. The conclusions will be announced in the summer and will inform spending decisions for 1999–2000 and beyond.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to promote more educational programmes by museums and galleries. [37431]

  Mr. Fisher
  This is an issue for my Department's spending review, which will be completed in the summer. Museums and galleries have great educational value and I am keen to encourage development of that role.

  Football
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the structure of the Football Association Premiership and the Football League. [37420]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My colleagues the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport have received a number of representations. The governing bodies of professional football have a key role in the future of the game. They will note the wide support shown for the Ten Minute Rule Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 7 April.

  Media Ownership
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to alter the rules governing media ownership. [37421]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have no plans to alter the rules covering media ownership. The rules introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1996 have been in force for only 17 months.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his plans for his Department's role in the disbursement of national lottery money. [37422]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department will continue to set a framework for the distribution of Lottery money through legislation and through directions issued under that legislation. Distributors will be responsible for decisions on individual applications.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to reduce the proportion of lottery money that will go to the arts, sport, heritage and charities. [37433]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The proportion of lottery income which the arts, sport, heritage and charities each receive will be amended to 16.% from 14 October 1997, subject to the passage of the necessary provision in the National Lottery Bill. Each can still expect to receive £1.8 billion over the period of the current licence. This matches their original expectation when the Lottery was launched.

  NESTA Scheme
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from scientists in Norwich on initiatives under the NESTA scheme. [37423]

  Mr. Fisher
  I have received a number of representations from organisations in the Norwich area but I am not aware of any representations specifically from scientists in Norwich.

  Royal Parks (Cycle Routes)
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has had on the provision of cycle routes in the royal parks. [37425]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a letter from my hon. Friend, in his capacity as Secretary of the All Party Cycling Group, seeking a meeting to discuss the level of provision for cyclists in the Royal Parks.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to respond to the development needs of the film industry. [37426]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) about the Film Policy Review Report, 'A Bigger Picture', which proposes new forms of public and private sector support for the vital script development process.

  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what response he is making to the Clarke/Till review of the British film industry. [37430]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I welcome the Report. It represents a great opportunity for Government and industry to work together to create the conditions necessary for the long-term prosperity of the British film industry.

  Tourism
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what account he plans to take of sustainable development needs in the new tourism strategy. [37428]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  We are committed to enabling tourism growth which is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable and our new tourism strategy will reflect that commitment.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he intends to take to encourage people from overseas to visit the United Kingdom. [37417]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department continues to support the British Tourist Authority's excellent work to promote Britain overseas as a visitor destination. As part of our work on the new strategy for tourism to be published later 452
  this year, we are looking at how further to encourage the sustainable development of both incoming and domestic tourism.

  Sports Institute
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future role of the United Kingdom sports institute. [37427]

  Mr. Fisher
  The United Kingdom Sports Institute's mission is to put the UK at the top of world sport by providing quality services that our elite athletes, including those with disabilities, will want to use. The Sheffield Headquarters site will co-ordinate and direct a network of centres of sporting excellence which will be accessible across Britain.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is his definition of British for the purpose of the contents of the Millennium Experience. [37441]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 217.

  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on his plans for the educational components of the Millennium Experience. [37442]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is charged with creating a Millennium Experience which is educational, inspirational, and fun. Most aspects of the Experience (both the Dome at Greenwich and the associated national programme of events and activities) will have an educational element and will support the principle of lifelong learning. Some parts of the Experience have a particular education focus—The Learning Curve and Licensed to Skill zones within the Dome will reflect the close inter-relationship of learning with the changing world of work. The national programme will provide opportunities for people to participate with educational organisations on community based local and regional learning projects. The NMEC have Education Managers in each of its twelve local offices around the country. These Managers will support and promote national programme activities and events in liaison with community groups, local authorities and local education authorities and establishments.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to appoint a new creative director for the Millennium Experience project. [37443]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 11.

SCOTLAND

  Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of his expenditure plans for each year from 1994–95 to 1999–2000 in cash and real terms at 1997–98 prices, indicating changes announced since the publication of Serving Scotland's Needs, setting out the cumulative spending planned for 1998–99 to 1999–2000 under each item in real terms and the total cumulative spending assuming that spending is

  The Scottish Office public expenditure plans

  £ million, cash

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Estimated outturn

  Plans

  Changes from Serving Scotland"s Needs 1997

  Changes from Serving Scotland"s Needs 1997

  Central government expenditure (including public corporations other than nationalised industries)

  Agriculture, fisheries and food

  456

  521

  600

  541

  517

  -24

  -22

  Industry, enterprise and training

  598

  599

  595

  578

  585

  -13

  1

  Roads and transport1

  338

  299

  215

  291

  281

  115

  87

  Housing

  344

  183

  188

  346

  300

  67

  17

  Scottish Homes loan repayments

  -

  -

  -

  -139

  -48

  11

  22

  Other environmental services

  59

  64

  350

  338

  328

  13

  7

  Law, order and protective services3

  429

  428

  450

  476

  460

  -3

  -16

  Education and sport2

  1,211

  1,250

  1,293

  1,281

  1,187

  61

  -60

  Arts and libraries

  76

  75

  79

  85

  77

  5

  1

  Health

  3,948

  4,092

  4,240

  4,394

  4,626

  18

  151

  Social work services

  44

  48

  63

  66

  66

  5

  5

  Other public services3

  167

  172

  176

  154

  161

  -4

  5

  Total central government expenditure (including public corporations)

  7,670

  7,731

  8,249

  8,411

  8,540

  943

  737

  Local authority capital expenditure

  912

  996

  529

  496

  549

  -73

  -5

  of which:

  Housing (HRA)

  182

  291

  177

  178

  180

  -2

  0

  Police

  8

  14

  18

  19

  18

  -1

  -2

  Fire

  9

  10

  18

  16

  16

  0

  0

  Provision to match receipts from European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund

  114

  121

  136

  227

  123

  67

  -56

  Central government support to local authorities current expenditure1

  5,322

  5,423

  5,433

  5,298

  5,285

  -63

  11

  Nationalised Industries' financing limits

  -27

  -22

  18

  26

  26

  4

  9

  Non-control total expenditure

  -

  -

  -

  22

  74

  22

  74

  of which:

  New Deal for Schools

  -

  -

  -

  9

  27

  9

  27

  Housing capital receipts initiative

  -

  -

  -

  12

  44

  12

  44

  Childcare

  -

  -

  -

  -

  3

  0

  3

  Further education colleges

  -

  -

  -

  1

  -

  1

  0

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

  13,990

  14,294

  14,366

  14,482

  14,597

  208

  231

  of which:

  the Scottish Block

  13,560

  13,750

  13,748

  13,893

  13,979

  205

  169

  1 Roads and Transport figures in this table include Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive (SPTE) which previously were included in central government support to local authorities current, except in 1996–97 where it is still included in the local authorities current line.

  2 Switch of resources in the 2 years shown is due to change in profile of the sale of student loan book.

  3From 1998–99 departments will take on responsibility from Property Repayment Services (PRS) for buildings which the government owns and occupies. The change from paying rents to paying capital charges has resulted in a reduction in planned expenditure for 1998–99 of around £10 million on both the Law, Order and Protective Services and the other public service programmes, relating to the Scottish Courts estate and The Scottish Office estate respectively.

  454
  maintained at 1997–98 real term levels; and if he will indicate the difference between the two cumulative totals. [36098]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]The information for each year from 1994–95 to 1998–99 is set out in the tables which are based on information published in my Departmental Report "Serving Scotland's Needs" (Cm3914) on 9 April 1998. No plans for 1999-2000 are given as these are subject to the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. As a result, the cumulative spending totals and comparison requested cannot be shown.
  455

  The Scottish Office public expenditure plans

  £ million, 1997–98 prices

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Estimated outturn

  Plans

  Changes from Serving Scotland"s Needs 1997

  Changes from Serving Scotland"s Needs 1997

  Central government expenditure (including public corporations other than nationalised industries)

  Agriculture, fisheries and food

  495

  551

  616

  541

  502

  -24

  -21

  Industry, enterprise and training

  650

  633

  611

  578

  569

  -13

  1

  Roads and transport

  367

  316

  221

  291

  273

  115

  85

  Housing

  374

  193

  193

  346

  292

  67

  17

  Scottish Homes loan repayments

  -

  -

  -

  -139

  -47

  11

  21

  Other environmental services

  64

  68

  359

  338

  319

  13

  7

  Law, order and protective services

  466

  452

  462

  476

  447

  -3

  -16

  Education and sport

  1,316

  1,321

  1,328

  1,281

  1,154

  61

  -58

  Arts and libraries

  83

  79

  81

  85

  75

  5

  1

  Health

  4,289

  4,326

  4,354

  4,394

  4,496

  18

  147

  Social Work services

  48

  51

  65

  66

  64

  5

  5

  Other public services

  181

  182

  181

  154

  156

  -4

  5

  Total central government expenditure (including) public corporations)

  8,333

  8,172

  8,472

  8,411

  8,299

  943

  716

  Local authority capital expenditure

  991

  1,053

  543

  496

  534

  -73

  -5

  of which:

  Housing (HRA)

  198

  308

  182

  178

  175

  -2

  0

  Police

  9

  15

  18

  19

  17

  -1

  -2

  Fire

  10

  11

  18

  16

  16

  0

  0

  Provision to match receipts from European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund

  124

  128

  140

  227

  120

  67

  -54

  Central government support to local authorities current expenditure

  5,782

  5,733

  5,580

  5,298

  5,136

  -63

  11

  Nationalised Industries' financing limits

  -29

  -23

  18

  26

  25

  4

  9

  Non-control total expenditure from Windfall Tax

  -

  -

  -

  22

  72

  22

  72

  New Deal for Schools

  -

  -

  -

  9

  26

  9

  26

  Housing capital receipts initiative

  -

  -

  -

  12

  43

  12

  43

  Childcare

  -

  -

  -

  -

  3

  0

  3

  Further education colleges

  -

  -

  -

  1

  -

  0

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

  15,199

  15,062

  14,754

  14,482

  14,186

  208

  224

  of which:

  the Scottish Block

  14,732

  14,535

  14,119

  13,893

  13,585

  205

  164

  Note:

  Real terms figures are based on the latest GDP deflators, reworked to a 1997–98 base

  Scottish National Gallery
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum of public money involved in the preparation and presentation of the application for millennium funding towards the proposed Scottish National Gallery project; and if he will make a statement. [37128]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]I understand that the total estimated costs incurred by the National Galleries of Scotland (NGS) over the 7 year period since 1991 to date in developing their proposals to establish a new National Gallery in Glasgow were £650,000. This includes expenditure on the preparation and presentation of the two applications which they submitted to the Heritage Lottery Fund, the first in respect of the former Post Office building in George Square and the second in respect of the former Sheriff Court building in Ingram Street.
  456
  The Glasgow Development Agency has also incurred expenditure estimated at some £400,000 on the proposed project over the past 5 years, particularly on site investigations, technical consultancies and an architectural competition. I understand that much of this expenditure would have been necessary whatever uses had been contemplated for these buildings and that little of it was directly related to the applications for Lottery funding made by the NGS.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what NHS provision is available in the Edinburgh area to support sufferers from ME; and what plans he has to increase that provision. [38309]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Lothian health board has indicated that there is a range of services available for patients who have been diagnosed as suffering from ME. General Medical Practitioners usually refer patients to the Infectious Disease Department of the City Hospital. Following diagnosis, patients are offered appropriate treatment for
  457
  specific symptoms, advice, counselling, psychological support and, if necessary, referral to a psychiatrist with particular expertise in ME. Lothian health board has indicated that it has no plans at present to change the range of services provided.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the capital allocations to the Fire Service in the current year, with particular reference to Lothian and Borders. [37926]

  Mr. McLeish
  No. The fire service capital programme for 1998–99 remains, at its highest ever level, £15.6 million. From this total, Lothian and Borders Joint Fire Board has been granted a special allocation of £0.6 million both in 1997–98 and 1998–99 to assist with its major project of headquarters refurbishment. In addition the board has in each year received its full formula share of the total programme, net of top-slicing for major projects.

  Higher Still
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent to date on the development and promotion of Higher Still; how much it is planned to spend in 1998–99 and 1999–2000; on what the money has been spent or will be spent; how many FTE staff have been employed on it in each year; and what estimate he has made of the total amount of staff time devoted to Higher Still in each year. [37927]

  Mr. Wilson
  As at 31 March 1998, some £15.3m had been directly spent on Higher Still. Planned expenditure in 1998–99 is £5.2m. A budget for 1999–2000 will be set in due course in the light of the Comprehensive Spending Review. In addition, further expenditure has been and will be incurred by local authorities, the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum.

  Non-executive directors resigning sice 1 May 1997

  Non-executive directors appointed since 1 May 1997

  Name

  Date appointed

  Date resigned

  Name

  Date appointed

  Local Enterprise Company in Scottish Enterprise area

  Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise

  John Jameson OBE

  22 March 1991

  31 December 1997

  Andrew Campbell OBE

  1 January 1998

  Michael Keggins

  1 January 1998

  Nicholas A.G. Waugh

  1 January 1998

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise

  David Kilmurry

  19 May 1993

  25 June 1997

  Enterprise Ayrishire

  Brigadier Tony Ricketts

  2 April 1991

  10 December 1997

  Jim Ferguson

  6 January 1998

  Bill Kerr

  6 January 1998

  Fife Enterprise

  Margaret A. Russell

  10 May 1993

  8 December 1997

  Forth Valley Enterprise

  Jim Devine

  4 November 1997

  Glasgow Development Agency

  Cllr. Robert Gould

  21 October 1996

  16 January 1998

  Cllr. Frank McAveety

  23 February 1998

  Ian. J. Irvine

  1 April 1991

  29 June 1997

  Prof. Alan Richardson

  31 October 1997

  Prof. Robert B. Jack CBE

  27 November 1992

  29 June 1997

  Alan Sinclair

  31 October 1997

  John Q. Thorburn

  31 October 1997

  Grampian Enterprise

  Ray Dinsdale

  26 April 1993

  12 January 1998

  Martin Gilbert

  12 January 1998

  Andrew Salveson

  27 February 1995

  12 January 1998

  Lesley Bale

  12 January 1998

  458
  This funding has covered all aspects of the development of Higher Still, including staffing and running costs associated with the Higher Still Development Unit (HSDU). Major areas of expenditure have included consultation on and the development of the new units and courses, the printing and distribution of final arrangements documents and subject guides, the provision of staff development seminars for subject leaders, work on core skills and Scottish Group Awards, and the ongoing development of a wide range of support materials, including learning and teaching materials and the National Assessment Bank.

  The numbers of full time equivalent staff employed on Higher Still, by both the Higher Still Development Unit (HSDU) and The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) are as noted.

  Year

  Number of FTE staff working for or with HSDU1

  Number of FTE staff employed by SOEID on Higher Still

  1994–95

  37.5

  5.6

  1995–96

  39.0

  6.8

  1996–97

  64.0

  7.6

  1997–98

  94.5

  6.7

  1This includes HSDU staff, National Trainers, Development Officers and some staff of the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state for each local enterprise company in Scotland the(a) names, (b) dates of appointment and (c) party affiliations of the non-executive directors who have (i) been appointed since 1 May 1997 and (ii) resigned since 1 May 1997. [37795]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]Local Enterprise Companies are private companies that contract with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. No information is held on the party affiliations of non-executive directors of local enterprise companies. The other information requested is set out in the table.
  459

  Non-executive directors resigning since 1 May 1997

  Non-executive directors appointed since I May

  Name

  Date appointed

  Date resigned

  Name

  Date appointed

  Lanarkshire Development Agency

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Ltd.

  George Borthwick CBE

  5 October 1994

  4 June 1997

  Ronald Dunn

  4 June 1997

  Cllr. Keith Geddes

  1 August 1990

  29 January 1998

  Eileen Mackay

  20 February 1998

  Prof. Sir Stewart Sutherland

  6 April 1996

  11 February 1998

  Moray Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise1

  Ewan Buchanan

  16 September 1996

  28 February 1998

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Borders Enterprise

  Alistair Bennett

  30 July 1990

  7 August 1997

  Andrew Thatcher

  14 December 1995

  1 July 1997

  Scottish Enterprise Tayside

  Allan L. Proctor

  13 September 1990

  3 September 1997

  Ian McMillan

  3 September 1997

  David Sawyer

  I June 1994

  3 September 1997

  John A. Robertson

  16 October 1997

  William Sutherland MBE

  13 December 1990

  3 September 1997

  Local Enterprise Companies in Highlands and Islands Enterprise area

  Argyll and the Island Enterprise

  Norman Lamond

  1 April 1991

  16 July 1997

  Robert Alexander

  16 July 1997

  Molcolm Moy

  1 April 1991

  16 July 1997

  Caithness and Sutherland Enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness and Nairn Enterprise

  Ann Fraser

  25 October 1994

  29 July 1997

  Ian Urquhart

  27 January 1998

  Grant Sword

  27 January 1998

  Lochaber Limited

  Brian Donald

  1 April 1991

  15 December 1997

  Kurt Larson

  28 August 1997

  Michael Leonard

  27 June 1996

  15 December 1997

  David Wright

  Stewart MacLean

  1 April 1991

  29 May 1997

  Laurence Young

  Catrionna MacMillan

  30 January 1992

  15 December 1997

  Orkney Enterprise

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty Enterprise

  Ian G.Palmer

  25 October 1994

  6 November 1997

  Maggie Sysmonds

  10 December 1997

  Shetland Enterprise

  George Sutherland

  1 April 1991

  1 June 1997

  David Nicholson

  1 June 1997

  Skye and Lochalsh Enterprise

  Morag Craig

  1 April 1991

  24 February 1998

  Muriel Jones

  1 April 1998

  Ronald Johnstone

  1 April 1991

  25 June 1997

  Donald MacDonald

  1 April 1998

  Una MacPherson

  16 May 1994

  29 October 1997

  Iain Mackinnon

  1 April 1998

  Western Isles Enterprise

  David Buckland

  11 March 1996

  31 March 1998

  Roderick MacAskill

  10 March 1996

  31 March 1998

  George V.MacLeod

  1 Aptil 1991

  6 January 1998

  Peter Morrison

  1 April 1991

  16 February 1998

  1Moray Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise contract to both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the costs of (a) anti-drugs education initiatives and (b) other drugs reduction initiatives in each of the past 14 years; and what are the expected costs of similar campaigns in each of the next five years. [38358]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 8 April 1998]Information on expenditure on anti-drugs education and other drug reduction initiatives since 1983 is not held centrally. The expected costs of similar campaigns to 2003 will depend upon plans for tackling drug misuse in future years.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy on the grazing of moorlands by domestic livestock. [38566]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government's policy is to limit damage to moorlands from any overgrazing by livestock which attract headage payments. Our agri-environment
  460
  schemes provide for enhancement of the moorland environment by a range of measures including stock removal where appropriate.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of potential overgrazing of heath and heather vegetation in the LFA were investigated by the Agriculture Department in each of the last three years; and how many of these investigations resulted in the withholding of(a) some and (b) all of the livestock headage payments made to the farmers involved. [38560]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Twelve cases of alleged overgrazing have been investigated in the last three years. Most of these have been resolved by agreement with the producer. There have been no instances so far where it has been necessary to restrict livestock headage payments.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the environmental conditions attached to the receipt of livestock headage payments
  461
  made through (a) hill livestock compensatory allowances, (b) sheep annual premiums, (c) suckler cow premiums and (d) beef special premiums to prevent overgrazing. [38561]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Subsidy payments under these schemes are conditional on the stock being managed so as to prevent damage through overgrazing and semi-natural vegetation.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to protect hedgerows. [38569]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The importance of hedgerows is widely recognised not only in natural heritage terms, but also for farming, cultural and archaeological reasons. Incentives are available to encourage farmers and crofters to maintain their existing hedges and to plant new hedges through both the Government's agri-environment programme and Scottish Natural Heritage grants

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been excluded from school in each academic year since 1990–91. [39176]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information on exclusions from school was not collected centrally before 1994&․–95. The most recent available information, as set out in the yearly report on Attendance and Absence in Scottish Schools published by the Audit Unit of HM Inspectors of Schools, is in the table.

  Number of Pupils permanently excluded1

  Number of half days of temporary exclusions

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1994–95

  47

  296

  220,115

  2157,958

  1995–96

  30

  155

  31,207

  279,636

  1996–97

  16

  91

  36,433

  276,979

  1Some authorities show a total of zero for permanent exclusions,
  either because as a matter of policy they do not permit permanent
  exclusions or because they do not record permanent exclusions separately.

  2For 1994–95,data on temporary exclusions are available only for January-July 1995.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list Scottish Development Agency-funded environmental improvement projects in each Scottish constituency. [39175]

  Mr. Wilson
  Detailed information on the programme of environmental improvements funded by the Scottish Development Agency is no longer available. The Agency's successor, the Scottish Entgerprise netword, has funded up to 400 separate environmental improvements each year since 1991. Information on the Scottish form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  School Sport
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to improve facilities for sport in schools. [39173]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The provision of facilities for sport in schools is a matter for local authorities. The Government have, however, recently announced tighter planning controls on the use of playing fields for development to ensure that wherever possible sports facilities are retained for use by the local school and community. In addition the Scottish Sports Council has allocated over £3.5 million through the National Lottery to sports projects in schools.

  Physical Education Teachers
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many physical education teachers were employed by local education authorities in each year since 1979. [39174]

  Mr. Wilson
  The available information for years in which the data were collected is set out in the table:

  Number (full-time equivalent) of physical education teachers in Scottish education authority secondary schools

  Year (at September)

  Number

  1979

  2,008

  1980

  1,998

  1981

  1,934

  1982

  1,896

  1983

  11,862

  1984

  11,792

  1987

  1,698

  1988

  1,614

  1990

  1,618

  1992

  1,618

  1994

  1,672

  1estimated

  No information has been collected since 1994 as the situation was thought to have remained fairly stable and it was not considered desirable to burden teachers with a data collection. The next return from teachers will be in September 1998.

DEFENCE

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) number and (b) names of individual members of the armed forces killed while serving in Northern Ireland since 1982. [38405]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Year/name

  Total

  1982

  28

  Pte. S. A. Carleton

  Rfn. D. R. Holland

  Rfn. M. A. Rapley

  Rfn. P. N. Malakos

  Sgt. M. D. Burridge

  Cpl. M. Ward

  Lt. J. L. Hamilton

  463

  Year/name

  Total

  Pte. C. P. Clifford

  Pte. T. Anderson

  Pte. H. A. Cummings

  Lbdr. K. M. Waller

  Pte. M. K. Jessop

  Cpl. L. A. Bush

  L. Cpl. F. A. Williamson

  Sgt. T. G. Cochrane

  Cpl. C. H. Spence

  Cpl. D. P. Salthouse

  Pte. S. G. Smith

  LCpl. P. McDonagh

  LCpI. S. Bagshaw

  Pte. C. J. Collins

  Pte. P. J. Delaney

  Pte. T. M. Adam

  LCpI. D. W. Stitt

  Pte. S. A. Williamson

  Pte. N. Williams

  Pte. D. Murray

  Cpl. A. Smith

  1983

  15

  LCpl. C. W. McNeill

  Cpl. G. T. Jeffrey

  Pte. R. Biddell

  Pte. A. F. Stinson

  Pte. G. M. Curtis

  Cpl. T. Harron

  Pte. 0. Neely

  Pte. J. Roxborough

  Pte. R. R. Alexander

  Cpl. R. D. Finlay

  Pte. A. Stock

  Pte. T. C. Campbell

  LCpl. S. W. Taverner

  Maj R. F. C. Armstrong

  LCpI. B. V. McKeown

  1984

  19

  Pte. R. G. Elliott

  Pte. L. C. Houston

  Sgt. P. D. Oram

  LCpl. T. A. Loughlin

  Pte. S. D. Montgomery

  Sgt. D. Ross

  Pte. N. Clarke

  Pte. N. J. Johnston

  CSgt. I. E. Hillen

  Cpl. T. H. Agar

  LCpI. R. V. Huggens

  LCpl. S. Anderson

  Pte. D. Chambers

  Pte. N. J. McKinley

  W/Cpl. H. C. J. Kerrigan

  Pte. R. D. Bennett

  LCpl. P. W. Gallimore

  Gnr. T. P. Utteridge

  LCpl. A. I. Slater

  1985

  6

  Pte. J. A. Graham

  Pte. T. W. Harkness

  LCpI. A. Dacre

  Pte. M. R. Patten

  Sgt. R. F. Boyd

  Capt. G. Hanna

  1986

  12

  Pte. W. V. Foster

  Pte. J. F. Early

  Rfn. D. A. Mulley

  Pte. T. J. Irwin

  Pte. I. W. C. Pollock

  464

  Year/name

  Total

  Maj. A. F. French

  Cpl. D. B. Brown

  Pte. R. W. Hill

  Pte. C. D. Davies

  Pte. M. R. Bertram

  Sgt. D. D. M. Taggart

  Pte. M. A. J. Blaney

  1987

  11

  Maj. G. Shaw

  Pte. I. J. O'Connor

  Cpl. T. J. Oldman

  Pte. W. T. Graham

  Capt. I. R. K. Anderson

  Pte. J. A. Leach

  Pte. J. J. Mcllwaine

  Pte. G. J. Tracey

  LCpI. T. Hewitt

  Pte. W. R. Megrath

  Pte. S. W. Megrath

  1988

  33

  Capt. T. D. Armstrong

  Pte. W. J. Stewart

  LCpI. A. T. Johnston

  Pte. J. Cummings

  Pte. F. Starrett

  Cpl. D. T. Wood

  Cpl. D. R. Howes

  Cpl. W. T. Burleigh

  Gnr. L. Morgan

  Pte. E. Gibson

  Cpl. P. D. Hayes

  LCpI. M. Darcy

  LCpI. W. J. Patterson

  LCpl. D. W. Green

  LCpI. G. P. Lambie

  Cpl. I. Metcalfe

  Sgt. M. J. Winkler

  Sig. M. R. Clayey

  W02. R. J. Howard

  Sgt. M. B. Matthews

  LCpI. R. W. Butler

  Pte. R. A. McNicholl

  Cpl. A. S. Bannister

  Pte. B. E. M. Bishop

  Pte. J. Burfitt

  Pte. R. Greener

  Pte. A. S. Lewis

  Pte. M. A. Norsworthy

  Pte. S. J. Wilkinson

  Pte. J. S. Winter

  Pte. P. L. Bullock

  Pte. S. McKinney

  Pte. W. J. Moreland

  1989

  14

  Pte. N. D. Peacock

  LCpI. N. J. Duncan

  LBdr. S. G. Cummings

  Gnr. M. D. Amos

  Pte. T. J. Hardy

  Cpl. S. R. McGonigle

  Mne. A. Gilbert

  SSgt. K. A. Frogett

  12 LCpI. S. D. Halligan

  Pte. M. E. Marshall

  Pte. D. C. MacAulay

  LCpI. S. P. Wilson

  LCpI. M. J. Patterson

  Pte. J. Houston

  465

  Year/name

  Total

  1990

  15

  Pte. 0. F. Kilpatrick

  Sgt. T. A. Jameson

  LCpI. J. Bradley

  Pte. M. D. Adams

  Pte. S. S. Smart

  Pte. J. Burch

  LSgt. G. A. Stewart

  Pte. C. J. McCullough

  LCpI. S. Burrows

  Kgn. D. A. Sweeney

  Kgn. P. D. Worrall

  Kgn. S. R. Beacham

  Kgn. V. J. P. Scott

  Rgr. C. J. Smith

  WO2 A. D. Cooper

  1991

  13

  Pte. R. J. Love

  Pte. P. D. Sutcliffe

  Cpl. O'Neill

  Pte. Blakely

  LCpI. Crozier

  Pte. Hamilton

  Pte. B. Lawrence

  Pte. A. Harrison

  LCpl. S. R. D. Ware

  WO2 Cross

  Dvr. Pantry

  Pte. Boxall

  LCpI. Newell

  1992

  6

  Fus. A. J. Grundy

  Gdsm. Shackleton

  Pte. P. Turner

  Sgt. R. J. Irvine

  LCpI. I. Warnock

  Rgr. S. Waller

  1993

  8

  LCpI. Beswick

  LCpI. M. Johnston

  LCpI. L. Dickson

  Pte. C. Wren

  Pte. J. Randell

  LCpl. K. J. Pullin

  LBdr. P. A. Garrett

  Gdsm. D. N. Blinco

  1994

  3

  LCpI. D. Wilson

  Pte. R. McCollum

  Cpl. T. Withers

  1995

  0

  1996

  1

  WO1(ASM) J. 0. Bradwell

  1997

  1

  Lbdr. S. Restorick

  1998

  0

  Total

  185

  Anthrax
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantity of(a) anthrax and (b) precursors for the production of anthrax is stored (i) in the United
  466
  Kingdom and (ii) at United Kingdom bases abroad; and at how many locations in total UK-owned anthrax is stored. [38073]

  Dr. Reid
  The United Kingdom has no offensive chemical or biological warfare capability. The United Kingdom is a State Party to the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and holds no bulk stocks of agents such as Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis) which causes the disease anthrax either in the United Kingdom or abroad.

  The Ministry of Defence does fund research with anthrax bacteria as part of its programme to provide effective protection to United Kingdom service personnel should chemical or biological agents be used against them. Such research is conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Defence at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Porton Down or is sub-contracted by them to the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, which is part of the Department of Health. Both organisations hold only seed stocks of B. anthracis. These are grown in culture when required. Excess material is routinely killed after experiments are completed. B. anthracis can be cultured under a wide variety of conditions and using media typically held in public or private sector microbiology laboratories. CBD Sector does not routinely use specialist media or precursors.

  Small outbreaks of animal anthrax occur annually in the UK and, very rarely, human cases also occur. There is, therefore, a need to maintain a diagnostic service and to conduct periodic testing to ensure the efficacy of the vaccine. In this context, a small number of centres in the health service hold strains of B. anthracis for public health purposes.

  All laboratories working with B. anthracis have to meet strict health and safety requirements and must be licensed under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998 which lays down strict containment conditions. Nine premises are currently licensed.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the (i) effect on mortality and (ii) incidence of cancer of exposure to nuclear tests according to the degree and extent of exposure to radiation. [38581]

  Mr. Spellar
  As I told the House on 4 February 1998,Official Report, column 1010, nuclear test veterans have been the subject of two detailed studies by the National Radiological Protection Board, the first in 1988 and the second in 1993. The 1993 report concluded that participation in the test programme had not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases.

  Salisbury Plain
  Mr.Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what complaints he has received about the conduct of the Ministry of Defence police concerning their enforcement of the Salisbury Plain byelaws on Saturday 4 April. [38649]
  467
  Dr. Reid
  None, although I understand the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police has received correspondence about the Royal Artillery Hunt.

  Mustard Gas
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department has taken to investigate the extent of pollution from mustard gas disposal at Spalford Woods, Nottinghamshire. [39150]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Standards
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the Adjutant General's revised paper on army standards and discipline; and if he will make a statement. [38570]

  Dr. Reid
  The Army is currently undertaking work on its standards and discipline policy with the aim of revising and bringing up to date its current Standards and Discipline paper, issued in October 1993. When the work is completed, I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many surveys have been conducted into the contamination of, and pollution from, the former chemical warfare filling and storage site at Barnham Heath in Suffolk since 1980; [38599]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 March 1998, Official Report, column 42 8, if he will list the titles of each survey at RAF Norton Disney and Riseley, indicating the dates on which each survey was completed, the agency which conducted each survey; and the current security classifications of each survey. [38598]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Records
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will open for public inspection file classmark W032/20163 held at the Public Record Office. [38607]

  Mr. Spellar
  WO32/20163 is open. It was transferred to the Public Record Office on 11 July 1997.

  WE177 Bombs
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many WE177 bombs have so far been dismantled. [38961]

  Dr. Reid
  86 per cent. of our WE 177 warheads have now been dismantled.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of vehicle were used to transport the WE177 bomb. [38960]
  468
  Dr. Reid
  The following types of vehicle have been used to transport the WE177 which was withdrawn from service on 31 March 1998.

  Truck Cargo 4t 4x4 Bedford MK

  Truck Cargo Heavy Duty Mk I

  Truck Cargo Heavy Duty Mk II

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when training for RAF pilots with the WE177 bomb was ended. [38959]

  Dr. Reid
  The last formal course for RAF aircrew took place in April 1997. This was supplemented by simulator continuation training in procedures on unit to maintain aircrew currency through to March 1998. The WE177 bomb was withdrawn from service on 31 March 1998.

  Admiralty and Army Boards
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the(a) Admiralty Board and (b) Army Board has met since 1 August 1997. [38993]

  Dr. Reid
  Neither the Admiralty Board nor the Army Board have met since 1 August 1997.

  The Admiralty Board last met on 2 July 1997 and will next meet on 1 July 1998.

  The Army Board last met on 18 June 1997 and will next meet on 24 July 1998.

  HMS Dreadnought
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 1997,Official Report, column 562, if HMS Dreadnought's radiation dose levels were recorded prior to or after the defuelling process. [38847]

  Mr. Spellar
  The radiation dose figure given in my answer of 26 November referred to the aggregate radiation dose received by all persons who worked on HMS Dreadnought from 1982 to 1983. This was obtained from measurements of individual doses made throughout the duration of the decommissioning project, which included the defuelling process.

  Radiation dose rates on board HMS Dreadnought were measured both before and after the defuelling process. As expected, there was little reduction in the general radiation level following the defuel as the reactor fuel is always heavily shielded.

  Staff Newsletters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current security classifications of the newsletters produced for the staff of(a) the Army Technical Support Agency, (b) the Defence Transport and Movements Executive and (c) the Defence Medical Training Organisation; how often each newsletter is produced; and when each newsletter was first produced. [38986]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.
  469
  Letter from A. D. Ball to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 20 April 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the staff newsletter of the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA) as this matter falls within my responsibility as the Agency Chief Executive.
  The ATSA Newsletter carries no security classification. It contains "Unclassified" material. The Newsletter is published quarterly. The first edition was issued coincidentally with the launch of the Agency in Autumn 1995, although earlier newsheets on the progress towards Agency formation were issued to affected staff prior to launch.

  Letter from C. G. Callow to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 20 April 1998:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Defence Medical Training Organisation newsletter as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of that Agency.
  Our newsletter is unclassified and we produce it as and when we consider necessary which has been twice a year. The first newsletter was produced in July 1996.

  Letter from R. E. Ratazzi to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 20 April 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, about the security classification and frequency of newsletters produced for the staff of Ministry of Defence Agencies,

  Accident Data

  Cause

  Accident Data Recorder (Y/N)

  Negligence (Y/N)

  13 April 1989-Jaguar

  Not positively determined

  N

  N

  13 November 1990-Jaguar

  Natural operating risks

  N

  N

  18 March 1991-Canberra

  Aircrew error

  N

  N

  27 May 1993-Hercules

  Not positively determined

  N

  N

  26 August 1993-Chipmunk

  Human factors (aircrew)

  N

  N

  1 September 1994-Tornado

  Not positively determined

  Y

  N

  1 June 1995-Harrier

  Human factors (aircrew)

  Y

  N

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Health
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to place research on animal health and welfare on the basis of a requirements document, similar to that for food research; and if he will make a statement. [39195]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are today publishing a Document setting out our future animal health and welfare research requirements, and inviting tenders for research work to be financed in the year starting on 1 April 1999, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. This document focuses particularly on animal welfare, organisms capable of causing food poisoning, and bovine tuberculosis. Further documents setting out animal health and welfare research requirements will be published in future years.

  This is a broad programme. One of the key elements builds on our current work to improve our understanding of how E. coli behaves on farms, and to identify the critical control points for risk management. This will complement work being financed by other Departments.

  The Document also takes forward the recommendations in the Krebs Report that our research effort into bovine tuberculosis should be refocused along two main approaches: understanding the causes of outbreaks, and
  470
  as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive Agency.
  The newsletter produced within my Agency is unclassified, intended purely for internal circulation and, dependent on material for inclusion, is issued on a monthly basis. It was originally entitled "DTMX Developments" and ran from July 1995 until November 1996, when it was renamed "DTMX press". It has continued to be distributed to all staff since then.

  Aircraft Crashes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry found was the cause of each of the aircraft crashes(a) 13 April 1989—Jaguar, (b) 13 November 1990—Jaguar, (c) 18 March 1991—Canberra, (d) 27 May 1993—Hercules, (e) 26 August 1993—Chipmunk, (f) 1 September 1994—Tornado and (g) 1 June 1995—Harrier; if black boxes were fitted; and in each case if higher authority concluded that negligence had occurred. [38984]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details of the accidents mentioned are contained in the appropriate Military Aircraft Accident Summaries, copies of which are kept in the Library of the House. A brief summary of the cases is as follows:

  developing improved strategies to reduce the number of outbreaks. The Ministry's research programmes generally operate on a rolling three-year cycle, so for most of the programmes the Document covers only approximately one third of the total research effort. For bovine tuberculosis, however, the whole programme has been reviewed in the light of the recommendations in the Krebs Report. The new TB programme picks up the individual recommendations the Report makes for research and lays the foundation for developing soundly based control strategies in the future, including in the longer term the development of a cattle vaccine.

  The Document also makes a significant movement in the direction of allocating research contracts by open competition, which will help to ensure that work is undertaken by those best qualified to do it. This also responds to another of the Krebs recommendations, and must be right if we are to achieve value for money in this area.

  Ministerial Meetings and Visits
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list for 2 May 1997(a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended;

  471
  which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35004]

  (2) if he will list for 3 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35007]

  (3) if he will list for 5 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35005]

  (4) if he will list for 6 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35006]

  (5) if he will list for 7 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35010]

  (6) if he will list for 8 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35009]

  (7) if he will list for 9 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35008]

  (8) if he will list for 10 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35014]

  (9) if he will list for 12 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what
  472
  regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35013]

  (10) if he will list for 13 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35012]

  (11) if he will list for 14 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35011]

  (12) if he will list for 15 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35017]

  (13) if he will list for 16 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35016]

  (14) if he will list for 17 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35015]

  (15) if he will list for 19 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35020]

  (16) if he will list for 20 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35019]
  473
  (17) if he will list for 21 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35018]

  (18) if he will list for 22 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35021]

  (19) if he will list for 23 May 1997 (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers. [35022]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answers 17 March 1998]: Set out are relevant details from my diary and those of my Ministerial team for the days requested.

  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
  (Dr. Jack Cunningham)

  1 May 1997 to 31 May 1997

  Monday 12 May 1997

  10.30 Bilateral with Commissioner Fischler, Brussels

  13.00 Lunch with Commissioner Kinnock, Brussels

  18.30 Meeting with Dutch Agriculture Minister, The Hague

  Tuesday 13 May 1997

  15.00 Meeting with British Retail Consortium

  Tuesday 20 May 1997

  Agriculture Council, Brussels

  Wednesday 21 May 1997

  Agriculture Council, Brussels

  11.45 Meeting with MEPs, Brussels

  12.15 Meeting with MEPs, Brussels

  13.00 Lunch with MEPs, Brussels

  15.00 Meeting with Dagmar Roth-Behrendt MEP, Brussels

  15.45 Meeting with Reimer Beige MEP, Brussels

  16.15 Meeting with Colino Salamanca MEP, Brussels

  Sunday 25 May 1997

  12.30 Informal Agriculture Council, Domberg, Netherlands

  Monday 26 May 1997

  Informal Agricultural Council, Domberg, Netherlands

  Tuesday 27 May 1997

  Informal Agriculture Council, Domberg, Netherlands

  Wednesday 28 May 1997

  19.30 Dinner with Leaders of the Food Industry

  MINISTER OF STATE

  (Mr. Rooker)

  1 May 1997 to 31 May 1997

  Wednesday 7 May 1997

  16.00 Ministers Meeting with Food and Drink Federation

  474

  16.30 Meeting with Jim Nicholson MEP, Dr. Ian Paisley, John Hume

  17.30 Meeting with Consumers Association

  Thursday 8 May 1997

  17.30 Meeting with NFU President

  Monday 19 May 1997

  17.45 Meeting with Chairman of MLC

  Tuesday 20 May 1997

  10.30 Meeting with MHS Industry Forum: Speech and Q&A

  Thursday 22 May 1997

  14.00 Meeting with Hilton Dawson MP and IBEA officials

  MINISTER FOR FISHERIES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE

  (Mr. Morley)

  1 May 1997 to 31 May 1997

  Thursday 8 May 1997

  17.00 Meeting with Forestry Commission

  Monday 12 May 1997

  15.00 Meeting with CLA President

  Tuesday 13 May 1997

  15.00 Meeting with Bob Blizzard MP

  16.00 Meeting with RSPCA, CIWF, PAL

  Thursday 15 May 1997

  09.30 Meeting with Consumers' representatives

  10.00 Meeting with Carla Lane

  11.30 Meeting with National Animal Health and Welfare Panel

  Thursday 15 May 1997

  12.30 Meeting with Commissioner Kinnock: Fisheries

  12.45 Meeting with Chief Executive: RSPB

  14.00 Meeting with NFU representatives

  15.45 Meeting with Spotlight

  Monday 19 May 1997

  12.00 Meeting with DoE, Water Summit

  Tuesday 20 May 1997

  11.00 Meeting with Commissioner Kinnock

  12.15 Meeting with Commissioner Bonino

  15.00 Meeting with Medina Ortega MEP

  16.00 Meeting with Mr. Cavaco, DGXIV

  Wednesday 21 May 1997

  16.30 Meeting with Michael Foster MP

  MINISTER FOR FARMING AND THE FOOD INDUSTRY

  (Lord Donoughue)

  1 May 1997 to 31 May 1997

  Wednesday 7 May 1997

  16.00 Meeting with Food and Drink Federation

  Thursday 8 May 1997

  12.30 Annual Awards of Excellence, Academie Culinaire de France

  17.00 Introductions, President, NFU

  Tuesday 13 May 1997

  15.00 Meeting with British Retail Consortium

  Thursday 15 May 1997

  15.00 Courtesy call, Jamaican Minister for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade

  Monday 19 May 1997

  17.00 Meeting: Meat and Livestock Commission

  Wednesday 21 May 1997

  12.30 Agri-money presentation, Sir David Naish, Sean Roberts, Ian Gardiner,
  NFU

  475
  Friday 30 May 1997

  11.45 Courtesy call, Dr. Richard Grant, NZ High Commissioner and Dr. Lockwood Smith, NZ Minister of Agriculture

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list for 2 January(a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35268]

  (2) if he will list for 3 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35267]

  (3) if he will list for 5 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35266]

  (4) if he will list for 6 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35265]

  (5) if he will list for 7 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35264]

  (6) if he will list for 9 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35262]

  (7) if he will list for 10 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35261]

  (8) if he will list for 12 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have
  476
  been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35260]

  (9) if he will list for 13 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35259]

  (10) if he will list for 14 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35258]

  (11) if he will list for 15 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35257]

  (12) if he will list for 16 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35256]

  (13) if he will list for 17 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35255]

  (14) if he will list for 19 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35254]

  (15) if he will list for 20 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35253]
  477
  (16) if he will list for 21 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35252]

  (17) if he will list for 22 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35251]

  (18) if he will list for 23 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35250]

  (19) if he will list for 24 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35249]

  (20) if he will list for 26 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35248]

  (21) if he will list for 27 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35247]

  (22) if he will list for 28 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35246]

  (23) if he will list for 29 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended;
  478
  which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35245]

  (24) if he will list for 30 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35244]

  (25) if he will list for 31 January (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers. [35243]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Set out are relevant details from my diary and those of my Ministerial team for the days requested.

  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

  (Dr. Jack Cunningham)

  1 January 1998 to 31 January 1998

  Tuesday 6 January 1998

  09.20 Oxford Fanning Conference (Speech)

  Wednesday 7 January 1998

  10.00 Meeting with Japanese Agriculture Minister

  11.00 Interview with Mr. Keith Seacroft (Durham First)

  16.00 Meeting with Brussels Press Corps

  Thursday 8 January 1998

  11.00 Meeting: Plenary with the Commission, Lancaster

  House 11.30 Meeting with Commissioner Fischler

  14.00 Meeting with Commissioner Sir Leon Britian

  14.45 Meeting with Commission Bonino

  Sunday 11 January 1998

  09.00 Tour of Windward Islands Banana production, St. Lucia

  Monday 12 January 1998

  10.00 Meeting with Windward Islands PMs, St. Lucia

  12.30 Lunch hosted by PM of St. Lucia, St. Lucia

  Wednesday 14 January 1998

  10.45 Assured British Meat Launch (Speech)

  15.30 FSA White Paper Launch Statement, HoC

  16.30 Press Briefing on FSA White Paper

  Monday 19 January 1998

  15.30 Meeting with Finnish Agriculture Minister, Brussels

  17.00 Meeting with Council Secretariat and Commission, Brussels

  Tuesday 20 January 1998

  10.30 Agriculture Council, Brussels Press Conference, Brussels

  Wednesday 21 January 1998

  11.00 Meeting with Consumer Panel

  16.30 Oral Evidence to Agriculture Select Committee

  Monday 26 January 1998

  13.00 Meeting with Agricultural Advisory Group

  16.00 Meeting with German Ambassador (HE Herr Gebhart von Moltke)

  19.30 Dinner with the Royal Veterinary College

  479
  Tuesday 27 January 1998

  09.30 Meeting with NFU President

  16.00 Meeting with Mr. Leif Mills

  Wednesday 28 January 1998

  10.15 Meeting with Australian Foreign Affairs Minister

  MINISTER OF STATE

  (Mr. Rooker)

  1 January 1998 to 31 January 1998

  Tuesday 13 January 1998

  10.15 Meeting with ACMSF

  11.30 Meeting with Norwich MPs

  Wednesday 14 January 1998

  16.30 Press Briefing: White Paper Launch

  Thursday 15 January 1998

  10.00 Meeting with Tessa Jowell: Meeting FSA staff-White Paper

  17.00 Meeting with David Minge, US House of Representatives

  Friday 16 January 1998

  09.00 Company Visit with Cadbury-Schweppes

  BCCCA: Cocoa and Chocolate Proposal

  Wednesday 21 January 1998

  11.00 Meeting with Consumer Panel

  12.45 Lunch with Consumer Panel

  Monday 26 January 1998

  08.00 Visit to CSL, IFR and John Innes—Norwich

  Tuesday 27 January 1998

  14.00 Meeting with Sheila McKechnie and Sue Davies of Consumers Association: SEAC

  Wednesday 28 January 1998

  Meeting with MHS, York

  12.40 Animal Health Distributors Association, Harrogate (Speech)

  Thursday 29 January 1998

  09.30 Announcement on HAS scores

  MINISTER FOR FISHERIES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE

  (Mr. Morley)

  1 January 1998 to 31 January 1998

  Wednesday 7 January 1998

  19.00 Meeting with Lancashire Agricultural Discussion Society

  Thursday 8 January 1998

  14.45 Meeting with Commission Bonino, Lancaster House

  Friday 9 January 1998

  12.00 Meal with Yorkshire West Riding NFU: AGM and Lunch

  Wednesday 14 January 1998

  12.30 Meeting with Nigel Atkins: Fisheries Production Organisation Board

  18.45 Meal with National Sheep Association

  Thursday 15 January 1998

  Meeting with Intergroup MEPs, Strasbourg

  Monday 19 January 1998

  15.30 Meeting with Carla Lane, Penny Lewis, Bill Jordan: Animal Welfare Issues

  Tuesday 20 January 1998

  Farm Visit, Nottinghamshire

  Wednesday 21 January 1998

  10.00 Meeting with Forestry Commission

  480
  Friday 23 January 1998

  Easton College AGM, Norwich (Speech)

  Monday 26 January 1998

  11.40 Farm Visit with Lord Melchett, Norfolk

  Tuesday 27 January 1998

  09.33 Farm Visit with Mr. Hinchliffe, Wakefield

  13.45 Visit to Abattoir, Colne

  Wednesday 28 January 1998

  10.00 Meeting with Alex Salmond MP: Fisheries

  11.00 Meeting with Fiona Reynolds and Tony Burton,

  CPRE 14.00 Meeting with Mike Townsend, NFFO: Drift Nets

  Thursday 29 January 1998

  11.00 Meeting with James Paice and Ed Varley: Mink Keeping Order

  13.00 Lunch with Barclays Bank: Agriculture Issues

  MINISTER FOR FARMING AND THE FOOD INDUSTRY

  (Lord Donoughue)

  1 January 1998 to 31 January 1998

  Wednesday 7 January 1998

  20.00 Dinner with Consumer Representatives, South West Region

  Thursday 8 January 1998

  Regional Visit: South West

  Tuesday 13 January 1998

  10.30 Meeting with Minister from Costa Rica

  Wednesday 14 January 1998

  10.30 Assured British Meat Launch

  Friday 16 January 1998

  12.30 Lunch with Institute of Agricultural Management (Speech)

  Tuesday 20 January 1998

  15.00 Agriculture Council, Brussels

  Monday 26 January 1998

  13.00 Meeting with Agriculture Advisory Group

  16.30 Meeting with NIAB

  Tuesday 27 January 1998

  11.00 Meeting with Mr. Sadayuki Hayashi: Speciality Foods

  Wednesday 28 January 1998

  18.00 Hosting Sugar ManCom Reception, Admiralty House

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list for 2 February(a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35673]

  (2) if he will list for 3 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35674]

  (3) if he will list for 4 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals

  481
  had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35675]

  (4) if he will list for 5 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35676]

  (5) if he will list for 6 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35677]

  (6) if he will list for 7 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35678]

  (7) if he will list for 9 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35679]

  (8) if he will list for 10 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35680]

  (9) if he will list for 11 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35681]

  (10) if he will list for 12 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35682]

  (11) if he will list for 13 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what
  482
  regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35683]

  (12) if he will list for 14 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35684]

  (13) if he will list for 16 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35685]

  (14) if he will list for 17 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35672]

  (15) if he will list for 18 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35671]

  (16) if he will list for 19 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35670]

  (17) if he will list for 20 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35669]

  (18) if he will list for 21 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35668]
  483
  (19) if he will list for 23 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35667]

  (20) if he will list for 24 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35666]

  (21) if he will list for 25 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35665]

  (22) if he will list for 26 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35664]

  (23) if he will list for 27 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [35663]

  (24) if he will list for 28 February (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended and which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers. [35662]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Set out are relevant details from my diary and those of my Ministerial team for the days requested.

  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

  (Dr. Jack Cunningham)

  1 February 1998 to 28 February 1998

  Tuesday 3 February 1998
  10.00 Meeting with European Parliament Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, Brussels
  15.00 Meeting with European Parliament Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Committee, Brussels

  Wednesday 4 February 1998

  10.15 NFU AGM (Speech)

  Hilton Hotel, Park Lane, W1

  484
  Thursday 5 February 1998

  14.30 Meeting with Leader of the French Socialists

  Monday 9 February 1998

  19.30 Dinner with Agricultural Reform Group

  Tuesday ID February 1998

  09.00 Meeting with NFU President

  12.00 Meeting with Forestry Commission

  17.00 Meeting with Elwyn Clwyd MP and Plaid Cymru MPs

  Wednesday 11 February 1998

  12.00 Meeting with Country Landowners Association

  19.45 "The Grocer" Conference: Creation of the Food Standards Agency (Speech)

  Monday 16 February 1998

  11.30 Pre-Council Briefing with Commissioner Fischler, Brussels

  15.00 Agriculture Council, Brussels

  Tuesday 17 February 1998

  Agriculture Council, Brussels

  Wednesday 18 February 1998

  10.00 Meeting with Consumer Organisations

  12.00 British Beef Week Launch, HoC

  16.00 Meeting with John Winter

  Thursday 19 February 1998

  09.45 Seminar in Support of Mission to China (Speech)

  16.30 Meeting with Prime Minister and Farming Unions

  Monday 23 February 1998

  13.00 Meeting with Agricultural Advisory Group

  17.00 Meeting: COPA (European Farmers)

  Tuesday 24 February 1998

  18.00 Meeting with CLA (European Landowners)

  Wednesday 25 February 1998

  10.00 Agra-Europe Conference (Speech)

  13.00 Lunch with St. Lucian Agriculture Minister

  Friday 27 February 1998

  09.45 Food Safety Conference, Cumbria TEC (Speech)

  MINISTER OF STATE

  (Mr. Rooker)

  1 February 1998 to 28 February 1998

  Tuesday 3 February 1998

  10.00 NFU AGM

  19.00 NFU Annual Dinner

  Thursday 5 February 1998

  14.00 Meeting with MPs: Eartagging

  Monday 9 February 1998

  09.00 Regional Visit to Northern Region

  16.00 Meeting with FDF: FSA White Paper

  Wednesday 11 February 1998

  13.00 Speaking Engagement with BOCM Paul: Award Ceremony for National Forage
  and Premier Breeders Competition

  Monday 16 February 1998

  16.00 Meeting with Professor Tim Lang: Food Standards Agency

  Tuesday 17 February 1998

  Regional Visit to North Mercia RSC

  Wednesday 18 February 1998

  10.00 Meeting with UK Consumer Groups

  Thursday 19 February 1998

  11.00 Meeting with MPs: Cattle Traceability

  16.30 Meetings with MPs: Knackers Yards

  485
  Friday 20 February 1998

  08.00 Regional Visit to South Mercia RSC

  Monday 23 February 1998

  09.00 Company Visit with MLC, Milton Keynes

  16.30 Meeting with NFU representatives: Visit by COPA Officeholders

  Wednesday 25 February 1998

  10.30 Speaking Engagement with IPMS and MSF: Seminar on food safety and standards

  13.00 Meeting with MPs: TB/Krebs

  14.00 Meeting with Ben Bradshaw MP: Pesticides Bill

  Thursday 26 February 1998

  10.45 Regional Visit, PSD, York

  12.30 Visit to Central Science Laboratories, Sand Hutton, York

  MINISTER FOR FISHERIES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE

  (Mr. Morley)

  1 February 1998 to 28 February 1989

  Monday 2 February 1998

  19.00 Dinner with Paddy Tipping MP, East Midlands NFU

  Tuesday 3 February 1998

  15.00 Meeting with European Parliament Fisheries Committee: UK Presidency

  Wednesday 4 February 1998

  09.00 Meeting with Canadian Fisheries Minister

  Thursday 5 February 1998

  10.25 Visit (UK): Foxburrow Farm

  11.45 Visit (UK): Broxtead Estate

  14.30 Visit (UK): Suffolk ESA, Stanny Farm

  16.30 Visit (UK): Deben Farm Club (Speech and questions)

  Monday 9 February 1998

  12.30 Lunch with Director, Soil Association, Organic Aid

  15.00 Meeting with NFU: Pig Welfare

  Tuesday 10 February 1998

  10.00 Visit (UK) with SHRIM Farms (Speech), The Coach House, Great Saling

  15.00 Meeting with John Toothill, Steele Addison: CAP Reform Agri-Environment Measures

  16.00 Meeting with Vanya Hackel (Fisheries Reform Group)

  Thursday 12 February 1998

  09.30 Meeting with Bob Blizzard MP: MAGP IV

  Monday 16 February 1998

  15.30 Meeting with Wildlife Link

  Tuesday 17 February 1998

  09.50 Meeting with Suffolk FWAG (Speech)

  14.30 Meeting with MPs: Bodmin Moor Bill

  Wednesday 18 February 1998

  11.00 Meeting with National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations

  14.30 Meeting with Tenant Farmers: Annual General Meeting

  17.00 Meeting with MPs: Animal Welfare

  Thursday 19 February 1998

  16.00 Meeting with British Veterinary Association

  17.30 Meeting with Chief Executive, RSPB

  Monday 23 February 1998

  09.30 Visit (UK) with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (Speech)

  17.00 Meeting with COPA Officeholders

  Wednesday 25 February 1998

  19.00 Meeting with National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations: Drift Nets

  486
  Thursday 26 February 1998

  Meeting with South Devon & Channel Shellfishermen: Mid Channel Conference

  MINISTER FOR FARMING AND THE FOOD INDUSTRY

  (Lord Donoughue)

  1 February 1998 to 28 February 1998

  Tuesday 3 February 1998

  13.00 NFU AGM, Inter-Continental Hotel, Hyde Park Corner

  15.00 Meeting with NFU County Chairman, Inter-Continental Hotel, Hyde Park Corner

  19.30 NFU Annual Dinner, Hilton Hotel

  Wednesday 4 February 1998

  12.30 Launch of Kentish Fare (Speech)

  Thursday 5 February 1998

  10.15 Meeting with Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister

  Monday 9 February 1998

  16.00 Meeting with Guild of Food Writers

  15.00 Meeting with National Association of Cider Makers

  Monday 16 February 1998

  Agriculture Council, Brussels

  Monday 23 February 1998

  10.00 Farmers Weekly EMU Conference (Speech)

  13.00 Meeting with Agricultural Advisory Group

  17.00 Meeting with COPA

  Wednesday 25 February 1998

  15.00 Meeting with US Under Secretary for Agriculture: WTO ruling on hormones

  Thursday 26 February 1998

  12.45 Meeting with David Bowe MEP: Use of GM crops

  Cattle Tracing
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the cattle tracing system is expected to start operating. [38967]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The launch date for the Cattle Tracing System (CTS) will be 28 September 1998. The system will register cattle and their movements from birth to death. It is an enhancement to the current cattle passport database which already holds details of over five million cattle born or imported into Great Britain from 1 July 1996. The main change will be to hold in addition the movement history of all those cattle registered on to the system from 28 September.

  A new organisation, the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS), is being set up in Workington, Cumbria to run the CTS. Recruitment is going well, with applications of high quality; buildings have been handed over on time; the main equipment has been installed; and development of the new system is in hand.

  The Government are today sending to all cattle farmers, livestock markets and operators of abattoirs in Great Britain a leaflet about CTS. The leaflet gives details of the new cattle passport which will be introduced as part of the CTS. The new passport will include details of the animal, details of where it has been throughout its life, cards for owners of cattle to send in when the animal moves, a record of Beef Special Premium and eventually, details of the death of the animal. Cattle with the new passport will not require a separate Cattle Identification Document for Beef Special Premium, thus reducing one element of paperwork for farmers.
  487
  The leaflet we are sending out today is the first in a series which will be sent to cattle farmers between now and the launch of CTS on 28 September, to familiarise everyone with their role in the new system.

  As I have previously announced, the Government have decided that they will meet the costs not only of setting up the CTS, but also of running and enforcing it during its first full year of operation. This is a step of real value to the livestock industry, with Government bearing costs of the order of £35 million on behalf of the industry.

  The CTS offers great opportunities to the British Cattle industry. The new system will make it possible to check easily where cattle have been during their lives, trace cattle more easily if there is a disease outbreak, and give greater assurance to buyers about an animal's history, and so help to rebuild confidence in British cattle and British beef, at home and abroad.

  Animal Waste
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the review of the United Kingdom legislation controlling the disposal of animal waste to be completed. [38790]

  Mr. Rooker
  The review is almost complete and revised legislation is being drafted as a basis for consultation.

  Public Analyst Service
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the review of the Public Analyst Service in England and Wales to be completed. [38804]

  Mr. Rooker
  I expect to announce the arrangements and terms of reference for the review very shortly. I hope the review will be completed before the end of the year.

  Milk Development Council
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the review of the Milk Development Council to be completed. [38814]

  Numbers of sheep and pigs certified for export from the United Kingdom in 1997

  Country

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Slaughter

  Further fattening

  Breeding

  Slaughter

  Further fattening

  Breeding

  Belgium

  -

  17,677

  144

  300

  4,876

  41,895

  Canada

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  600

  Chile

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  270

  China

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  795

  Czech Republic

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  564

  Denmark

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,064

  Falkland Islands

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  25

  France

  28,294

  201,073

  413

  -

  -

  24,739

  Germany

  -

  14,561

  1

  253

  7,219

  43,041

  Greece

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  689

  Hungary

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  94

  Italy

  -

  1,815

  -

  2,561

  321

  9,551

  Japan

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  750

  488
  Mr. Rooker
  The review of the Milk Development Council was completed in October 1997 and its remit was extended for a further five years with effect from 7 February 1998.

  Quarantine
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the review of the current rules on quarantine of imported pet animals to be completed. [38810]

  Mr. Rooker
  I now expect to receive the report of the Advisory Group on quarantine in June. It will then be published and a full public consultation held.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the projected expenditure of the Meat Hygiene Service from 1 April. [38076]

  Mr. Rooker
  The latest estimate of the total gross expenditure of the Meat Hygiene Service for 1998/99 is £62 million.

  The Meat Hygiene Service is required to recover the full costs of providing its inspection service. Approximately half of these costs are recovered from the industry for meat hygiene and inspection controls and the remainder from government, predominantly for specified risk material controls.

  Forecasts of Meat Hygiene Service expenditure for future years are not available.

  Live Animal Exports
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) live sheep and (b) live pigs were exported from the United Kingdom in 1997 for (i) slaughter, (ii) further fattening and (iii) breeding; and how many live (1) sheep and (2) pigs in each of these categories were exported to each individual country of destination.[37196]

  Mr. Rooker
  The table, derived from Departmental records, gives details of sheep and pigs certified for export from the United Kingdom. The figures do not include information on the number of sheep exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland as sheep are not officially certified for such trade under a special arrangement provided for in EC trade rules.
  489

  Numbers of sheep and pigs certified for export from the United Kingdom in 1997

  Country

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Slaughter

  Further fattening

  Breeding

  Slaughter

  Further fattening

  Breeding

  Latvia

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  151

  Malaysia

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  338

  Mexico

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,070

  Netherlands

  -

  168,510

  82

  1,542

  467

  18,700

  Nigeria

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  46

  North Korea

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  70

  Philippines

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  340

  Poland

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  113

  Portugal

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  83

  Republic of Ireland

  1,212

  -

  177

  78,270

  326

  2,119

  Romania

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  217

  Russia

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  350

  Slovakia

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  111

  South Korea

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  684

  Spain

  6,689

  669

  350

  -

  2,050

  373,024

  Taiwan

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  70

  Thailand

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  545

  United States of America

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  122

  Vietnam

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  874

  Total

  36,195

  404,305

  1,167

  82,926

  15,259

  523,104

  This information is provisional and subject to change.

  It is common practice for export health certificates to be issued in anticipation of exports which do not then take place. The central computer system is updated periodically to remove details of withdrawn export consignments from the records but we cannot guarantee that this information is complete. Confirmation of the actual numbers of animals exported could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1997,Official Report, column 135, if he is now able to state the membership of the review team and the terms of reference of the Review of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Legislation. [37348]

  Checks on meat and meat products imports from third countries 1 May 1997 to 28 February 1998

  Port of entry

  Number of consignments

  Number of documentary checks

  Number of identity checks

  Number of physical checks

  Felixtowe

  1,343

  1,343

  311

  311

  Port of Tilbury

  7,657

  7,657

  853

  850

  Heathrow

  520

  520

  80

  67

  Southampton

  848

  848

  7

  6

  Gatwick Airport

  351

  351

  262

  258

  Thamesport

  142

  142

  33

  33

  Manchester Airport

  12

  12

  8

  7

  Liverpool Port

  13

  13

  7

  7

  Belfast Harbour

  13

  13

  9

  8

  East Midlands

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Hull

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Belfast Airport

  1

  1

  0

  0

  490
  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 8 April 1998,Official Report, columns 234–35.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at which ports since 1 May 1997 checks have been carried out into the quality of imported consignments of meat; what proportion of those checks have involved inspections of (i) the meat, (ii) the documentation and (iii) both; what assessment he has made of the value of checks involving(a) meat and (b) documentation; and if he will make a statement. [38580]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following table records the number of checks carried out at Border Inspection Posts in the UK on consignments of meat and meat products imported from countries outside the EU. So far as meat from other Member States is concerned, single market rules provide only for random, non-discriminatory checks at destination, not at ports of entry.
  491

  Checks on meat and meat products imports from third countries 1 May 1997 to 28 February 1998

  Port of entry

  Number of consignments

  Number of documentary checks

  Number of identity checks

  Number of physical checks

  Cardiff

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Tyne

  5

  5

  0

  0

  Aberdeen

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Dover

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  10,914

  10,914

  1,579

  1,556

  Milk Prices
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the reasons for the discrepancy between the recent movement of prices of milk(a) at the farm gate and (b) at supermarkets. [38470]

  Mr. Rooker
  Retail prices are affected by several factors apart from agricultural raw material costs, such as processing, marketing and distribution costs, and the marketing strategies of individual competing retailers. The recent, apparent increase in the difference between the farm-gate and retail milk prices follows a period during which that difference fell.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when and for what purposes the organophosphate pesticide Fonofos, manufactured by Zeneca, was licensed; what warnings were given to users to prevent harmful effects to wildlife; and if he will make a statement on the information made available about the product. [38428]

  Mr. Rooker
  Fonofos was first cleared for use in the UK in 1970; its main uses are as a treatment for cereal seed and as a spray for brassicas and ornamental crops. Warnings about effects on wildlife are carried on the product labels.

  The Wildlife Incidents Investigation Scheme received reports of incidents involving birds and the risk to birds was reviewed by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides in 1994. The Committee advised that approval could continue with a user education programme being carried out by Zeneca and a five year assessment of the programme and its impact on reported incidents.

  The user education programme, including a leaflet and warning stickers for drilling equipment and seed bags/pallets, was implemented by Zeneca and only one incident has been reported in the first three years.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has conducted into the effect of (i) phosmet and (ii) other organophosphates on prion protein metabolism; and what plans he has to conduct further research. [38602]

  Mr. Rooker
  None. We would, however, be prepared to consider research applications from scientists who wish to work in this area as part of our ongoing commitment to support research, including independent research, into BSE. Any application would be considered on its own merits in competition with other applications for financial support.

  Bananas
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assist developing countries with exports of fairly-traded bananas. [39005]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Government are sympathetic to the idea of encouraging "Fair Trade" in exports of some products from developing countries. On bananas, we have, as Presidency, initiated discussions in the context of the current negotiations on the EU regime on what might be done to promote the marketing of Fair Trade bananas. We await a communication on this from the Commission. It will of course need to respect our obligations under the World Trade Organisation.

  Tups
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the price of tups. [39202]

  Mr. Rooker
  Although we have had representations from all the main organisations representing sheep farmers' interests about the poor returns experienced on the sale of lambs, no one has raised concerns about the price of tups.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 1998,Official Report, column 728, if the legal fees specified include the costs of litigation by the contractor over alleged changes of specification at short notice; and if he will list the costs and legal fees incurred. [38150]

  Mr. Rooker
  The legal fees mentioned in my answer of 5 March relate to fees generally incurred in major projects of this sort. There is no litigation by the contractor. Legal fees to date are in the order of £40,000.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Physical Education
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates he has made of the average number of hours per week spent on physical education in primary schools in (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97. [31001]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department carried out a survey of PE and sport in English schools in January 1996. It found that primary school pupils had on average 1.5 to 2 hours per week of National Curriculum PE. No information is held on 1979–80 or 1996–97.
  493
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the quality of physical education in primary schools. [31002]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are committed to improving the quality of education in all subjects in all schools.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect on physical education teaching of his proposed changes to the National Curriculum. [31004]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None. Physical Education is to remain a National Curriculum subject and will continue to be taught in all schools.

  Supported Employment Programme
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many places were allocated to each district and region under the supported employment programme in 1997–98; and what is the estimated number of places for 1998–99; [37298]

  (2) what increase has been budgeted in the revenue grant for each disabled employee in sheltered workshops for 1998–99; and what allowance has been made for inflation.[37299]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 20 April 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your questions about what increase has been budgeted in the revenue grant for each disabled employee in supported workshops for 1998–99; what allowance has been made for inflation; how many places were allocated to each district and region under the supported employment programme in 1997–98; and what is the number of estimated places for 1998–99. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  As the budget for the Supported Employment Programme remains the same for 1998–99 as for 1997–98, the maximum grant level made available for the supported workshop and supported placements provision will remain at £4,680 per contracted place.
  Turning to your question about how many places were allocated in 1997–98 and the estimated numbers for 1998–99, supported employment is delivered through Local Authorities and Voluntary Organisations and by Remploy Ltd. At the beginning of each year the Employment Service negotiates and reaches agreement with supported employment providers to deliver an agreed minimum number of places against the maximum grant level. Negotiations with Remploy are based on targets agreed within an Annual Performance Agreement.
  The agreed national target for 1997-98 and 1998-99 for places in supported employment provided by Local Authorities and Voluntary Organisations is 12,250. In addition, Remploy Ltd. have a target minimum number of places of 9,800 for 1997-98 and 10,050 for 1998-99. In order to achieve the target of 12,250 for non-Remploy places we contract for slightly higher numbers, which allows for variations in filled places and enables us to make maximum use of the funds available to the Programme. In 1997–98, 12,426.5 places were allocated to Local Authorities and Voluntary Organisations. For 1998–99 we have allocated 12,436.
  Because the Supported Employment Programme is managed at national rather than regional level, I regret that it is not possible to provide figures at regional and district level.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of including special schools for children with profound learning disabilities in performance league tables. [37462]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are committed to making school performance tables as clear and helpful as possible. They should reflect the achievements of all pupils, including the achievements of those with profound learning disabilities. Secondary school tables list special schools in a separate section, and we are currently consulting on measures to ensure that the secondary tables as a whole give a more complete picture of achievement across the board.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the relevance of the National Curriculum and OFSTED inspections to schools for children with profound learning disabilities. [37461]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have high expectations for all children including those with special educational needs. Ofsted inspections indentify schools' strengths and weaknesses so that they may improve the quality of the education they provide and raise the standards achieved by their pupils. Teams inspecting special schools must include expertise in the main types of special educational need represented in the school as well as the ability to ensure reasonable sampling of the subjects across the age range of pupils at the school.

  All children are entitled to participate in the National Curriculum and we are committed to ensuring that it is accessible and relevant to pupils with special educational needs. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has issued guidance on a variety of approaches to present the National Curriculum to pupils with profound and multiple difficulties. Many special schools have already successfully challenged low expectations and differentiated the curriculum to meet a wide range of needs.

  E-mail (Schools)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he estimates every school student will have their own e-mail address. [37943]

  Dr. Howells
  The target set out in the Government's consultation paper, "Connecting the Learning Society", is that by 2002 all schools, colleges, universities and libraries and as many community centres as possible should be connected to the National Grid for Learning, enabling 75 per cent. of teachers and lecturers and 50 per cent. of pupils and students to use their own e-mail addresses.

  GCSE Examinations
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils in each local education authority sat GCSE examinations in 1997; and of those how many sat(a) nine or more, (b) five to eight and (c) fewer than five GCSE examinations. [38294]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested in respect of GCSEs is shown in the table.
  495

  Number of 15 year old pupils attempting GCSE or the GNVQ equivalent in maintained schools in England in 1997

  Number of 15 year olds attempting:

  Local education authority

  Total attempting

  9 or more (a)

  5 to 8 (b)

  Less than 5 (c)

  Camden

  1,580

  1,001

  489

  90

  Greenwich

  2,176

  1,392

  632

  152

  Hackney

  1,268

  803

  322

  143

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  982

  480

  411

  91

  Islington

  1,283

  607

  565

  111

  Kensington & Chelsea

  549

  388

  108

  53

  Lambeth

  1,207

  617

  461

  129

  Lewisham

  1,923

  891

  853

  179

  Southwark

  1,703

  863

  693

  147

  Tower Hamlets

  2,223

  1,266

  758

  199

  Wandsworth

  1,590

  966

  490

  134

  Westminster

  1,205

  500

  596

  109

  Barking & Dagenham

  1,599

  1,126

  390

  83

  Barnet

  3,071

  2,412

  570

  89

  Bexley

  2,417

  1,809

  557

  51

  Brent

  2,091

  1,541

  456

  94

  Bromley

  2,900

  2,365

  477

  58

  Croydon

  3,107

  2,054

  857

  196

  Ealing

  2,370

  1,812

  464

  94

  Enfield

  3,036

  1,677

  1,211

  148

  Haringey

  1,591

  768

  609

  214

  Harrow

  2,016

  1,626

  332

  58

  Havering

  2,702

  2,181

  458

  63

  Hillingdon

  2,352

  1,563

  652

  137

  Hounslow

  2,477

  1,766

  509

  202

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,237

  935

  255

  47

  Merton

  1,428

  890

  469

  69

  Newham

  2,628

  1,791

  699

  138

  Redbridge

  2,560

  2,070

  379

  111

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,478

  1,178

  250

  50

  Sutton

  1,921

  1,501

  379

  41

  Waltham Forest

  2,164

  1,435

  595

  134

  Birmingham

  10,726

  6,512

  3,585

  629

  Coventry

  3,174

  2,225

  745

  204

  Dudley

  3,448

  2,292

  1,008

  148

  Sandwell

  3,223

  2,011

  1,010

  202

  Solihull

  2,608

  1,810

  717

  81

  Walsall

  3,163

  1,954

  880

  329

  Wolverhampton

  2,516

  1,640

  757

  119

  Knowsley

  1,610

  750

  705

  155

  Liverpool

  4,910

  2,391

  2,046

  473

  St. Helens

  2,055

  1,233

  750

  72

  Sefton

  3,320

  2,373

  855

  92

  Wirral

  3,650

  2,488

  1,002

  160

  Bolton

  3,015

  2,058

  855

  102

  Bury

  2,076

  1,637

  403

  36

  Manchester

  3,563

  1,801

  1,402

  360

  Oldham

  2,879

  1,927

  793

  159

  Rochdale

  2,203

  1,453

  637

  113

  Salford

  2,164

  1,112

  916

  136

  Stockport

  2,844

  1,710

  1,067

  67

  Tameside

  2,536

  1,602

  826

  108

  Trafford

  2,427

  1,665

  680

  82

  Wigan

  3,782

  2,802

  829

  151

  Barnsley

  2,334

  1,337

  871

  126

  Doncaster

  3,235

  2,131

  914

  190

  Rotherham

  3,254

  2,229

  878

  147

  Sheffield

  4,595

  3,199

  1,181

  215

  Bradford

  5,597

  3,161

  2,047

  389

  Calderdale

  2,219

  1,474

  597

  148

  Kirklees

  4,225

  2,953

  1,105

  167

  Leeds

  7,041

  4,724

  1,990

  327

  Wakefield

  3,490

  2,257

  1,032

  201

  Gateshead

  1,998

  1,368

  540

  90

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,384

  1,377

  822

  185

  North Tyneside

  2,026

  1,698

  284

  44

  South Tyneside

  1,763

  1,201

  494

  68

  Sunderland

  3,530

  2,459

  901

  170

  Isles of Scilly

  18

  15

  3

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,954

  1,495

  390

  69

  City of Bristol

  2,924

  1,928

  786

  210

  North Somerset

  1,902

  1,296

  554

  52

  South Gloucestershire

  2,512

  1,942

  499

  71

  Hartlepool

  1,012

  693

  253

  66

  Middlesbrough

  1,683

  924

  612

  147

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,860

  1,269

  486

  105

  496 497

  Number of 15 year old pupils attempting GCSE or the GNVQ equivalent in maintained schools in England in 1997

  Number of 15 year olds attempting:

  Local education authority

  Total attempting

  9 or more (a)

  5 to 8 (b)

  Less than 5 (c)

  stockton on Tees

  2,284

  1,522

  655

  107

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  2,525

  1,617

  724

  184

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  3,526

  2,789

  636

  101

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,953

  1,438

  420

  95

  North Lincolnshire

  1,989

  1,567

  333

  89

  North Yorkshire

  6,294

  4,999

  1,123

  172

  York

  1,675

  1,265

  354

  56

  Bedfordshire

  4,168

  3,427

  635

  106

  Luton

  2,199

  1,597

  516

  86

  Buckinghamshire

  5,149

  3,969

  1,029

  151

  Milton Keynes

  2,350

  1,962

  292

  96

  Derbyshire

  7,728

  5,750

  1,694

  284

  City of Derby

  2,588

  1,658

  826

  104

  Dorset

  3,975

  3,193

  690

  92

  Poole

  1,485

  1,080

  320

  85

  Bournemouth

  1,526

  1,136

  327

  63

  Durham

  5,705

  3,908

  1,468

  329

  Darlington

  1,024

  775

  221

  28

  East Sussex

  4,444

  3,542

  750

  152

  Brighton and Hove

  1,887

  1,374

  418

  95

  Hampshire

  12,432

  10,013

  2,085

  334

  Portsmouth

  1,585

  1,179

  313

  93

  Southampton

  2,185

  1,600

  449

  136

  Leicestershire

  6,500

  4,411

  1,839

  250

  Leicester City

  3,262

  1,530

  1,483

  249

  Rutland

  437

  365

  66

  6

  Staffordshire

  9,097

  6,086

  2,724

  287

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2,521

  1,467

  914

  140

  Wiltshire

  4,213

  2,953

  1,113

  147

  Swindon

  1,799

  1,202

  519

  78

  Berkshire

  8,143

  6,020

  1,866

  257

  Cambridgeshire

  7,255

  5,543

  1,441

  271

  Cheshire

  11,205

  8,634

  2,211

  360

  Cornwall

  5,236

  3,752

  1,297

  187

  Cumbria

  5,348

  3,871

  1,253

  224

  Devon

  10,692

  7,305

  2,920

  467

  Essex

  17,107

  12,765

  3,707

  635

  Gloucestershire

  5,708

  4,198

  1,299

  211

  Hereford & Worcester

  7,313

  5,047

  1,961

  305

  Hertfordshire

  11,040

  8,764

  1,990

  286

  Isle of Wight

  1,291

  933

  319

  39

  Kent

  17,310

  11,226

  5,363

  721

  Lancashire

  15,405

  10,455

  4,333

  617

  Lincolnshire

  6,769

  4,201

  2,288

  280

  Norfolk

  8,024

  5,387

  2,280

  357

  Northamptonshire

  6,936

  5,104

  1,588

  244

  Northumberland

  3,644

  2,811

  720

  113

  Nottinghamshire

  11,045

  7,760

  2,825

  550

  Oxfordshire

  5,803

  4,412

  1,160

  231

  Shropshire

  4,822

  3,724

  941

  157

  Somerset

  4,845

  3,694

  1,025

  126

  Suffolk

  6,853

  5,475

  1,184

  194

  Surrey

  8,932

  7,228

  1,490

  214

  Warwickshire

  5,092

  3,532

  1,395

  165

  West Sussex

  7,535

  6,062

  1,324

  149

  Total

  508,140

  356,037

  129,769

  22,334

  School Exclusions and Expulsions (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by school in the Easington constituency the number of pupils by age who have been(a) excluded and (b) expelled in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1997. [37858]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on excluded pupils in individual schools is not published centrally.

  School Exclusions (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many permanent exclusions there 498
  were from schools in Leicestershire in the last year for which figures are available. [37918]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In 1995/96, the last year for which figures are available, there were 240 permanent exclusions from schools in Leicestershire.

  School Psychologists
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the ratio of school psychologists to school pupils for each local education authority area. [37958]
  499
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Educational psychologists per 10,000 pupils—January 1997

  Local education authority

  Ratio

  City of London

  0.0

  Camden

  2.8

  Greenwich

  3.6

  Hackney

  3.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3.2

  Islington

  4.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4.2

  Lambeth

  4.2

  Lewisham

  3.4

  Southwark

  3.2

  Tower Hamlets

  3.8

  Wandsworth

  3.2

  Westminster

  3.0

  Barking and Dagenham

  4.6

  Barnet

  3.1

  Bexley

  2.9

  Brent

  2.5

  Bromley

  2.4

  Croydon

  1.9

  Ealing

  2.7

  Enfield

  3.2

  Haringey

  4.3

  Harrow

  2.7

  Havering

  2.1

  Hillingdon

  2.7

  Hounslow

  2.6

  Kingston upon Thames

  2.1

  Merton

  2.4

  Newham

  2.7

  Redbridge

  1.9

  Richmond upon Thames

  2.1

  Sutton

  1.9

  Waltham Forest

  3.6

  Birmingham

  2.0

  Coventry

  2.5

  Dudley

  2.1

  Sandwell

  2.6

  Solihull

  2.4

  Walsall

  2.1

  Wolverhampton

  2.6

  Knowsley

  2.9

  Liverpool

  1.8

  St. Helens

  1.9

  Sefton

  1.9

  Wirral

  2.2

  Bolton

  1.7

  Bury

  2.4

  Manchester

  2.2

  Oldham

  1.5

  Rochdale

  2.2

  Salford

  2.4

  Stockport

  2.4

  Tameside

  2.0

  Trafford

  1.3

  Wigan

  2.3

  Barnsley

  1.1

  Doncaster

  2.0

  Rotherham

  2.5

  Sheffield

  2.2

  Bradford

  1.9

  Calderdale

  2.3

  Kirklees

  3.2

  Leeds

  1.2

  Wakefield

  1.7

  Gateshead

  2.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2.7

  North Tyneside

  2.0

  South Tyneside

  2.2

  Sunderland

  2.2

  500

  Educational psychologists Per 10,000 Pupils—January 1997

  Local education authority

  Ratio

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  Bath and NE Somerset

  1.7

  City of Bristol

  2.3

  North Somerset

  2.1

  South Gloucestershire

  1.6

  Hartlepool

  1.9

  Middlesbrough

  1.8

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1.9

  Stockton on Tees

  2.4

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  1.7

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1.6

  North East Lincolnshire

  1.4

  North Lincolnshire

  1.5

  North Yorkshire

  1.4

  York

  2.5

  Bedfordshire

  1.6

  Berkshire

  1.5

  Buckinghamshire

  2.2

  Cambridgeshire

  1.7

  Cheshire

  1.6

  Cornwall

  1.7

  Cumbria

  2.1

  Derbyshire

  1.9

  Devon

  2.0

  Dorset

  1.9

  Durham

  2.3

  East Sussex

  1.7

  Essex

  2.5

  Gloucestershire

  0.9

  Hampshire

  2.1

  Hereford and Worcester

  1.9

  Hertfordshire

  1.8

  Isle of Wight

  2.0

  Kent

  2.0

  Lancashire

  2.1

  Leicestershire

  1.7

  Lincolnshire

  1.9

  Norfolk

  1.9

  Northamptonshire

  2.1

  Northumberland

  1.7

  Nottinghamshire

  1.9

  Oxfordshire

  1.8

  Shropshire

  1.8

  Somerset

  2.0

  Staffordshire

  1.6

  Suffolk

  1.5

  Surrey

  1.9

  Warwickshire

  1.8

  West Sussex

  2.0

  Wiltshire

  1.4

  Total

  2.1

  Value-added Measures
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures are being taken to promote use of the concept of value added among local education authorities and in schools and colleges; and if he will make a statement. [38371]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has just published a compendium, including illustrative value added information, for use by local education authorities (LEAs) to support their role in helping schools to interpret performance data and set challenging targets. National value-added information, using results form the 1998 National Curriculum assessments and public examinations, will be sent directly to schools in the Autumn as part of a package of performance information.

  Export Training
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the role of training and enterprise councils in facilitating training relating to exports. [38122]

  Dr. Howells
  We expect TECs to tailor their services to the needs of their local areas. With and through their Business Link Partnerships, they provide a wide range of help to exporters, including providing training where appropriate.

  Skill Shortages (Seaham and Peterlee)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the areas of skill shortages in the Seaham and Peterlee areas. [37912]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has made no assessment of the areas of skill shortages in the Seaham and Peterlee areas.

  However, the Education and Training sub-group of the East Durham Task Force, jointly chaired by the Chief Executive of the County Durham TEC and the Principal of Peterlee College, is still looking into skill shortages in the Easington, Peterlee and Seaham areas. Engineering skills have been identified as a difficulty, and County Durham TEC has provided £100,000 to enhance facilities at the Engineering Centre at Peterlee.

  New Deal
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the New Deal units of delivery, (b) the partnerships and (c) the organisation taking the lead in each unit throughout the UK; and if he will make a statement. [38098]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 7 April 1998]: I have placed in the Library a list of the 143 New Deal units of delivery in England, Scotland and Wales which includes details of the organisation taking the lead in each unit.

  Each unit has a strategic partnership involving a variety of key players from the local area such as the local authority, the TEC and representatives of employers and the voluntary sector. The composition of each has been different depending upon the particular local needs of the area. These partnerships have worked with the Employment Service to develop the delivery plans for each unit. Each unit will also have a range of delivery partners for each of the elements of New Deal and again the numbers of partners involved will vary depending upon the needs of young people and size of the client group joining New Deal.

  We do not have the information centrally to complete a list of all those involved in every partnership across the country.

  School Closures (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools which have closed in Staffordshire since 1983. [36958]
  502
  Mr. Byers
  Shown in the table which I have placed in the Library, are all the maintained schools which, according to the Department's information, have been closed in Staffordshire since 1983. A number of the listed schools have closed as a result of amalgamations with other schools while others have closed to facilitate a change in age range. In such cases the replacement schools are also listed.

  Students
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will exempt students on four year B.Ed (Hons) courses from paying fees for the fourth year. [39166]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have already announced that trainee teachers on postgraduate certificate of education (PGCE) courses will not have to make means-tested contributions towards tuition fees. We see PGCE courses as a priority, as this is the route followed by most trainee secondary teachers, and under-recruitment has only affected secondary training courses to date. We have no plans to make similar provision for BEd courses, but continue to monitor recruitment to all courses.

  Music (Schools)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the provision of music in schools. [37415]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Music will remain a National Curriculum foundation subject and will continue to be taught in all schools. In addition, the Government are currently considering ways in which it might be possible to increase opportunities for children to have equitable access to high quality musical instrument tuition.

  Special Needs
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if it is the Government's long-term policy that individual children with special educational needs should have a continuing legal entitlement to receive the special educational provision that their needs require. [38429]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Yes.

  Job Club (Sutton)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the start-up costs of opening the Sutton Job Club, Lewis Road, Sutton, in October 1997; when, and by whom, the decision was taken to close the Sutton Job Club; and what costs have been incurred in closing the club. [39050]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 20 April 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about the start-up costs of opening the Sutton Jobclub, Lewis Road,

  503
  Sutton, in October 1997; when, and by whom, the decision was taken to close the Sutton Jobclub; and what costs have been incurred in closing club. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  There were no costs incurred by the Employment Service in setting up Sutton Jobclub. The decision to close the Jobclub was taken by Colin Purtill, the Employment Service District Manager responsible for services in Sutton, after consultation in the locality in January and February 1998.
  504
  There will be no additional costs incurred in closing the Jobclub. The Employment Service pays fees to its contracted providers monthly in arrears. The Jobclub contract allows for an early termination without penalty provided at least six weeks notice is given. In this instance the provider who runs our Sutton Jobclub, Instant Muscle, was given eight weeks notice to close on 1 May 1998.
  I hope this is helpful.

HEALTH

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set a target for reduction in breast cancer mortality in women aged over 65 years. [38152]

  Mr. Boateng
  Cancer is one of the four priority areas identified in the Green Paper,Our Healthier Nation, which was published for consultation on 5 February 1998. At present, the strategy proposes a national target to reduce the death rate from cancer amongst people aged under 65 years by at least a fifth by 2010. This will also benefit those aged over 65 years. A decision on whether this national target should be modified will be made in the light of consultation responses. The Green Paper also emphasises the need for local targets to identify particular areas of local concern.

  We are committed to reducing breast cancer mortality for all women. The new National Health Service White Paper gives a guarantee that everyone with suspected breast cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of general practitioner referral.

  Cervical Screening
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of all tests for cervical cancers were false positives in the last year for which information is available; and how many unnecessary remedial procedures have been carried out in each of the past 10 years. [38739]

  Mr. Boateng
  Cervical screening is not a test for cervical cancer itself. Cervical screening can prevent cancer of the cervix by finding abnormal cells before they become cancerous, enabling treatment to be given to prevent cancer developing. Not all abnormal cells will become cancerous, but it is not possible to tell in advance how many women with abnormal changes to the cervix will go on to develop cancer if left untreated. Around 100,000 women are referred to colposcopy clinics each year for further assessment and/or treatment.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths and what proportion of all deaths of women aged over 40 years were from cervical cancer in each year since 1975; and what assessment he has made of the measurable effect of screening on the death rate. [38764]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number and proportion of deaths in women aged over 40 years from cervical cancer have fallen dramatically since 1975. In particular, the number of deaths from cervical cancer has fallen by a third since the National Health Service cervical screening programme was set up in 1988, as the table shows:

  Year

  Cervical cancer deaths of women aged over 40

  Cervical cancer as percentage of all deaths to women aged over 40

  1975

  2,008

  0.72

  1976

  2,076

  0.72

  1977

  1,998

  0.72

  506

  Year

  Cervical cancer deaths of women aged over 40

  Cervical Cancer as percentage of all deaths to women aged over 40

  1978

  1,978

  0.70

  1979

  1,919

  0.67

  1980

  1,872

  0.67

  1981

  1,810

  0.65

  1982

  1,733

  0.61

  1983

  1,743

  0.62

  1984

  1,690

  0.61

  1985

  1,709

  0.59

  1986

  1,747

  0.61

  1987

  1,644

  0.59

  1988

  1,712

  0.61

  1989

  1,579

  0.55

  1990

  1,554

  0.55

  1991

  1,457

  0.51

  1992

  1,487

  0.52

  1993

  1,319

  0.45

  1994

  1,217

  0.44

  1995

  1,158

  0.40

  1996

  1,156

  0.41

  Cervical screening is estimated to prevent between 1,100 and 3,900 cases of invasive cervical cancer each year (Imperial Cancer Research Fund), and the death rate from cervical cancer is currently falling by seven per cent. each year.

  Section 64 Funding
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the beneficiaries of the most recent section 64 allocations of funding; if he will list the criteria by which section 64 applications are judged; and when applications for the next round of section 64 funding will be invited. [38798]

  Mr. Boateng
  A list of new and renewal section 64 grant awards for 1998–99 approved by the Department's Ministers has been placed in the Library.

  The awards were determined by reference to the extent to which it was considered they will help to meet the Department's objectives and priorities. Each application was considered on its merits.

  Application forms for the next annual section 64 round will be issued in July, to be returned to the Department by 1 October 1998.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instigate an immediate inquiry into age discrimination in the delivery of health services. [38991]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's commitment to promoting a fair and equitable health service is set out in the 1998/99 priorities and planning guidance for the National Health Service. Whatever the age of the patient,
  507
  there are no exceptions to the fundamental principle that the NHS is there to provide services for everybody on the basis of clinical need. The White Paper The New NHS also sets out our proposals for a new national performance framework for the NHS which will focus on six areas of performance selected to capture what really counts for patients and staff. One of these six areas will be that of fair access to health services in relation to people's needs, irrespective of geography, class, ethnicity, age or sex.

  In response to the recent campaign by the Observer newspaper entitled "Dignity on the Ward", which raised the issue of age discrimination in the delivery of health services, amongst other things, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned HAS 2000 (formerly the Health Advisory Service) to examine the care which acute hospitals provide for older people. HAS 2000 are expected to look at the care which acute hospitals provide for older people nationwide, and examine one or two hospitals in greater detail. They will report directly to my right hon. Friend, who plans to publish their report. The study will be undertaken between January and June 1998.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the guidelines for the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Fund, separately identifying the(a) criteria for inviting bids, (b) factors to be considered in evaluating bids and (c) timescale for bidding and implementation; and if he will make a statement. [39008]

  Mr. Boateng
  We expect to publish guidance in May giving full information about the specific grant to local authorities, in partnership with linked health authorities, for development of services for children and adolescents with a mental illness.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the needs not currently met from existing provision in respect of children's and adolescents' mental health care; what proportion of these needs will be met by the CAMHS Fund; what measures he plans to meet these needs in areas where CAMHS Fund money is not allocated; and if he will make a statement. [39007]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are aware of the variations in service provision for children and young people with mental health problems across the country. Social care regions, jointly with regional offices of the National Health Service Executive, have undertaken a number of region-wide surveys of provision for child and adolescent mental health services. They will enable appropriate action to be taken to help ensure a more even spread of service provision. Priorities for action have to be decided locally in the light of the assessed needs of the local population.

  The child and adolescent mental health services fund is not aimed at filling gaps in existing services. It is intended to help support a small number of innovative pilot projects designed to develop good practice. Bids from local authorities, agreed with partner health authorities, will be invited shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences for arms have been granted to United Kingdom firms since September 1997; and in respect of which countries of destination. [33831]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 10 March 1998]: The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the results are as follows for the period between 13 November 1997 and 2 February 1998 inclusive. 4,014 Standard Individual Export Licences and 55 Open Individual Export Licences were issued for the export of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order (the so-called "Military List"). These licences covered exports to consignees and/or end-users in the following countries:
  Afghanistan, Angola, Netherlands Antilles, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Cambodia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, the Falkland Islands, Finland, France, French Guiana, Georgia, Germany. Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece, Grenada, Guyana, Hong Kong SAR, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the People's Republic of China, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, St. Helena, St. Vincent, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  The list necessarily takes no account of Media OIELs, which are Open Individual Export Licences that authorise the export to any destination of protective clothing for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists working in areas of conflict.

  The Government are committed to report annually on strategic export controls and their application.

  London Art Market
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the principal EU regulations and directives which affect the London art market; and what further measures are anticipated. [37416]
  509
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The principal EU regulations and directives which affect the London art market are as follows:

  Customs and VAT Directives
  Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2454/93 which implements the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) No. 92/2913, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 918/83, Council Directive 83/181/EEC and the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) as amended by the Seventh VAT Directive (94/5/EC). Their effect is thus:

  Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2454/93
  Article 682 suspends the payment of customs duty and import VAT for second-hand goods temporarily imported for sale by auction and also works of art, collectors' items, and antiques temporarily removed for exhibition, with a view to possible sale.
  Other measures include the following:
  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods; Council Regulation (EC) No. 2469/96 of 16 December 1996 amending the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No. 3911/92 on the export of cultural goods; Council Directive 93/7 EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State; Directive 96/100/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 February 1997 amending the Annex to Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. However, the latter two have not been used to date.

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 918/83 and Council Directive 83/181/EEC
  Article 51 of Regulation 918/83 and Article 79(r) of Directive 83/181 provide relief from customs duty and import VAT respectively, under certain conditions, for items imported by approved museums of galleries for their collections.

  Sixth VAT Directive
  Article 16(E) enables relief from VAT on the sale of temporarily imported works of art and second-hand goods. Article 26a allows VAT on the sale of eligible works of art to be calculated by reference to the profit margin instead of the full sales value. Article 28 (I)a enables the UK to apply until 30 June 1999 an effective 2.5% VAT rate on the importation of works of art, collectors' items, or antiques which had been relieved from VAT before the implementation of the Seventh VAT Directive (94/5/EC). No further measures are anticipated in this area.

  Copyright
  In the field of copyright, the principal measure is an amended proposal (still under negotiation) for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the resale right for the benefit of an author of an original work of art—Com (1998) 78 final. No further measures are anticipated in this area.

  Sale of Consumer Goods
  A draft Directive on the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, which would harmonise at a minimum level consumers' sale of goods rights, is currently being negotiated. The Directive, unlike UK law, does not make any special provision for the liability of sellers at auction and could have an adverse effect on the sale of goods—including art and antiques—at auction. However, the UK is seeking a derogation that would allow Member States to exclude used goods sold at auction.

  Trade in Endangered Species
  The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) controls international trade of specimens of species listed in its appendices—including antiques. In the EU, it is given legal force by Council Regulation EC No. 338/97 and Commission Regulation EC No. 939/97. These regulations set out the rules for the import,
  510
  export, re-export, sale and movement of species to which the controls apply. The regulation on trade is based on a system of permits and certificates which may only be issued where certain conditions are met. No further measures are anticipated in this area.

  Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the review of electricity trading arrangements to be completed. [38830]

  Mr. Battle
  I expect to receive advice in July from the Director General of Electricity Supply on proposals for new electricity trading arrangements.

  Independent Booksellers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of independent booksellers (i) in 1987 and (ii) at the current date; and what assessment he has made of the impact on the traditional book trade of the growth of new retail outlets. [38748]

  Mr. Battle
  There are no official statistics available for the number of independent booksellers in 1987 or currently. Data produced by the Office for National Statistics (reference SDA25) are available for certain years for booksellers (businesses whose main sales are new or second-hand books) as follows:

  Year

  Businesses

  Outlets

  1986

  2,567

  3,175

  1988

  2,271

  3,096

  1990

  2,323

  3,495

  1991

  2,016

  3,280

  1992

  2,195

  3,790

  The intermediate surveys in 1987 and 1989 did not provide results by detailed kind of business. After 1992, the results have been published on the basis of the Standard Industrial Classification (92), which combines booksellers with newsagents. However, these results do not give an analysis by number of outlets so it is not possible to estimate the number of independent booksellers.

  I am aware of several factors affecting book sales at present, including the growth of new outlets, but no assessment has been made of their possible impact on the traditional booktrade. My Department is currently supporting the Booksellers Association of Great Britain and Ireland (BA) in its efforts to create an Internet site for the benefit of small and medium booksellers. In another initiative, involving the Publishers Association and the Booksellers Association, the Department has supported a study into book industry supply-chain.

  Export Forum
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution her Department made to the budget of the Export Forum in the last financial year. [38881]
  511
  Mrs. Roche
  The Department spent a total of £17,000 on the publication of the Export Forum report and on the travel expenses and refreshment of Forum members. A small amount of resource was also spent on photocopying costs and other small items of office support for the Forum, but it is not possible to separate this out from the generality of Departmental expenditure.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent information she has received from the UKAEA in respect of the adequacy of the storage capacity for radioactive waste at Dounreay. [38901]

  Mr. Battle
  DTI receive regular reports from UKAEA which include projections of storage capacity. These are used by UKAEA to plan future storage facilities. Indications are that extra storage facilities will be required for immobilised Intermediate Level Waste by mid-2000. Work on storage facilities to house the waste to be retrieved from the Dounreay Shaft and Wet Silo will commence in about 2008.

  Coal Contracts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she hopes to conclude the Government's review of coal contracts and related matters. [39006]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are undertaking a review of energy sources for power generation. Its terms of reference were set out in my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) on 22 December 1997,Official Report, columns 519–20. The review is expected to reach conclusions before 30 June.

  Newspaper Prices
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received regarding predatory pricing of national newspapers. [37424]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Department has received a number of representations relating to complaints about pricing practices in the newspaper industry, and about the amendment to the Competition Bill relating to newspapers which was passed in the other place. These representations have been from members of the public, newspaper undertakings, and Members of both Houses. It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider specific complaints about anti-competitive practices. In relation to the Competition Bill, the Government have made clear their view that the amendment accepted in the other place is unnecessary and unworkable.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Feltham Young Offenders Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) suicides and (b) attempted suicides have occurred in Feltham Young Offenders Unit in each of the last five years. [38156]
  512
  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table. This is shown as reported incidents of self-injury rather than attempted suicides since, as of 1 April 1997, the Prison Service now records incidents under this broader definition.

  In interpreting the statistics on reported incidents of self-injury, it should be borne in mind that a single prisoner can accumulate more than one incident of self-injury. There have also been changes to recording and the definitions in establishments over time. Research is being conducted to identify more consistent methods of recording and monitoring self-injury.

  Self-inflicted deaths and incidents of self-injury at Feltham YOI 1993–94–1997–98

  Year

  Self-inflicted deaths1

  Reported incidents of self-injury

  1993–94

  -

  36

  1994–95

  -

  99

  1995–96

  -

  532

  1996–97

  1

  241

  1997–98

  2

  2234

  1 Not all self-inflicted deaths conclude with a verdict of suicide.

  2 1-4-97 to 28-2-98.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 391, to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), how many of the 277 young men held in adult prisons were aged 15 and 16 years; which prisons they were held in; and what was the number of 15 and 16 year olds held in each prison. [38587]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table. Of the 66 persons identified as being held in adult prisons, all are normally accommodated separately from adult prisoners.

  Population of 15 and 16 year olds in adult prisons on 31 January 19981

  Establishment

  Number

  Altcourse

  7

  Cardiff

  1

  Doncaster

  36

  Exeter

  2

  Gloucester

  5

  Hull

  7

  Norwich

  1

  Parc

  4

  Swansea

  3

  Total

  66

  1Provisional figures

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15 and 16 year olds were held on remand in(a) Her Majesty's prisons and (b) young offender institutions on (i) 1 April 1997 and (ii) 1 April 1998. [38934]
  513
  Ms Quin
  The available information relates to the remand prison population of 15 and 16 year olds in England and Wales on the last day of the month and is given in the table.

  Population of 15 and 16 year olds on remand by type of Prison Service establishment1

  Date

  Accommodation dedicated to young offenders

  Other accommodation containing adults but who are kept in separate accommodation

  28 February 19982,3

  196

  66

  31 March 1997

  189

  72

  1 All those remanded were male.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Latest available.

  Crime and Disorder Bill
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the categories of the persons and bodies referred to in section 6(2)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Bill(Lords] which he intends to prescribe by order. [38583]

  Mr. Michael
  We have not yet finally decided which persons or bodies will be prescribed under this power. A number of suggestions were made during the consultation period on our proposals for new statutory crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and we are currently considering these.

  Enforced Subject Access
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce proposals to halt the practice of enforced subject access; and if he will make a statement.[38416]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are committed to dealing with the problem of enforced subject access in the context of the Data Protection Bill. We intend to bring forward proposals at Committee Stage.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) of 15 December 1997,Official Report, columns 11–12, on animal experiments, what actions he has requested regulators of safety testing in the United Kingdom to carry out to attempt to reduce the number of animals used in safety tests. [38524]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Following a series of meetings at the Home Office, United Kingdom regulators have agreed to a statement of principle that any suffering caused to animals and the number of animals used in a safety evaluation protocol, should be the lowest necessary to achieve its identified objectives.

  To this end, they have agreed to:

  1. encourage the development of alternative methods through co-operation with or participation in national and international initiatives aimed at refining, reducing or replacing the use of animals;

  514

  2. seek to influence international harmonisation initiatives to ensure that policies and practices take full account of the ethical duty to protect the welfare and minimise the numbers of animals used in safety assessments;

  3. alert applicants/clients to instances where data submitted in support of registration on safety evaluation are considered excessive in terms of animal suffering or numbers, or where internationally accepted alternatives replacing, reducing or refining animal use have not been employed;

  4. accept for assessment internationally recognised, non-animal alternative tests conducted to appropriate standards; and

  5. not require repetition of data produced by the applicant for other safety evaluation agencies where such data accord with internationally accepted guidelines and have been generated in compliance with appropriate standards.

  A further meeting will take place later this month between Home Office officials and the regulators to discuss the progress made in implementing these principles and in promoting them to overseas regulators.

  Firearms
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Desmond Tallent of Hurlingham Road, Stafford will receive the balance of his compensation for the handguns he surrendered last year. [38413]

  Mr. Michael
  The Firearms Compensation Section is at present concentrating its efforts on clearing the remaining claims received under Options A and B of the compensation scheme, and this work is expected to be completed by about the end of May. The balance of the compensation due to Mr. Tallent under Option C of the scheme should be paid soon after that.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for the most recent year for which figures are available, broken down by month, the numbers of unlicensed firearms entering the United Kingdom, excluding the Province of Northern Ireland; [39038]

  (2) how many unlicensed firearms he estimates are in current circulation in the United Kingdom, excluding the Province of Northern Ireland. [39037]

  Mr. Michael
  There is no reliable estimate of the number of illegal firearms in circulation, or of those entering the United Kingdom and escaping detection.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases to date have been brought against Her Majesty's Government in respect of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, in(a) the European Court of Justice and (b) the European Court of Human Rights. [39036]

  Mr. Michael
  Although the Government have had no formal notification of any case arising from the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, lodged either with the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights, we have had sight of two applications to the latter Court.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in (i) the last year and (ii) the previous five years small claims court hearings have taken place in HM prisons. [38589]

  Ms Quin
  Small claims hearings are known to have been held in five prisons. These have occurred infrequently and not all the prisons involved have maintained separate records of the hearings.

  Four hearings have been confirmed as having been held in the last year and three in the previous five years.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances leading up to the holding of a small claims court hearing in HM Prison Long Lartin; and what was the total cost to public funds of the hearing. [38590]

  Ms Quin
  Three small claims courts have been convened at Long Lartin prison over the last year in order to hear a total of ten cases brought by prisoners. Most, but not all, cases are brought against the prison mainly for property-related issues. Prisoners have the same rights as any citizen to make applications to the court and, whilst hearings such as this are not frequent occurrences, neither are they unusual.

  Holding hearings within the prison, rather than at the county court, is both more secure and reduces significantly the overall costs by removing the need for the involvement of expensive police and prison escorts. Wherever possible, the court will schedule different cases from the prison to be heard on the same day in order to reduce costs further.

  A

  B

  Percentage difference

  Police capital 1998/99 (£ million)

  Police capital 1997/98 (£ million)

  A over B

  Major

  Minor

  Total

  Major

  Minor

  Total

  Minor

  Avon & Somerset

  0.750

  2.321

  3.071

  0.650

  2.417

  3.067

  -4

  Bedfordshire

  0.620

  0.891

  1.511

  1.729

  0.928

  2.657

  -4

  Cambridgeshire

  0.000

  0.958

  0.958

  0.519

  0.998

  1.517

  -4

  Cheshire

  0.050

  1.465

  1.515

  0.650

  1.525

  2.175

  -4

  City of London

  0.000

  0.642

  0.642

  0.000

  0.668

  0.668

  -4

  Cleveland

  0.000

  1.127

  1.127

  0.000

  1.174

  1.174

  -4

  Cumbria

  0.877

  0.891

  1.768

  0.000

  0.928

  0.928

  -4

  Derbyshire

  3.750

  1.398

  5.148

  1.300

  1.456

  2.756

  -4

  Devon & Cornwall

  2.188

  2.238

  4.426

  1.039

  2.330

  3.369

  -4

  Dorset

  3.115

  0.983

  4.098

  0.041

  1.024

  1.065

  -4

  Durham

  1.258

  1.051

  2.309

  0.000

  1.094

  1.094

  -4

  Dyfed Powys

  0.000

  0.727

  0.727

  0.000

  0.757

  0.757

  -4

  Essex

  0.160

  2.266

  2.426

  1.170

  2.359

  3.529

  -4

  Gloucestershire

  0.000

  1.019

  1.019

  0.000

  1.061

  1.061

  -4

  Greater Manchester

  0.133

  5.312

  5.445

  3.797

  5.531

  9.328

  -4

  Gwent

  0.060

  0.931

  0.991

  0.000

  0.969

  0.969

  -4

  Hampshire

  1.109

  2.545

  3.654

  0.419

  2.650

  3.069

  -4

  Hertfordshire

  1.160

  1.321

  2.481

  0.671

  1.376

  2.047

  -4

  Humberside

  2.931

  1.538

  4.469

  2.577

  1.601

  4.178

  -4

  Kent

  2.000

  2.436

  4.436

  4.780

  2.537

  7.317

  -4

  Lancashire

  0.011

  2.436

  2.447

  0.022

  2.537

  2.559

  -4

  Leicestershire

  0.000

  1.490

  1.490

  0.120

  1.552

  1.672

  -4

  Lincolnshire

  0.100

  1.058

  1.158

  1.058

  1.102

  2.160

  -4

  Merseyside

  1.000

  3.532

  4.532

  3.600

  3.678

  7.278

  -4

  Metropolitan Police

  19.600

  23.325

  42.925

  24.288

  24.288

  48.576

  -4

  Norfolk

  3.007

  1.103

  4.110

  4.200

  1.149

  5.349

  -4

  Northamptonshire

  0.775

  0.955

  1.730

  1.430

  0.994

  2.424

  -4

  Northumbria

  6.430

  2.754

  9.184

  6.643

  2.868

  9.511

  -4

  516
  Records are not kept of the cost of convening small claims courts at Long Lartin prison and cannot be estimated with any accuracy.

  Civil Justice (Prisoner Access)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on access to civil justice for prisoners serving custodial sentences when the matters in dispute relate to the Prison Service. [38588]

  Ms Quin
  A prisoner who seeks access to civil justice in a dispute relating to the Prison Service is treated in exactly the same manner as a prisoner who seeks such access in any other dispute. Prisoners' rights in this respect are set out in Rules 37 and 37A of the Prison Rules 1964 (as amended) and Rules 13 and 14 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 1988 (as amended). Guidance on the implementation of these Rules is given to governors in Standing Order 5. Copies of all these documents are available in the Library.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the capital allocations to police authorities(a) for 1998–99 and (b) for 1997–98 indicating the percentage change between the two years in ranking order of percentage change. [38540]

  Mr. Michael
  The information available is in the table. The percentage difference between the two years has been calculated on the minor works capital allocations only. These are allocated by formula. The major capital allocations are made to individual building projects and reflect individual building timetables and are not directly comparable.
  517

  A

  B

  Percentage difference

  Police capital 1998/99 (£ million)

  Police capital 1997/98 (£ million)

  A over B

  Major

  Minor

  Total

  Major

  Minor

  Total

  Minor

  North Wales

  1.210

  1.033

  2.243

  0.488

  1.076

  1.564

  -4

  North Yorkshire

  3.625

  1.065

  4.690

  1.786

  1.109

  2.895

  -4

  Nottinghamshire

  2.725

  1.766

  4.491

  3.323

  1.839

  5.162

  -4

  South Wales

  2.350

  2.225

  4.575

  3.642

  2.317

  5.959

  -4

  South Yorkshire

  1.530

  2.309

  3.839

  3.165

  2.404

  5.569

  -4

  Staffordshire

  3.985

  1.662

  5.647

  2.920

  1.731

  4.651

  -4

  Suffolk

  0.000

  0.929

  0.929

  0.000

  0.967

  0.967

  -4

  Surrey

  0.190

  1.842

  2.032

  2.109

  1.918

  4.027

  -4

  Sussex

  1.503

  2.279

  3.782

  2.914

  2.373

  5.287

  -4

  Thames Valley

  1.708

  2.973

  4.681

  3.130

  3.096

  6.226

  -4

  Warwickshire

  0.011

  0.768

  0.779

  0.500

  0.800

  1.300

  -4

  West Mercia

  0.173

  1.852

  2.025

  2.530

  1.928

  4.458

  -4

  West Midlands

  2.300

  5.263

  7.563

  2.810

  5.480

  8.290

  -4

  West Yorkshire

  0.319

  3.974

  4.293

  1.901

  4.138

  6.039

  -4

  Wiltshire

  0.582

  0.904

  1.486

  1.081

  0.941

  2.022

  -4

  Total

  73,295

  99,557

  172,852

  93,002

  103,668

  196,670

  -4

  UK Detention Services
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts there are currently between his Department and UK Detention Services; what was the starting date of each contract; what is the completion date for each contract; and if he will make a statement.[38665]

  Ms Quin
  The Home Office currently has one contract with the United Kingdom Detention Services which was placed by the Prison Service and is for the management of Blakenhurst Prison. The contract commenced on 26 May 1993 and was initially to run for five years, but has since been extended until 25 May 2001 as announced in a reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on 19 June 1997,Official Report, columns 247–49.

  False Passport Offences
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals were arrested and charged with false passport offences during 1997; how many of those were subsequently imprisoned; what was the average length of sentence; how many were subsequently detained on completion of their sentence; and if he will make a statement. [38660]

  Mr. Michael
  Under section 26(1)(d) of the Immigration Act 1971 a foreign national shall be guilty of a criminal offence if, without lawful authority, he alters any certificate of entitlement, entry clearance, work permit or other document made under or for the purpose of the Act; or has in his possession any passport, certificate of entitlement, entry clearance, work permit or other document which is known or he has reasonable cause to believe to be false.

  Detailed information on arrests and charges by offence is not collected centrally. Information held on the Home Office Court Proceedings database for 1996 (latest available) shows nine prosecutions and five convictions under section 26(1)(d) of the Act. Only one offender was given a custodial sentence (of one month—although this was not coupled with a recommendation for deportation).
  518
  However it is also possible that other legislation, which does not refer exclusively to passports, may be used to deal with foreign nationals arrested for this type of crime.

  Bridgend and Fazakerley Prisons
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the public sector comparator against which the Prison Service has calculated the costs of the prisons built and managed under the private finance initiative at Bridgend and Fazakerley; what assumptions are used by the comparator; at what stage it was calculated; and if he will make a statement. [38661]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 December 1997,Official Report, columns 367–68.

  Television Licence Fines
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women received a custodial sentence for non-payment of a fine imposed for not paying for a television licence, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.[38746]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table. Information on fine defaulters, by offence, is published in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (Table 7.3 of the 1996 edition, Cm 3732), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Receptions of fine defaulters into prisons in England and Wales:non-payment of fine after conviction for using a TV without a licence, 1995 to 1997, by gender

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1995

  493

  235

  728

  1996

  238

  89

  327

  19971

  171

  61

  232

  1 Provisional

  Gaming Industry
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the
  519
  effectiveness of the Gaming Act 1968 in controlling the gaming industry, with regard to the use of technology introduced since 1993; [38784]

  (2) if he will order a review of the gaming and lottery industry; [38785]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 in achieving its purpose of keeping lotteries crime free. [38782]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The present controls meet their primary purpose of keeping gaming crime-free, though the Government are aware of calls to modernise them. We have not ruled that out, but would need to consider the timing, scope and resource implications of such an exercise.

  We have no plans to order a review of the gaming and lottery industry as a separate exercise.

  Police (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will update the advice to police authorities and chief constables on recruiting a multi-racial police service; and if he will publish it. [39170]

  Mr. Michael
  The Inspectorate's thematic inspection report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary "Winning the Race. Policing Plural Communities" which was published in October 1997 (copies of which are in the Library), includes "a guide to assist forces in the area of ethnic minority recruitment" which should provide a helpful checklist of action for forces to take. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he expects each police force in England and Wales to consider the conclusions of the report and to act on its findings during the course of 1998. Later this year chief constables will be asked to report on action taken.

  No specific advice is issued to police authorities and chief constables on recruiting a multi-racial police service but it is the responsibility of chief officers of police forces in England and Wales, with the assistance of their police authorities, to ensure that their forces represent the communities they serve. Each chief officer is responsible for the recruitment of officers to his or her force, including initiatives to encourage greater numbers of people from ethnic minorities to join. Home Office police recruitment literature expresses the total commitment to create a police service which reflects the diversity of Britain's population in the late 1990s.

  Postal Votes
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the practice of general practitioners charging their patients to verify an application for a postal vote. [38930]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Under their terms of service, General Practitioners are required to issue certain certificates to their patients free of charge. These include attestations for an absent vote on grounds of physical incapacity.

  If a patient is charged a fee for this service, and is unable to resolve the matter with the doctor concerned, the local Health Authority has the power to investigate such complaints and take appropriate action.

  Family Passports (Abolition)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what forecast he has made of the likely increase in revenue over each of the next five years as a result of the abolition of the family passport. [38793]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Kingdom Passport Agency estimate that the requirement for all under 16 year olds to have their own passports from 5 October this year will increase revenue by £4.4 million in each of the next five years. This additional revenue will be required to recover fully the Agency's costs in providing an extra 400,000 passports each year to children under 16. Under Treasury rules the Passport Agency is required to recover fully its costs.

  Liverpool Nationality Directorate
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to reduce the backlog on immigration nationality work at the Liverpool Nationality Directorate; [38982]

  (2) what plans he has to change the nature of the work undertaken at the IND in Liverpool;[38653]

  (3) what plans he has for the staffing of the IND at Liverpool for 1999–2000. [38663]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have no plans at present to change the nature of the work undertaken by the Nationality Directorate in Liverpool. The computerisation of the casework process, which is being introduced into the Immigration and Nationality Directorate later this year, would allow eventually for some additional non-nationality work to be undertaken in Liverpool, but the staff there would need to be trained to process such work and we have no plans for this at present. The immediate goal is to reduce the present backlog of nationality applications awaiting determination. Recent organisational and procedural changes should help to reduce the number of outstanding applications.

  The plans for 1999–2000 have not yet been settled.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average number of prisoners held per prison in England and Wales. [39161]

  Ms Quin
  Information on the average prison population for each prison in England and Wales during 1997 is given in the table.

  Average prison population in England and Wales during 1997, by individual prison

  Establishment

  Average occupancy

  Acklington

  652

  Albany

  429

  Aldington

  136

  Altcoursel

  256

  Ashwell

  448

  Askham Grange

  128

  Aylesbury

  302

  Bedford

  376

  Belmarsh

  865

  Birmingham

  1,034

  Blakenhurst

  779

  521

  Average prison population in England and Wales during 1997, by individual prison

  Establishment

  Average occupancy

  Blantyre House

  119

  BIundeston

  408

  Brinsford

  519

  Bristol

  579

  Brixton

  611

  Brockhill

  136

  Buckley Hall

  365

  Bullingdon

  688

  Bullwood Hall

  128

  Camp Hill

  491

  Canterbury

  275

  Cardiff

  708

  Castington

  309

  Channings Wood

  607

  Chelmsford

  464

  Colchester1

  32

  Coldingley

  295

  Cookham Wood

  146

  Dartmoor

  612

  Deerbolt

  425

  Doncaster

  1,043

  Dorchester

  231

  Dover

  305

  Downview

  325

  Drake Hall

  265

  Durham

  928

  East Sutton Park

  95

  Eastwood Park

  128

  Elmley

  785

  Erlestoke

  297

  Everthorpe

  459

  Exeter

  460

  Featherstone

  596

  Fe ltham

  894

  Ford

  452

  Foston Hall1

  121

  Frankland

  449

  Full Sutton

  455

  Garth

  587

  Gartree

  363

  Glen Parva

  878

  Gloucester

  277

  Grendon

  426

  Guy's Marsh

  340

  Haslar

  136

  Hatfield

  151

  Haverigg

  550

  Hewell Grange

  196

  High Down

  697

  Highpoint

  673

  Hindley

  537

  Hollesley Bay

  423

  Holloway

  527

  Holme House

  837

  Hull

  505

  Huntercombe

  259

  Kingston

  113

  Kirkham

  664

  Kirklevington

  157

  Lancaster

  216

  Lancaster Farms

  515

  Latchmere House

  176

  Leeds

  936

  Leicester

  344

  Lewes

  449

  Leyhill

  400

  Lincoln

  634

  Lindholme

  678

  Littlehey

  631

  522

  Average prison populations in England and Wales during 1997, by individual prison

  Establishment

  Average occupancy

  Liverpool

  1,411

  Long Lartin

  382

  Low Newton

  294

  Maidstone

  556

  Manchester

  1,072

  Moorland

  660

  Morton Hall

  196

  New Hall

  298

  North Sea Camp

  198

  Northallerton

  277

  Norwich

  715

  Nottingham

  345

  Onley

  549

  Parc1

  245

  Parkhurst

  333

  Pentonville

  910

  Portland

  535

  Preston

  600

  Ranby

  547

  Reading

  229

  Risley

  857

  Rochester

  398

  Send

  199

  Shepton Mallet

  214

  Shrewsbury

  321

  Stafford

  622

  Standford Hill

  345

  Stocken

  454

  Stoke Heath

  375

  Styal

  264

  Sudbury

  487

  Swaleside

  567

  Swansea

  342

  Swinfen Hall

  202

  The Mount

  621

  The Verne

  570

  The Wolds

  397

  Thom Cross

  238

  Usk

  284

  Wakefield

  608

  Wandsworth

  871

  Wayland

  633

  Wealstun

  581

  Weare1

  364

  Wellingborough

  318

  Werrington

  139

  Wetherby

  234

  Wharton

  226

  Whitemoor

  518

  Winchester

  601

  Woodhill

  678

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,295

  Wymott

  797

  1997 average

  61,114

  1 For those new establishment which opened during 1997, the population figures as at 31 December 1997 have been quoted.

  Crime and Unemployment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relationship between the levels of crime and the levels of unemployment over the last 17 years. [39035]
  523
  Mr. Michael
  The following research studies which have been commissioned by the Home Office since 1981 bear directly on the relationship between crime and unemployment:Field, S. (1990) Trends in Crime and their Interpretation. Home Office Research Study No. 119.
  Field, S. (1998) Trends in Crime revisited. London: Home Office.
  Graham, J. and Bowling, B. (1995) Young People and Crime. Home Office Research Study No. 145.
  Home Office. (1983) Unemployment, Crime and Sentencing: Some Time Series and Cross Sectional Studies for England and Wales. An unpublished Home Office report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
  Orme, J. (1994) A Study of the Relationship between Unemployment and Recorded Crime. Home Office Statistical Findings 1/94.
  Tarling, R. (1982) Unemployment and Crime. Home Office Research Bulletin 14.

  A large amount of research bearing directly or indirectly on the link between crime and unemployment has been evaluated. The key studies examined include:
  Association of Chief Officers of Probation (1993) Social Circumstances of Younger Offenders under Supervision. A research report by Gill Stewart and John Stewart, Lancaster University.
  Belknap, J. (1989) "The Economics—Crime Link" Criminal Justice Abstracts 21, 1, pp. 140–157.
  Dickinson, D. (1994) Crime and Unemployment. Unpublished paper. Cambridge University.
  Farrington, D. P., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., St. Ledger, R. J., and West, D. J. (1986) "Unemployment, School Leaving, and Crime" British Journal of Criminology Vol. 26, 4, pp. 335–356.
  Hale, C. (1998a) "Crime and the Business Cycle in Post-War Britain Revisited" British Journal of Criminology, forthcoming. (First issued as The Structural and Cultural Determinants of Crime and Punishment, Working Paper No. 3, 1997.)
  Hale, C. (1998b) "The Labour Market and Post-War Crime Trends in England and Wales", forthcoming, in Carlen, P. and Morgan, R. (eds) Crime Unlimited: Questions for the 21st century. London: Macmillan. (First issued as The Structural and Cultural Determinants of Crime and Punishment Working Paper No. 4, 1997.)
  Pyle, D. J. and Deadman, D. F. (1994) "Crime and the Business Cycle in Post-War Britain". British Journal of Criminology, 34, 339–357.
  Reilly, B. and Witt, R. Crime Deterrence and Unemployment in England and Wales: an empirical analysis. University of Sussex Discussion Papers in Economics, paper 12/92.
  Walmsley, R., Howard, L., and White, S. (1992) The National Prison Survey 1991. Main findings. Home Office Research Study 128. London: HMSO.

  Abandoned Cars
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory authority is provided to what bodies and under what circumstances to tow away abandoned cars. [38745]
  524
  Mr. Michael
  The legislative provisions governing the removal of vehicles are contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and the Disposal of Vehicle Regulations 1986. Under the 1986 Regulations, the police have powers to remove vehicles abandoned without lawful authority which are left in breach of local traffic regulation orders or left where they are causing an obstruction or likely to cause a danger.

  Where vehicles are not illegally parked but otherwise appear to be abandoned, the responsibility for removing and ultimately disposing of them rests with local authorities. They have a duty under the 1978 Act to remove any vehicle abandoned on the highway without legal authority and must follow the procedures laid down in the 1986 Regulations before doing so.

  The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 provides that seven days' prior notice must be given of a local authority's intention to remove such a vehicle which, in their opinion, is in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed. However, a 21 days' notice period must be given where an abandoned vehicle does not appear to be in a condition meriting its destruction. These safeguards are intended to protect owners against a local authority prematurely assuming a vehicle is abandoned and having it towed away for scrap. They also ensure that local authorities do not have to go through the unnecessary procedure of removing and storing vehicles that may not have been abandoned.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each(a) county council, (b) metropolitan district council, (c) unitary authority and (d) London borough council, the total amount of grant aid given to such authorities for emergency planning in each of the years 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98 and provision for 1998–99. [39155]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Civil Defence grant allocations

  £

  County Councils

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 Provision

  Avon1

  224,000

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  196,000

  196,000

  152,950

  146,856

  Berkshire1

  224,000

  224,000

  212,800

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  210,000

  210,000

  166,250

  159,600

  Cambridgeshire

  224,000

  224,000

  212,800

  205,688

  Cheshire

  252,000

  252,000

  239,000

  162,624

  Cleveland1

  196,000

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  238,000

  238,000

  226,100

  217,056

  Cumbria

  224,000

  224,000

  212,800

  204,288

  Derbyshire

  266,000

  266,000

  252,700

  245,672

  Devon

  280,000

  280,000

  266,000

  188,160

  Dorset

  252,000

  252,000

  172,900

  165,984

  Durham

  252,000

  252,000

  239,400

  232,904

  East Sussex

  238,000

  238,000

  192,850

  185,136

  Essex

  336,000

  336,000

  319,200

  239,232

  Gloucestershire

  224,000

  224,000

  212,800

  204,288

  Hampshire

  322,000

  322,000

  272,650

  263,424

  Hereford and Worcester1

  266,000

  266,000

  252,700

  0

  Hertfordshire

  280,000

  280,000

  266,000

  255,360

  Humberside1

  266,000

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  336,000

  336,000

  319,200

  272,832

  Lancashire

  336,000

  336,000

  319,200

  309,232

  Leicestershire

  266,000

  266,000

  219,450

  213,752

  525

  Civil Defence grant allocations

  £

  County Councils

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 Provision

  Lincolnshire

  238,000

  238,000

  203,490

  195,350

  Norfolk

  238,000

  238,000

  226,100

  217,056

  Northamptonshire

  238,000

  238,000

  226,100

  217,056

  Northumberland

  224,000

  224,000

  212,800

  204,288

  North Yorkshire

  252,000

  196,600

  186,770

  179,299

  Nottinghamshire

  252,000

  252,000

  239,400

  196,224

  Oxfordshire

  210,000

  210,000

  199,500

  191,520

  Shropshire

  224,000

  224,000

  212,800

  170,688

  Somerset

  210,000

  210,000

  199,500

  191,518

  Staffordshire

  266,000

  266,000

  252,700

  245,672

  Suffolk

  238,000

  238,000

  226,100

  217,056

  Surrey

  294,000

  294,000

  279,300

  268,128

  Warwickshire

  210,000

  210,000

  199,500

  191,250

  West Sussex

  238,000

  238,000

  226,100

  217,056

  Wiltshire

  210,000

  210,000

  166,250

  159,600

  Worcestershire

  0

  0

  0

  243,992

  1 County abolished Following Local Government reorganisation.

  Civil Defence grant allocations

  £

  Metropolitan District Councils

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 Provision

  Bradford

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Calderdale

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Kirklees

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Leeds

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Wakefield

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Birmingham

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Coventry

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Dudley

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Sandwell

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,500

  Solihull

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Walsall

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Wolverhampton

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Barnsley

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Doncaster

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Rotherham

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Sheffield1

  *

  *

  *

  35,000

  Bolton

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Bury

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Manchester

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Oldham

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Rochdale

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Salford2

  *

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Stockport1

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Tameside These authorities transfer their allocations to

  *

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Trafford

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Wigan2

  *

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  *These authorities transfer their allocations to:

  1 South Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  2 Greater Manchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority Metropolitan Districts in Merseyside and in Tyne and Wear transfer their allocations to the appropriate Fire and Civil Defence Authority.

  Civil Defence grant allocations

  English Unitary Authorities

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 Provision

  Bath and North East

  Smerset

  0

  56,000

  53,200

  51,072

  Blackburn1*

  0

  0

  0

  *

  Blackpool1*

  0

  0

  0

  *

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  35,000

  35,000

  Bracknekll Forest

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Bristol

  0

  56,000

  53,000

  51,072

  Darlington2*

  0

  0

  *

  *

  Derby3*

  0

  0

  *

  *

  526

  Cilvil Defence grant allocations

  £

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Hereford4*

  0

  0

  0

  *

  Leicester City

  0

  0

  35,000

  35,000

  Luton

  0

  0

  35,000

  35,000

  Medway

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Milton Keynes

  0

  0

  35,000

  35,000

  North Somerset

  0

  56,000

  53,200

  51,072

  Nottingham City

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Peterborough5*

  0

  0

  0

  *

  Plymouth

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Poole

  0

  0

  35,000

  35,000

  Portsmouth6*

  0

  0

  *

  *

  Reading

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Rutland7*

  0

  0

  *

  0

  Slough

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Southampton

  0

  0

  35,000

  35,000

  Southend

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  South Gloucester

  0

  56,000

  53,200

  51,072

  Stoke8*

  0

  0

  *

  *

  Swindon

  0

  0

  35,000

  35,000

  Thurrock

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Torbay

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Warrington

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  West Berkshire Windsor and

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Maidenhead

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Wokingham

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  Wrekin

  0

  0

  0

  35,000

  York Council

  0

  55,400

  52,630

  50,525

  East Riding of

  Yorkshire9

  0

  266,000

  244,700

  242,592

  Hartlepool10

  0

  196,000

  186,160

  178,714

  Isle of Wight

  0

  168,000

  159,600

  153,216

  * These authorities have or had joint arrangements with:

  1 Lancashire

  2 Durham

  3 Derbyshire

  4 Worcestershire

  5 Cambridgeshire

  6 Hampshire

  7 Leicestershire

  8 Staffordshire

  9 The East Riding of Yorkshire is the lead authority in joint arrangements with Hull, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire.

  10 Hartlepool is the lead authority in joint arrangements with Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton.

  Civil Defence grant allocations

  £

  Welsh Unitary Authorities

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 Provision

  Carmarthenshire

  0

  204,000

  212,800

  204,288

  Clwyd

  224,000

  0

  0

  0

  Conwy

  0

  62,000

  58,900

  58,644

  Country of Gwynedd

  0

  62,000

  58,900

  58, 644

  Denbighshire

  0

  70,000

  66,500

  63,840

  Dyfed

  224,000

  0

  0

  0

  Flinetshire

  0

  70,000

  66,500

  63,840

  Gwynedd 210,000

  0

  0

  0

  Isle of Anglesey

  210,000

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  224,000

  0

  0

  0

  Newport2

  0

  224,000

  212,800

  204,288

  Powys

  182,000

  0

  0

  0

  Rhondda Cynon Taff3

  0

  186,000

  186,200

  178,288

  South Glamorgan

  168,000

  0

  0

  0

  Swansea4

  0

  210,000

  199,500

  191,520

  527

  Civil Defence grant allocations

  £

  Welsh Unitary Authorities

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 Provision

  Vale of Glamorgan5

  0

  168,000

  159,600

  153,216

  West Glamorgan

  196,000

  0

  0

  0

  Wrexham

  0

  70,000

  66,500

  63,840

  1 Carmarthenshire is the lead authority in joint arrangements with Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire.

  2 Newport is the lead authority in joint arrangements with Blaneau Gwent, Caerphilly, Monmouthshire and Torfaen.

  3 Rhondda Cynon Taff is the lead authority in joint arrangements with Merthyr Tydfil.

  4 Swansea is the lead authority in joint arrangements with Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot.

  5 Vale of Glamorgan is the lead authority in joint arrangements with Cardiff.

  Civil Defence grant allocations

  £

  London Borough Councils

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 Provision

  Barking

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Barnet

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Bexley

  35,000

  35,000

  35.000

  35,000

  Brent

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Bromley

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Camden

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Corporation of London

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Croydon

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Ealing

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Enfield

  35,000

  35.000

  35,000

  35,000

  Greenwich

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Hackney

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Hammersmith

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Haringey

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Harrow

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Havering

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Hillingdon

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Hounslow

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Islington

  35,000

  35.000

  35,000

  35,000

  Kensington

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Kingston

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Lambeth

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Lewisham

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Merton

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Newham

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Redbridge

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Richmond

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Southwark

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Sutton

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Tower Hamlets

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Waltham Forest

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Wandsworth

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Westminster

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's capital expenditure on emergency planning activities in 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98 and provision for 1998–99 including capital grants to other bodies; and if he will make a statement about the purpose of the expenditure. [39158]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is set out in the table. The capital expenditure has been incurred to meet necessary infrastructure improvements at the Emergency Planning College. The Home Office pays 528
  capital grant to the BBC for the development of a national warning system based around radio and television.

  Capital expenditure on emergency planning activities

  £000

  Year

  Capital

  Capital grant

  Total

  1995–96

  111

  639

  750

  1996–97

  120

  714

  834

  1997–98

  63

  821

  884

  1998–99 provisional

  61

  594

  655

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) current and (b) capital expenditure on the Emergency Planning College in 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98 and provision for 1998–99. [39157]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Emergency Planning College expenditure

  £000

  Year

  Current

  Capital

  Total

  1995–96

  1,916

  111

  2,027

  1996–97

  1,537

  120

  1,657

  1997–98

  1,386

  63

  1,449

  1998–99 provisional

  1,534

  61

  1,595

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's current expenditure on Home Office emergency planning activities, excluding any costs related to the Emergency Planning College in 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98 and provision for 1998–99 under the following headings(a) personnel and staffing costs, (b) premises costs,(c) telecommunications costs, (d) equipment storage and maintenance costs, (e) publicity and publications costs and (f) other costs. [39156]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Current expenditure on Home Office emergency planning activities excluding the Emergency Planning College

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998– 99 provision

  (a) Personnel and staffing

  1,405

  1,398

  1,408

  1,551

  (b) Premises

  1,130

  882

  94

  0

  (c) Telecommunications

  7,586

  8,341

  4,963

  4,630

  (d) Equipment storage and maintenance

  2,203

  2,300

  1,709

  1,942

  (e) Publicity and publications

  84

  110

  20

  60

  (f) Other

  5,592

  6,969

  6,806

  6,368

  Total

  18,000

  20,000

  15,000

  13,000

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what income his Department has received in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 and expects
  529
  to receive in 1998–99 from the disposal of (a) land and property and (b) equipment, formerly used or held for emergency planning or civil defence purposes; and if he will make a statement. [39159]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table. Income from the disposal of land and property relates to the sale of former civil defence premises. Income from the disposal of equipment relates to the sale of surplus vehicles and equipment from the Emergency Fire Service stockpile. The income has been returned to the Consolidated Fund; with the exception that, last year, some receipts were used to fund the reception arrangements, at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, for evacuees from Montserrat.

  Income

  £000

  Year

  Land and property disposal

  Equipment disposal

  Total

  1995–96

  206

  35

  241

  1996–97

  576

  11

  587

  1997–98

  107

  377

  484

  1998–991

  500

  27

  527

  1 Provisional

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's grants to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and provision for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [39154]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office has provided grant in aid to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS) since its inception in 1938. The levels of grant for the years in question were as follows:

  Number of Females sentenced to immediate custody1 and under section 53 of the Children and young persons Act 19332 by type of offence,1987–1996

  Wales

  Immediate custody2

  Sec 53 of CYPOA332

  Year

  Indictable offences

  Summary non-motoring offences

  Summary motoring offences

  All offences

  Indictable offences

  1987

  109

  6

  3

  118

  -

  1988

  126

  2

  2

  130

  -

  1989

  102

  6

  1

  109

  -

  1990

  87

  9

  3

  99

  1

  1991

  74

  6

  1

  81

  -

  1992

  87

  8

  1

  96

  -

  1993

  115

  6

  5

  126

  2

  1994

  134

  6

  5

  145

  -

  1995

  152

  8

  6

  166

  1

  1996

  178

  6

  8

  192

  4

  1 Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 custodial penalties are available from the common minimum age of 15 for both boys and girls (previously the minimum age was 14 for boys and 15 for girls). Immediate custody includes detention in a young offender institution, unsuspended imprisonment and partly suspended imprisonment (before 1 October 1992).

  2 Children convicted at the Crown Court may be sentenced to be detained for up to the adult maximum, including life, under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  530

  £

  Year

  Amount

  1995–96

  6,200,000

  1996–97

  5,840,000

  1997–98

  5,548,000

  1998–99

  5,298,000

  With some 120,000 volunteers, WRVS is the largest provider of volunteering opportunities in the United Kingdom. It also remains by far the largest single grant recipient from the Department's main grants programme to voluntary and community organisations. This year it will receive nearly half (46 per cent.) of the total budget available.

  Following a review of the organisation, published by the Compass Partnership in 1997, it was agreed that WRVS should become self-financing within ten years. The level of Home Office grant will therefore continue to decline, making it possible for us to implement the Public Accounts Committee's recommendation of 1996 to devote a larger share of our funding to new ventures.The WRVS continues to make great strides in the modernisation of its legal, financial and organisational infrastructure and in the development of its services in this, its diamond jubilee year.

  Custodial Sentences (Women)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many women were sentenced to custodial sentences in Wales in 1997 and in each of the previous 10 years; [38947]

  (2) how many women have been sentenced to custodial sentences in Wales in the first three months of 1998. [38948]

  Mr. Michael
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings database is given in the table for the years 1987 to 1996. Data for 1997 will not be available until this autumn, with 1998 figures becoming available in the autumn of the next year.

  Eddie Gilfoyle
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Merseyside on(a) the disciplinary action against officers involved in the Eddie Gilfoyle case recommended by the Police Complaints Authority, (b) the date on which Merseyside Police received the PCA report, (c) the date set for disciplinary hearings and (d) the reason for the delay. [38831]

  Mr. Michael
  Two Merseyside police officers have been charged with disciplinary offences of neglect of duty and falsehood arising from allegations about the investigation of the murder of Mr. Gilfoyle's wife. Following an investigation of the allegations by Lancashire Constabulary, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), the PCA announced in November 1995 that it had agreed disciplinary charges proposed by the Merseyside Police. Before these charges could be heard, further complaints were received about the case which led to a PCA-supervised investigation by Cheshire Constabulary. The PCA announced in March last year that it had again agreed the force's disciplinary recommendations and the hearings are now due to take place next month. I understand that the force originally planned to hold a hearing in December 1997, but that non-availability of the officers' legal counsel led to further delay. My hon. Friend will be aware of the response made by my right hon. Friend to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which my hon. Friend chairs and we will continue to examine ways of avoiding the unacceptable levels of delay in the police discipline system.

  Voter Turnout
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to increase voter turnout for(a) local elections and (b) general elections among young people; and if he will make a statement. [38970]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are committed to encouraging greater voter participation at elections at all levels and by all sections of society. This is why the Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which I chair, will be examining ways to improve voter turnout, especially among young people.

  Prison Drug Strategy
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the review on prison service drug strategy. [38808]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The review of the Prison Service Drug Strategy is almost complete. It will be published in the very near future.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review of measures to deal with anti-social behaviour to be completed. [38807]

  Mr. Michael
  A project on the police response to anti-social behaviour is currently being carried out by the Home Office Police Research Group. An initial report is 532
  due in early summer, with a follow-up evaluation of how well the police are doing in reducing anti-social behaviour later in the year.

  A number of tough new measures to deal with anti-social behaviour are contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill, currently before Parliament and expected to receive Royal Assent this summer. These include Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, Child Safety Orders, local child curfews, and statutory crime prevention partnerships between local authorities and the police.

  Community Fire Safety
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review of community fire safety to be completed. [38806]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 212. The Government received the report of the Community Fire Safety Task Force last autumn and made arrangements for it to be published on 3 November 1997. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  I announced the Government's response to the Task Force report in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on 7 April 1998, Official Report, column 177.

  Sex Offenders
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review of measures to deal with protection of communities from known sex offenders to be completed. [38818]

  Mr. Michael
  We are working on a range of measures to protect the public from further offending by convicted sex offenders. We have implemented the automatic life sentence in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 for second time serious sexual offences. We have implemented the requirement in the Sex Offenders Act 1997 for convicted sex offenders to register with the police. The Crime and Disorder Bill provides for extended supervision of sex offenders by the Probation Service after release from prison, and for the courts to make a sex offender order, breach of which will be punishable by imprisonment. We shall also consider the need for further legislative changes in the context of policy developments in the management of offenders with severe personality disorder.

  Civil Protection
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review of the future role of local civil protection in England and Wales to be completed. [38829]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A working document "The future role and funding of local civil protection in England and Wales" was issued in November 1997 as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review in the Home Office.

  Her Majesty's Government are considering the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review across all Government Departments. I can confirm that approval has been given for the development of National Standards

  533
  for civil protection which local authorities and other primary stakeholders will be consulted upon in due course.

  Prison Nursing Services
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review of prison nursing services to be completed. [38811]

  Ms Quin
  The consultation period on the nursing policy paper circulated on 21 October 1997 closed on 20 February 1998. The results of the consultation provided much useful feedback but produced no consensus on the proposals.

  The position and role of nurses in the provision of health care to prisoners also forms part of the remit of the Joint Prison Service/National Health Service (NHS) Working Group established last autumn. The Joint Group is tasked to look at the broader question of the organisation of prisoners' health care, including whether the NHS should become the provider. The results of the consultation on the nursing policy paper are helping to inform the deliberations of the Joint Group and are being taken forward in the context of that work.

  Firefighters Pension Scheme
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the review on the firefighters pension scheme. [38809]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The review was published on 31 March. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave that day to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark),Official Report, columns 466–67.

  Youth Justice
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review of Government proposals for youth justice to be completed. [38816]

  Mr. Michael
  The results of the initial review are reflected in the Crime and Disorder Bill and the White Paper "No More Excuses" (Cm 3809). A considerable amount of work is being undertaken to make the youth justice system effective in preventing offending and reoffending and to prepare for implementation of our proposed reforms. I am pleased to say that the reforms are receiving very positive support and co-operation from the police and from local authorities and other interested parties.

  Public Entertainment Licensing
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the review of public entertainment licensing. [38824]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A deregulation review of public entertainments licensing was undertaken during 1996 by the previous Government. I have not yet had an opportunity to look closely at the issues arising out of that review, but I hope to be able to make my views known within the next few months.

  Human Rights Bill
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet lay members of the General Synod of the Church of England to discuss the implications of the Human Rights Bill[Lords]. [38928]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had a number of meetings about the implications of the Human Rights Bill for the Churches. These included a full discussion with the Bishop of Ripon and officials of the General Synod on 9 March. My right hon. Friend understands the strength of feeling about this issue but he does not believe that a further meeting with lay members would add significantly to the points that have been made.

  Fire Service
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many service firefighters there are in each fire authority; and how many of these are women. [38651]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) on 1 December 1997,Official Report, columns 58–82.

  Nuclear Smuggling
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the agencies in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Union responsible for monitoring, intercepting and prosecuting in respect of incidences of alleged nuclear muggling. [38733]

  Mr. Michael
  The agencies which could be involved, in the United Kingdom are: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the relevant local police force, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Constabulary, the security and intelligence agencies, the Environment Agency, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Directorate of Civil Nuclear Security, the Ministry of Defence Atomic Weapons Establishment and the Crown Prosecution Service, depending on the nature of any incident.

  International efforts to prevent or to track and prosecute nuclear smuggling are primarily taken forward in fora with a wider membership than the European Union. All member states of the European Union participate, on a national basis, in the collection and sharing of information on confirmed trafficking incidents through the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Prison Television Services
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have access to Sky television sports channels for prisoners. [38940]

  Ms Quin
  There is no readily available information about the number of Prison Service establishments which provide Sky television for prisoners, or which of the available channels they subscribe to. Some prisons
  535
  subscribe to satellite sports channels, and allow prisoners access during set periods of association with each other. The costs are not met from public funds but from a prison's general purpose fund: this is derived from prisoners' own contributions from their prison earnings, and from prison shop profits and external donations.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 15 January 1998, Official Report, column 285, and 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 516, when a decision about the future of in-cell television will be made. [38965]

  Ms Quin
  The review of policy in this area is nearing completion, and we hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Ministerial Prison Visits
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons(a) he and (b) his Ministers have visited since 1 May 1997. [38935]

  Ms Quin
  Since 1 May 1997, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has visited eight prisons. I have visited twenty seven prisons since 1 May and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Knowsley, North and Sefton East (Mr. Howarth) has visited fourteen. Additionally, my hon. Friend The Minister of State has visited two prisons.

  Maidstone Prison
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit Maidstone Prison. [38937]

  Ms Quin
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I currently have any plans to visit Maidstone prison.

  Learmont Report
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on further implementation of the Learmont report. [38936]

  Ms Quin
  The Learmont report made 127 recommendations about prison security and the management of the Prison Service. Of these, 112 have been accepted and implemented in full or in part and 13 have been rejected. Decisions remain outstanding on two recommendations (63 and 121) and one part-recommendation (66).

  Asylum Applications
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum appeals were still awaiting resolution on(a) 1 April 1997 and (b) 1 April 1998; [38939]

  (2) how many asylum applications were still awaiting resolution on (a) 1 April 1997 and (b) 1 April 1998. [38938]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the number of outstanding cases relates to the position at the end of the month rather than the beginning.
  536
  The table shows the number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision, and the number of asylum related appeals awaiting determination at the end of March 1997 and 1998.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and Appeals which are outstanding at 31 March 1997 and 31 March 1998.

  Number of principal applicants

  Year

  Applications outstanding

  Appeals outstanding

  31 March 1997

  54,950

  23,215

  31 March 1998

  50,950

  23,760

  1Figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest five.

  The backlog of applications has been cut by almost 4,000, but in some of these cases the applicant has appealed, increasing the number of outstanding appeals. The number of appeals determined by adjudicators increased by 31 per cent. from 15,385 in the year to March 1997 to 22,185 in the year to March 1998.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the Head of the Home Civil Service has published guidance(a) generally, (b) on tendering procedures and (c) on publication of the findings to Ministers in respect of qualitative and quantitative research with particular reference to focus groups. [38216]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 7 April 1998]It is for individual Departments to determine their needs for research and focus groups. No specific guidance has been issued. Where tendering is involved, Departments will take account of guidance on procurement policy and practice issued by the Treasury.

  Medical Insurance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list Government(a) departments and (b) agencies which provide private medical insurance to staff. [38650]

  Dr. David Clark
  It is not Government policy to provide civil servants with medical health insurance, or other benefits in kind, as part of their remuneration package. There is a central rule, set out in the Civil Service Management Code, that civil servants should not normally receive fringe benefits of this kind.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions Provision Group
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the report of the Pensions Provision Group will be published. [39163]

  Mr. Denham
  To inform our review of pensions, the independent Pension Provision Group have been asked to determine the current level of pension provision in the UK, and likely future trends. The Group's report will bring together in one document an up-to-date analysis of
  537
  all forms of pension provision. It will provide an authoritative basis upon which we will be able to shape our plans to ensure that today's and tomorrow's pensioners have a decent income in retirement.

  We expect the report to be published soon.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people with multiple sclerosis who are claimants of the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance, and assessed as being(a) totally unable to walk, (b) virtually unable to walk and (c) in a condition where the exertion required to walk would constitute a danger to life or be likely to lead to a serious deterioration in health. [37900]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as set out.

  On the basis of a 5 per cent. sample of cases at 30 November 1997, there are around 43,500 recipients of the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance whose main disabling condition is multiple sclerosis. Almost half of these are recorded as being unable or virtually unable to walk, but records do not show the grounds for awarding benefit to some claimants who previously received Mobility Allowance.

  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of attendance allowance have multiple sclerosis. [37901]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of claimants of Attendance Allowance who have multiple sclerosis is 4,100. This figure relates to people claiming Attendance Allowance at 30 November 1997 and is for those whose main disabling condition is multiple sclerosis.

  Source:
  5 per cent. sample.

  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who are claimants of disability living allowance are in(a) receipt of lifetime awards and (b) renewal awards; and how many in each category are people with multiple sclerosis. [37899]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  People in receipt of Disability Living Allowance1

  Disability2

  Life award

  Fixed term

  All disabilities

  1,438,700

  516,800

  Multiple Sclerosis

  41,400

  3,600

  Notes:

  1 Figures relate to 30 November 1997.

  2Main disabling condition.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many New Deal advisers for lone parents will be in post on(a) 6 April 1998 and (b) 1 October 1998; and, of those, how many will be recruited from (i) the Benefits Agency, (ii) the Employment Service and (iii) elsewhere. [38104]
  538
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Since July last year, 72 Personal Advisers have delivered the first phase of New Deal for Lone Parents, in eight areas across the country. From 6 April, 48 new advisers, together with 66 managers and support staff, join them to deliver the second phase of New Deal for Lone Parents nationally. The second phase represents the period from 6 April to September when New Deal for Lone Parents is extended to all lone parents making a new or repeat claim for Income Support. As numbers being contacted through the New Deal for Lone Parents, the number of Personal Advisers will also rise throughout this period to more than 330 trained Personal Advisers by the end of June.

  Preparation for the third phase of the New Deal for Lone Parents—the introduction of a full national programme available to all lone parents—will see further advisers recruited and trained between July and October. By the end of October more than 800 New Deal for Lone Parents Personal Advisers are expected to be in post.

  The Personal Advisers for Phase 1—the prototypes for New Deal for Lone Parents—were recruited from within the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. The Personal Advisers currently working in the Benefits Agency will be offered the chance to transfer to the Employment Service. The majority of Personal Advisers for Phase 2 have been recruited from the Employment Service.

  For Phase 3, staff in the Employment Service, Benefits Agency and Child Support Agency will be invited to apply for Personal Adviser posts. The three agencies are currently finalising a framework agreement which will allow this to happen.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents with children aged under five years there are(a) in total and (b) in Scotland for each year since 1979; and what are the forecasts for each year up to the year 2000. [39039]

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

  Lone parents with children under five—Great Britain

  Year

  000s

  1988/89

  420

  1989/90

  480

  1990/91

  520

  1991/92

  550

  1992/93

  580

  1993/94

  610

  1994/95

  620

  1995/96

  640

  1996/97

  650

  1997/98

  660

  1998/99

  680

  1999/2000

  690

  2000/01

  700

  Notes:

  1. DSS estimates and projections, which are based on data from the General Household Survey and Family Resources Survey.

  2. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  539
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of lone parents currently claiming(a) income support and (b) family credit who have a child aged (i) under 11, (ii) 11 to 15 and (iii) 16 to 18
  years. [38647]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the table.

  Lone parents with two or more children may appear more than once in each column depending on the ages of their children.

  Income Support and Family Credit lone parents with a child in the following age bands

  Age band

  Income Support

  Family credit

  Under 11 years

  843,000

  252,000

  11 to 15 years

  334,000

  157,000

  16 to 18 years

  84,000

  50,000

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Income Support lone parents are those receiving the lone parent premium.

  3. Family Credit lone parents are all single claimants with dependants.

  4. Sample size 5 per cent.

  Sources:

  1. Family Credit Statistics 5 per cent. sample of awards, November 1997.

  2. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, August 1997.

  Pensions Education Working Group
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the report of the Pensions Education Working Group will be published. [39162]

  Mr. Denham
  Developing greater financial literacy and economic awareness is crucial if we are to give everyone the confidence to make informed choices and take control of their financial future.

  Income Support (IS) claimants by client group

  000s

  Client group

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  All IS claimants

  3,383

  3,682

  3,804

  3,936

  4,030

  3,972

  Pensioners

  1,668

  1,789

  1,776

  1,761

  1,766

  1,714

  Long term sick and disabled

  493

  592

  690

  773

  843

  878

  Lone parents

  978

  1,035

  1,048

  1,066

  1,061

  1,012

  Short term sick and others

  245

  267

  290

  337

  361

  367

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand cases.

  2. Lone parents are defined as those receiving the family premium (lone parent) or the lone parent premium. This will exclude some lone parents who receive a premium of a higher value ie pensioner or disabled lone parents.

  3. Disabled are defined as those receiving the disability premium.

  4. Sample size is 1 per cent. for 1992–93 and 1993–94 and 5 per cent. thereafter.

  5. Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Income Support for the unemployed from October 1996.

  Source:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, August 1992 to August 1997.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, August 1997.

  540
  We are currently considering a number of initial recommendations from the Pensions Education Working Group on how awareness of pensions and financial education could be improved. We have asked the Group to continue to develop their work in a number of key areas.

  We will be giving details of the Group's findings and the Government's responses in due course.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations she has had with representatives of the insurance industry concerning the treatment of payments under loan protection insurance policies for recipients of job seeker's allowance; what instructions she is issuing to Department of Social Security staff concerning these payments; and if she will make a statement. [38896]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  A series of meetings have been held between officials of this Department and representatives of the insurance and banking industries. In addition, there has been continued and close liaison between officials and officials of the Association of British Insurers and the British Bankers' Association. The Chief Adjudication Officer will be issuing guidance to adjudication officers on revised regulations, which are currently under statutory consultation and will be laid before the House shortly. The Benefits Agency also plans to issue a circular bringing the change to the attention of all staff handling Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support claims. Guidance will also be issued to Local Authorities, as the change will also apply to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will provide the figures in table 6 of her latest Departmental report for(a) contribution-based JSA, (b) income-based JSA and (c) income support separately for each client group, and identifying lone parents separately in each case. [38941]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out.
  541
  Of the 1,190 thousand recipients of income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) as of August 1997, 7,000 were receiving the pensioner premium, 17,000 were receiving the disability premium and 12,000 were receiving the family premium (lone parent).

  No information is held on the numbers of lone parents receiving contribution-based JSA. 176,000 people were receiving contribution-based JSA in August 1997.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision has been made under the Government's welfare-to-work scheme for the transport requirements of people with disabilities when taking up options under the New Deal. [38779]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  A major part of the New Deal for Disabled People will be the Personal Adviser pilots, which will operate in 12 areas across Great Britain. The Employment Service's Access to Work scheme will be available to participants: under this scheme disabled people can receive help with transport costs—such as taxi fares—to get to work. In addition local authorities in most parts of the country already offer concessionary fares to disabled people.

  The New Deal for 18–24 year olds went nationwide on 6 April and a range of local agreements have been signed with travel operators to enable young people to take advantage of concessionary fares. This will help them get maximum benefit from the New Deal.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 2 April 1998,Official Report, column 670, for what reason her Department's family resources survey does not contain reliable information on pensions; and what plans she has to conduct research into the pension scheme membership of individuals at different income levels. [38473]

  Mr. Denham
  We are aware that information collected in the Family Resources Survey on pensions needs some refinement, due to high levels of non-response and mis-reporting, and we have commissioned research to help us improve the questions on pensions. We will consider plans for research on pension scheme membership of individuals at different income levels at a later date.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 10 March, Ref: 5/3644/27. [38752]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 14 April.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 25 February, regarding a constituent, Ref: 4/3644/25. [38850]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 15 April 1998.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 26 March 1998,Official Report, columns 276–77, on the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board, what is the remit of the research the board has been commissioned to undertake on deafness in children and young adults; and on what date it is expected (a) to start and (b) to be completed. [38951]

  Mr. Denham
  The remit of the research is to undertake a study of Disability Living Allowance cases where the main disabling condition is deafness in children and young adults up to age 30. Final details, including the timing, are still to be agreed but work is expected to start following the completion of studies the Board is currently undertaking.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage(a) in numbers and (b) in value of disability benefits paid to those persons over retirement age. [38998]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  Percentage of recipients over State retirement age

  By numbers in receipt

  By value of benefit received 6

  Attendance Allowance1

  100

  100

  Disability Living1 Allowance

  28

  28

  Invalid Care Allowance2

  5

  5

  Severe Disablement3

  Allowance

  14

  11

  Incapacity Benefit4

  8

  8

  Disability Working5 Allowance

  0.4

  0.4

  Notes:

  15 per cent. data, current allowances at 30 November 1997.

  2 100 per cent. data, current allowances at 31 December 1997.

  31 per cent. data, current beneficiaries at 31 March 1996.

  4 5 per cent. data, current beneficiaries at 30 November 1997, excluding a small number of clerical cases not held on the Benefits Agency's computer system.

  5100 per cent. data, current recipients at 31 October 199.

  6Based on 1998 Departmental report figures for 1997–98 expected expenditure outtum.

  Percentages are given to the nearest whole number except in the case of Disability Working Allowance as this would give a zero figure which was considered misleading.

  In the case of Invalid Care Allowance it is the carer receiving benefit who is over State pension age rather than the disabled person receiving care.

  Some claimants can receive more than one of the above disability benefits. The overlaps for all of these benefits cannot be estimated and therefore an overall caseload total for claimants in receipt of one or more of them cannot be given.

  Source:

  DSS Analytical Services Division data.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the purpose of the survey of the income levels of recipients of disability living allowance; and what is the cost of conducting the survey. [38866]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no plans to carry out a new survey into the income levels of recipients of Disability Living Allowance. Information on the income levels of benefit recipients, along with other data, is already available from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). Information from the 1996-97 FRS and the follow up disability survey has been merged to provide a
  543
  comprehensive source of data about the incomes and resources of disabled adults in private households. Results will be published towards the end of 1998.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate her Department has made of the levels of benefit fraud for each benefit, excluding housing benefit, for each year since 1979. [38997]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Percentage of cases examined where fraud confirmed or strongly suspected

  Estimated annual expenditure loss due to fraud (£>
  Year of benefit review

  Income Support (First Review)

  9.7

  1,409 1994–95

  Unemployment Benefit

  7.8

  86 1994–95

  Retirement Pension

  up to 0.13

  up to 40 1995–96

  Invalid Care Allowance

  6.5

  37 1995–96

  Disability Living Allowance

  12.2

  499 1995–96

  Income Support (Second Review)

  11.1

  1,773 1996–97

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the advertisements taken out(a) on poster sites, (b) in newspapers, (c) on radio and (d) on television to publicise the National Benefit Fraud Hotline since 1 May 1997. [39194]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department currently operates two national fraud hotlines—the National Benefit Fraud Hotline which has continued to run since May 1997, and the Business Anti-Fraud Hotline which was launched in January 1998.

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline
  An exercise to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising and publicity for the National Benefit Fraud Hotline is currently underway. As part of this exercise, poster sites are being used in Sheffield; Leeds; Carlisle; and Crewe. Local newspaper advertising and/or inserts are being used in Sheffield; Leeds; Wigan and Bolton; Central Lancashire; West Wales; Wrexham; and the North Wales coast. Local radio advertising is being used in Sheffield; Leeds; Hull; Bedford; and Stevenage. No television advertising has been commissioned.

  Business Anti-Fraud Hotline
  The Business Anti-Fraud Hotline was launched primarily to help address National Insurance evasion. As part of the launch, 59 quarter page advertisements were placed in the national and regional press, and 37 advertisements were placed in the business and trade press of those industries deemed to be at high risk of National Insurance contributions fraud. No advertisements were taken out on poster sites, on radio or on television.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated average extra employer national insurance contribution per employee in respect of employees earning over £450 per week that employers will have to pay as a result of the proposals announced in the Budget. [39192]

  Mr. Denham
  For employees earning over £450 per week, employers will pay an estimated average of £4.68 per week more in National Insurance contributionsas a result of the proposals announced in the Budget. For employers as a whole this will be fully offset by a reduction in employer contributions
  544
  The Benefit Review Programme, which began in 1994, was introduced in response to the need for quantitative, statistically valid, information about the extent of fraud and error in Social Security benefits. The table shows the estimated levels of fraud as determined by benefit reviews (excluding Housing Benefit) which have been completed to date. The definition of fraud used to produce the results is currently being evaluated.

  The Department has been reviewing its counter fraud strategies, and as part of this work has looked at the whole question of measuring the amount of fraud in the system. We shall be announcing the outcome of this review in due course.

  as a result of the Proposals announced in the Budget. Fpr employers as a whole this will be fully offset by a reduction in employer contributions for the great majority of employees earning below this level.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which years each of the war pensions for former service personnel who participated in the nuclear tests programmes in Australia and the South Pacific and developed leukaemia, or the widows of such personnel, were awarded. [38648]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  Awards of war disablement and war widows pensions

  Year of award

  Awards of war disablement pension

  Awards of war widows pension

  1986

  -

  1988

  1

  5

  1989

  2

  1

  1992

  -

  1

  Total

  3

  8

  Note:

  Previously published information incorrectly identified an award of war widows pension as one of war disablement pension. This error has been corrected in the above table.

  Welfare Profiles
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list all the welfare profiles being compiled by her Department. [38865]

  Mr. Field
  We published seven Focus Files on 15 January which drew on information compiled and published by the Department of Social Security.

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 223–24, which of the contracts listed was awarded on the basis of a single tender. [39254]

  Mr. Field
  Three contracts were awarded on the basis of a single tender:Market Opinion Research International—Attitudes to disability benefits.
  British Market Research Bureau International Limited—Attitudes towards housing benefits.
  Alan Hedges—Pensions and Retirement Planning.

  The study on Invalidity Benefit and the Contributory Principle, being carried out by the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) at Loughborough University, forms
  546
  part of a core-funded programme of work, which was itself competitively tendered.

  The following were commissioned using the Central Office of Information's framework agreement with approved suppliers:
  Andrew Irving Associates—Counter fraud publicity
  One World—New Deal for Lone Parents: development of publicity work
  Navigator—Fraud: attitudes to national benefit fraud hotline publicity
  Reflexions—Fraud: reporting changes in circumstances Michael Herbert—Pensions: approaches to information material
  Cragg Ross Dawson—New Deal for Lone Parents Newsletter.

  All other contracts were awarded following competitive tender exercises.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Nurse Prescribing
Baroness Cumberlegeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on nurse prescribing.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me this opportunity to make a positive statement on behalf of the Government. I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness and the House that the Government announced this morning at the Royal College of Nursing congress that we shall provide £14 million to enable all health authorities to establish a national programme of nurse prescribing.
We are committed to extending and developing the professional role of nurses as outlined in our White Paper. National funding for training and support so that nurses can take the responsibility for prescribing is part of that programme.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am going to go out right now and crack open a bottle of champagne? I am absolutely thrilled to bits. For 12 years, with the nursing organisations, I have fought for this to happen and it really is a great day for me.
Before I get lost in all the euphoria, I understand that the Secretary of State suggested this morning that he would wish to take nurse prescribing still further, beyond district nursing and health visiting and into acute nursing. Will the Minister say whether a date has been set for that and whether a programme has been drawn up?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks. We are all aware of the long-running fight which she has conducted, both in and out of government, to establish nurse prescribing. I believe that she raised the issue originally in 1986, and so that is a long record.
In his speech this morning, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health referred to extending the nurse prescribing situation. He referred also to the review being undertaken at present by Dr. June Crown, who is having a serious look at ways in which nurse prescribing can be extended. We are expecting the conclusion of that review later in the summer. We expect to be able to take forward some of those recommendations on extending nurse prescribing.
914
There will be some legal obstacles—for example, changes which will need to be made in so-called group protocols—and we intend to take action on that as well.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, before the Minister drinks too much champagne, should she not look at the catastrophic reduction in the immunisation programme for MMR and should she not be giving that her top priority?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is somewhat wide of the Question. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Chief Medical Officer made a very clear policy statement on that subject immediately before Easter in which he encouraged all parents not to be disturbed by the media discussion of that matter. He urged parents to take up MMR immunisation on behalf of their children.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, while welcoming the moves towards making greater use of our nurses and health visitors, might I ask if the Minister will consider making more systematic and structured use of our pharmacists, who also have a large amount of skill which is at our disposal in the community?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government certainly acknowledge the role of community pharmacists. Indeed, we are including them in our proposals for extending primary care arrangements in the same way as for nurses and health visitors.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether any thought is being given also to nurse anaesthetists? I welcome the nurse prescribing and I hope that the day will come when we shall have adequately trained nurse anaesthetists. But will she tell us what is to be done about the great shortage of nurses? Does she believe that the present very high entrance qualifications are deterring people? The drop-out figures were announced this morning as being very high. Does she think that there is now a need for a secondary level of nurses to be trained to replace those very highly skilled nurses whose services will no longer be available for more basic nursing?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, several supplementary questions have been very wide of the original Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I should be delighted to have a general opportunity to discuss nursing policy, and perhaps the noble Baroness and others may wish to raise that in an Unstarred Question or in some other form of debate.
As regards improving the recruitment and retention of nurses, the Secretary of State referred to that in his speech this morning to the Royal College of Nursing congress. It is something which we are taking very seriously. Just before Easter I was involved in the launch of a nationally arranged resource pack for all local health authorities which is intended to encourage nurse

915
recruitment. The Secretary of State announced this morning that an extra £4 million will be targeted on trying to establish better ways to achieve that locally.
Earl Howe: My Lords, picking up the point made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, is it not the case that in the pilot schemes that have been running until recently nurses have been able to prescribe only from the nurse formulary? Does the noble Baroness not agree that in the longer term it would be desirable for prescribing powers to be extended to specialist nurses and that all such nurses should be able to prescribe from the full British formulary?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the question that the noble Earl raises is part of the subject of the review by Dr. June Crown to which I referred in one of my answers to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. It is, of course, something which the Government will be looking at very positively. The noble Earl is right to express it in the longer term. At this point we do not want to put any exact date on that particular extension.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as the Royal College of Nursing is a UK-wide college, can my noble friend say whether the statement made at its annual meeting this morning was UK-wide or does it apply just to England and Wales?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the plan described this morning relates only to those health regions which are in England. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are at varying stages of piloting and developing their own versions of the scheme. It seems unlikely that they will reach very rapid conclusions in that respect, but they are carrying out the sort of pilots which might produce the same kind of decisions which were made by the English Department of Health this morning.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with regard to the £14 million which has been set aside and which I very much welcome, can the Minister say whether that is money which has been top-sliced from allocations to health authorities or whether it is new money?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this is new money to train nurses. As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, there will be a substantial training programme involved. I believe that it is estimated that we will probably need to train nearly 20,000 nurses to take up this particular form of prescribing. That will obviously take some time actually to plan and achieve.

Nuclear Weapons in the Gulf
2.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is correct that they were not consulted by the US Government on the possible use of nuclear weapons in the Gulf area and are not involved in
916
nuclear war planning, and whether they agree that such discussions would undermine the non-proliferation treaty and nuclear disarmament.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, we and other allies have regular discussions with the US over alliance nuclear planning. NATO's nuclear deterrent forces help ensure the peace and stability that will allow nuclear disarmament to be taken forward. Your Lordships may be relieved to know that Her Majesty's Government are not engaged in planning any nuclear wars at this time.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, so that I may thank him with even greater conviction, will he be so good as to tell the House how he draws the line between consultations on nuclear matters with the US, in the circumstances which he has described, and discussions prohibited by the non-proliferation treaty?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, various discussions are carried on from time to time under the procedures of the nuclear planning group. The details of those discussions are, of course, highly confidential.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, just in case there should be any misunderstanding, can the Minister confirm that there is nothing whatever in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which forbids consultation between nuclear weapons powers?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, there is nothing of which I am aware that includes such a prohibition.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House more about consultation with the United States about loose nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, about which there is a great deal of active concern in the US? Further, can he say whether her Majesty's Government are also involved in the various programmes to ensure that nuclear materials which are still not fully guarded in the former Soviet Union are now being safely removed and disposed of?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I shall respond as best I can to the noble Lord's question. Of course, this is a matter of concern for Her Majesty's Government, as, indeed, it is for any other government who might be affected by a nuclear accident or by dispersal of weapons into insecure hands on the part of malevolent people in the Soviet Union. As far as I am aware, Her Majesty's Government are not contributing any funds to those programmes but are actively engaged in discussions about them.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the possession of a nuclear capability was probably a powerful deterrent to Iraq making use of chemical or biological weapons during the conflict in the Gulf with horrendous casualties on our side?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is not for me to seek to interpret the thought processes of Saddam Hussein.

917
However, I can note, as no doubt the noble and gallant Lord has done, that he was not reluctant to use chemical weapons against allies who did not possess nuclear weapons, nor against his own people, whereas he was very reluctant to use any capability that he may have had in that respect in the recent Gulf conflict.

House of Lords Reform
2.48 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alameinasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the announcement by the Baroness Hayman on 25th March in the Statement on the Greater London Authority that "there is no substitute for democracy" (HL Deb, col. 1279) will also be applied to any proposed reform of the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating the noble Viscount. To succeed in linking my noble friend's answer about a London authority with the Government's proposals on reform of the House of Lords is lateral thinking of a very high order. If I may say so, the noble Viscount is obviously extremely skilled at textual badinage. I am sure that he is also very good at crosswords. Turning to the Question, I assure the House that, as set out in our manifesto, the removal of the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for those compliments. However, I am quite hopeless at crosswords. In the light of his comments and the fact that the reform of the House of Lords is a relevant subject at the moment—it has been discussed both inside and outside this Chamber—can he explain in what way politically appointed life Peers have more democratic legitimacy than others who arrive here by accident of birth?
Lord Richard: My Lords, it occurs to me that those of us who are life Peers in this House are here for what we are meant to have done and not for what our parents are meant to have done.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although the democratically elected House of Commons should always have the last word, it is a valuable part of our constitution and in the interests of democracy that we should have the power to ask the Government and the House of Commons to think again, and that we are more likely to do so effectively if we have a degree of independence of party political influence? Therefore, if we were democratically elected we would become a mere microcosm of the other place and a rubber stamp.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question. Of course the second
918
Chamber has, and must continue to have, the right to ask the elected House of Commons to think again. However, I do not share the connection that the noble Lord makes between the hereditary peerage and independence of political party. I am sorry to inform the noble Lord that according to the figures that is just not true. Some 360—I believe I have the figure correct—hereditary Peers take the Conservative Whip. On the whole, when they enter the Lobbies they tend to do what the Conservative Whips are pleased to see them do; namely, vote with the Opposition. As regards the Cross-Benchers, the Labour Party has consistently said that it is in favour of retaining an independent element in a reformed House of Lords.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, has the noble Lord the Leader of the House read the article in this morning's edition of The Times to the effect that the appointed working Peers do not turn up to do any work?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I read the article in The Times this morning. I should be interested to see an analysis of how often the hereditary Peers turn up to work. I suspect that the level of absenteeism among those who are here by accident of birth rather than by appointment is rather larger than it is in the case of the life Peers.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, may we take it from what the noble Lord the Leader of the House so clearly said that the Government's mind is now made up on how to proceed and we may take it for granted that a Bill will be included in the Queen's Speech? I hope the noble Lord will not say that it is not the habit of governments to declare their intention in advance of the Queen's Speech. That is simply not the case. The present Home Secretary and previous ones have often said well in advance what the Queen's Speech was likely to contain.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is not the habit of governments to reveal what will be in the next Queen's Speech. Having said that, the noble Lord is as capable as I of doing the political arithmetic.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House not think that the time has come to have a better informed debate on this subject? Does he not feel that the Government should now publish an options paper to consider various alternatives for a reformed and—in the words of his party's manifesto—more democratic House?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not think it is appropriate to publish an options paper. My party's policy was clearly set out in its manifesto, upon which it was elected with an overwhelming majority.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal aware that what he said about a first stage in effect repeats the preamble to the Parliament Act

919
of 1911? We are still waiting for a second stage. Can the noble Lord give us any reason to think that we shall have reached the second stage before the year 2011?
Lord Richard: My Lords, someone once said that a week in politics is a long time. Eighty years in politics is almost infinity. As I believe I said previously, I regard a Bill to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote as unfinished business from 1910.

Guardsmen Fisher and Wright: Judicial Review
2.54 p.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the decision of the court in the judicial review on 25th March of the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, although the hearing of the judicial review concluded on 26th March the judge, Mr. Justice Coghlin, reserved judgment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am disappointed by the noble Lord's Answer because we had a fairly firm assurance that the judgment would be given before Easter, and, if not, certainly in the week after Easter. However, as that has not happened can we have an absolute assurance, as we have been promised in the past—some of us are unhappy about that—that whatever decision is reached, either by the judge or by the Secretary of State, the decision about the release of these men will in no way be governed by political considerations?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, on the first point, the Government cannot control a decision of the judiciary, nor should we do so. We shall have to await the judge's views. On the second point, I give the noble Lord that assurance.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is a disgrace that these serving soldiers have languished in prison for doing what they considered to be their duty?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Government are not able to agree with that proposition. Those two soldiers were sentenced through a due process of law in the courts. We have to say that justice was done in that case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the release of these guardsmen—I take his point as regards his previous answer—will not be delayed by arrangements for the release of prisoners under the peace process? I seek a categoric assurance.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall explain the relationship between prisoners such as Fisher and Wright and the decisions made under the agreement reached last week in
920
Belfast. There will be established, subject to legislation, a sentence review body which will consider the situation of all prisoners who have been convicted of scheduled offences. Fisher and Wright were convicted of scheduled offences. Therefore this process will be subject to the decision of the sentence review board. We hope that the legislation, subject to Parliament's wish, will pass through Parliament by the end of June this year. It will then be for the independent sentence review body to decide in what order and under what priorities it proceeds to consider various prisoners' cases.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on a point of clarification, I seek an assurance. I listened with the greatest attention, but surely the noble Lord can give that assurance in view of his answer.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, if we leave the decision to an independent body it is difficult for me to give an assurance as to how that independent body will work. However, in general terms the answer is yes. If the sentence review body takes a long time to reach the case we are discussing, the Government have already given a commitment that the Life Sentence Review Board—which will stay in existence—will reconsider the case in October 1998. I gave an undertaking that 12 months after the previous occasion on which the body considered the case, the Secretary of State would ask it to reconsider the case. That still holds good. These bodies are independent. The decision about Fisher and Wright will not be delayed as a result of the peace process; indeed it may be accelerated.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the Minister concede that the embarrassment which has arisen out of the case of the two guardsmen is the inevitable consequence of a politician exercising the judicial function of deciding how long a person convicted of murder should stay in prison?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, no, I would not concede that point.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, should the sentence review body make a decision which was not in favour of the early release of the two guardsmen, would Her Majesty's Government consider putting the case to the Sovereign so that she could exercise her prerogative of mercy?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have indicated that two procedures will be running in parallel: the Life Sentence Review Board procedure which is already in existence; and, subject to new legislation, the sentence review body. Either will be able to make a decision about the two guardsmen. In the circumstances, I think that it would not be appropriate to refer the case elsewhere.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, how can soldiers do their duty if, in the course of doing it to the best of their ability, often in very difficult circumstances, they are rendering themselves liable to be sued for murder if they kill someone in error?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I agree that of course our soldiers and the RUC in Northern Ireland have carried out

921
a very difficult task over many years in a brave and exemplary manner, and that their lives have been at risk. Indeed quite a few of them have been killed in the course of doing their duties. That has to be clear and accepted by all, as I am sure it is.
However, we also have the rule of law. We also have independent courts. It was the court that decided that these two men were guilty of murder. It is part of our system that the courts make those decisions and not governments.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, it is all very well to reply, as the Minister has done, but we who have served in the Army ourselves are taking a great interest in the lives of the two guardsmen. I am proud to have marched with the infantry for 30 years of my life. We do not wish to have the judicature interfered with in any way, but these two guardsmen have been in prison for five years. They did an act in the heat of the moment in the discharge of their duty. We should like the Government to recommend to the judicature that those guardsmen should get off as soon as possible.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, when prisoners are given life sentences in Northern Ireland the Life Sentence Review Board normally does not look into their cases until they have served 10 years. In this particular case, and quite exceptionally, the LSRB was asked to look into the case after five years. It will be asked to look again at the case a year later—that is, next October. I should have thought that that goes quite some way towards meeting the noble Duke's point. Each case has to be considered in the particular circumstances relating to it. That has been done in the case of Fisher and Wright.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister said, on the last occasion of a judicial review of these cases, which was some time in the middle of last year, was not the recommendation that the two guardsmen should be released last October? Was that recommendation turned down by the Secretary of State and not by the judges?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, last October the Life Sentence Review Board gave its confidential recommendations to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State considered those views and all other facts relating to the case and asked the Life Sentence Review Board to look again at the matter a year later. As I said earlier, that is next October. I do not think that the judicial review decision urged release. I believe that the decision related to the procedures surrounding the way in which the case had been handled.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lords Dubs will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that has been made in another place on the Irish settlement.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that some additional business has been tabled for Wednesday, 22nd April. At the end of business on that
922
day, that is to say after the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and the Private Member's Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, my noble friend Lord Dubs will move two affirmative orders arising from the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. These orders are being laid today.

Social Security Bill
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ADJUDICATION STANDARDS COMMISSIONER
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an Adjudication Standards Commissioner.
(2) The Adjudication Standards Commissioner shall keep under review the exercise by the Secretary of State of the functions transferred to him by paragraph (a) of section 1 above and in particular the accuracy of decisions made by him or on his behalf under sections 9, 10 and 11 below, and the time within which such decisions are made.
(3) The Adjudication Standards Commissioner shall report annually to the Secretary of State in the light of the review referred to in subsection (2) above and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of his report before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 in a House which, although rapidly emptying, is still somewhat fuller than it has been for almost the whole of the previous debate on the Bill.
The amendment brings back part of an amendment that I moved at Committee stage. In its original form, the amendment made the adjudication standards commissioner responsible for giving guidance on law and for ensuring the proper training of persons making first tier social security decisions as well as for reviewing the standards of decision making. The additional guidance and training functions were criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. On reconsideration, I believe that he was correct to criticise them. Therefore this amendment drops those functions. The present amendment leaves the adjudication standards commissioner responsible only for reviewing and reporting on standards of first tier adjudication.
Adjudication standards are, sadly, low. The chief adjudication officer's report for 1996–97 found that there were adjudication deficiencies in 45 per cent. of income support cases examined by him, and in 37 per cent. of family credit cases. The chief child support officer found that there were deficiencies in 57 per cent. of child support cases examined by him. That is a lamentable record and indicates that close and continuous monitoring of standards is essential.
How is that to be achieved? At col. 50 of Hansard of 30th March, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that agency chief executives would be responsible for the monitoring and general oversight of the system. She continued that there would also be external monitoring of that system. But the only external monitoring that she mentioned was by the National Audit Office and by the president of the appeal tribunals. National Audit Office

923
monitoring is mainly concerned with the audit of the accounts of the Department of Social Security. The National Audit Office is quite plainly a body which is unsuitable to review adjudication standards.
The president of tribunals will report only on those cases which go to appeal. That is useful so far as it goes, but he will be dealing only with a limited and unrepresentative sample. It follows therefore that the main responsibility is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, on the chief executives to monitor their own agencies. Chief executives, like the rest of us, are only human and it is an inevitable tendency, of which I think we are all aware, that when we report on the performance of our own organisation we aim to present it in the best possible light.
At Committee stage I quoted from the comments of the presidents of the Independent Tribunal Services of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I shall do so again. The quotation appears at col. 46 of Hansard of 30th March. It states:
"'Once the Chief Adjudication Officer … ceases to exist, there will be no independent means of assessing consistency and reliability of decision-making. If such a system is not established, and it is left to the Chief Executive of the relevant agencies, we fear that it may not achieve the priority it deserves when competing for funds in a pressured business environment. The absence of such a system may actually threaten achievable efficiency at first-tier level"'.
External monitoring of the performance of those responsible for taking the first year decisions is of the highest importance to the maintenance of proper standards of adjudication. The Government's proposal in Amendment No. 68, grouped with this one, is for internal monitoring only. The proposal for an independent adjudication standards commissioner is a better way of achieving the higher standards which I am sure all of us in this House wish to ensure. I therefore ask the Government to think again on this question.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who rightly recounted what occurred in Committee. He rightly draws attention to concern in relation to the standard of the decisions that are being made. However, I note that government Amendment No. 68 may also be relevant to this matter. We shall no doubt wish to consider carefully the Minister's remarks on this subject.
We are about to enter into what may well turn out to be a fairly exciting Report stage. Perhaps I may say a word about the situation that has now arisen. In addition to Amendment No. 68, just referred to, there are a very large number of government amendments. That is in many ways extraordinary, given that the other place dealt with the matter in Committee over many weeks. At the beginning of the Committee stage, I thought it right to draw your Lordships' attention to a particular group of government amendments; namely, those which in effect implement a large part—indeed, perhaps the central piece—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. Since I am not fully conversant with the technical side, perhaps I may ask the Minister to respond in her normal sympathetic way and say whether there have been financial resolutions in the other place
924
supporting these amendments, and whether, if they are carried in this place, it is the Government's intention to move them in another place.
There is considerable concern that the way in which these amendments are being put forward means that they are likely to bypass totally the normal procedure for examining amendments in another place. They are appearing for the first time in this place; they will then return to the Commons as Lords' amendments but with no Committee stage during which the other place can take them into account, nor indeed a Report stage. I therefore hope that the Government might, at an appropriate moment in the discussions—the matter may arise more clearly on Thursday—be able to give us some indication as to exactly how they intend to continue. Would it be possible for these matters to be introduced in a further social security Bill which I believe the Government have in mind when the normal courtesies to the other place could be fulfilled and there would be a reasonable opportunity for Members there to examine the matters in considerable detail?
I do not wish to detain the House further on this matter. However, as we proceed through the mass of amendments before us, we shall need to examine carefully the extent to which the Government's method of proceeding is appropriate. My own feeling is that there are grave dangers in going about the matter in this way, since the legislation will not receive appropriate detailed examination. That said, we look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's comments on Amendment No. 68.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, down the very tempting path that he has indicated. It is a basic parliamentary principle that each House is sovereign over its own proceedings. Another place is perfectly capable of making its feelings clear to us should it so wish. I do not believe that we have the authority or the competence to set ourselves up as champions of the procedure of another place. It will do that if it so wishes.
I welcome, as I did previously, government Amendment No. 68, which, so far as it goes, is a good one. However, I remember saying in Committee that I should very much hope to find in that amendment the word "independent". I cannot find it, and that is a significant omission. It is a basic principle that one should not be judge and party in one's own court. Under this Bill, the Secretary of State will at least run the risk of appearing to infringe that principle. It is therefore important that somewhere in the system an element of genuine independence should be inserted.
I have just been reading the Minister's reply to this amendment in Committee. She spoke the language of authority over the judicial process. She stated:
"we will ensure that decision-making under the new system is of the highest quality".—[Official Report, 30/3/98; co1.49.]
There appears to be no doubt in the Minister's mind that this is a proper subject for the Secretary of State's own authority.

925
I should feel a good deal happier if there were at least some independent monitoring of this process. So before we enter into a great constitutional argument and refer to courts and so on and so forth, the Minister might avoid a good deal of trouble were she to accept this amendment in the revised form in which it now stands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, in responding to this amendment and Amendment No. 68 with which it is grouped, perhaps I may revisit the points made rather ingeniously by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in terms of House procedures. I endorse the view put by the noble Earl that it is for the Commons to champion its procedures rather than for us. However, so that there need be no misunderstanding between us, I do not believe that the way in which we are handling this matter necessarily bears the interpretation put upon it by the noble Lord. It might therefore be for the convenience of the House if I repeat the Government's position on that in order to provide an opportunity to return to the matter on reflection, either later on Report or at Third Reading.
My understanding is that national insurance matters come under social security legislation and therefore cannot be included in a finance Bill. As all governments must, the Government have to respond to changing circumstances. It would not be unusual for government amendments to be tabled in respect of Bills that have passed through the Commons and are proceeding through this House. Were that not to be the case, this House could never introduce new material into any Bill, and by definition, when the Bill returns to the Commons, there is the opportunity to amend or reject our amendments and, if the House is so minded—though Heaven forfend$—enter into a game of ping-pong. So in that sense we are doing nothing different. Were we to follow the line of the noble Lord's thinking—namely, that this House is somehow invading the Commons' privilege if it introduces new material which has not been subject to Standing Committee scrutiny in the Commons—the House of Lords would indeed be turned into a poodle and do nothing ever more than comment on the drafting, punctuation and syntax of Commons' debates and never introduce or raise policy issue debates. That is an important consideration in relation to a Bill which, for all kinds of reasons of which your Lordships are aware, has taken a great deal of time to handle. Furthermore, between the beginning of the Bill and the Report stage in this House we have had not only the Budget but the welfare reform Green Paper, both of which introduced new and relevant matters.
As regards the issue of Commons' privilege, it is true that contributions payable into the National Insurance Fund are the subject of Commons' privilege. But it is a privilege that Members of the Commons are able to waive. They will be invited to do so when the Bill returns there. The national insurance changes have been broadly welcomed. During this Session, we must legislate to give businesses the time that they need to be able to operate the system from April 1999. That is why we are handling the matter in this way. The money
926
resolution passed at Second Reading in the other place covers all similar new measures. It is the case, is it not, that the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Goodhart, may still pursue some of their more detailed concerns in relation to national insurance? I entirely take their point. This is not a party-political matter. We are all concerned to achieve the right solutions. I believe we share a common diagnosis of the problems and any contributions the noble Lords can give us that we could take on board would be warmly welcomed. As a former Minister, the noble Lord will understand that one is dependent upon the professional advice that one receives on the matter. I have tried to address the issues of procedure and money resolutions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in rather ingeniously supporting an amendment which had nothing to do with the subject.
I turn now to Amendment No. 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and government Amendment No. 68 with which, for the convenience of the House, it is grouped. Both amendments are concerned with the arrangements for overseeing the new decision-making system. Amendment No. 1 seeks to raise again the issue of independent monitoring of decisions made under the new arrangements as set out in the Bill. I shall discuss later why we do not feel we can accept the amendment. Amendment No. 68 is a consequence of the debate on Clause 1 of the Bill at Committee stage when my noble friends Lord Evans of Parkside and Baroness Turner of Camden tabled amendments, with support from all sides of the House, to make it a requirement on the face of the Bill for there to be annual reports on standards of decision-making. In the light of that discussion, I was happy to accept the spirit of the amendment and to give a commitment to come back at Report stage with an appropriate government amendment to put the requirement on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 68 does just that: it makes it a requirement for a report on standards of decision-making to be prepared annually or at such times or intervals as may be prescribed.
I can assure the House that it is our intention to produce reports annually or as near to each year as possible. Our current thinking is that reports on standards of decision-making will be included as part of the annual departmental report. Publication dates are prone to vary slightly according to the timing of the Budget.
I also wish to follow up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, at Committee stage. He asked whether there would be targets against which standards of decision-making should be judged, and again I promised to consider the matter and come back to him. The reports on the quality of decision-making produced by the Secretary of State will include measurements as regards achievement of targets and the standards to which decisions have been made. We shall discuss with agencies what form these targets will take.
The amendment meets the concerns expressed in both Houses on reports on standards of decision-making. It sets out a clear requirement for there to be reports on standards of decision-making on an annual or near-annual basis. It also makes it a requirement for such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament.

927
Amendment No. 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to go much further and to reintroduce independent monitoring. It seeks the appointment of an adjudication standards commissioner to oversee and report on the accuracy and speed of decision-making. We do not believe that that would achieve any improvement in the standard of decision-making but would instead add an additional layer of bureaucracy.
There seem to us to be two particular issues which are at the heart of the amendment: first, the achievement of consistent and reliable decision-making across the agencies; and, secondly, an independent—the word emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—oversight of the decision-making process.
We believe that the measures we are putting in place will fully address these issues. Furthermore, we believe that our approach makes ongoing improvements to the quality of decision-making an integral part of the process, not an optional add-on.
Consistency will be achieved through the setting of challenging targets and standards for each agency by the Secretary of State, those targets and standards being publicly known. Agency chief executives will be directly accountable to her for the achievement of those standards. Amendments to achieve that will be embodied in the reporting structure.
We believe that this line of accountability is a crucial element of our strategy for making improvements. Agencies have given considerable thought as to how they are to meet their new responsibilities. The standards committees and arrangements for training that I described in Committee are among the many initiatives that will aid quality decision-making. They demonstrate the commitment that is felt across the department to getting this right. High standards will be achieved by making accountability for quality a central feature for every agency, not through a distant and effectively powerless monitoring body.
That brings me to the question of independence. I have sought to explain why we think that accountability, rather than an independent monitoring body alone, is the key to ensuring good service. But, of course, we recognise that there must be public confidence in the integrity of the system, and independent monitoring is important for that. That is why the National Audit Office will have its role in this area extended. We have been discussing with it how to enhance its monitoring of quality. It is not true to say that the National Audit Office is concerned only with the monitoring of accounts. We are already working with it on the implementation of the new procedures. There will be a value-for-money study in the early stages of implementation, in addition to the usual audit.
I hope that your Lordships will accept that, in bringing forward the new clause on Report, we have reflected the will of the House, and I commend Amendment No. 68 to your Lordships. However, we believe that we have in place robust monitoring arrangements to make sure that high quality decision-making is achieved and maintained. We shall
928
have the annual reports by the chief executives of agencies, together with demanding targets. The degree to which those targets have been met can be scrutinised. We shall also have the annual report of the Secretary of State, the annual reports of the presidents of tribunals and the report and extended monitoring role of the National Audit Office. We believe that we have in place a full network of monitoring and audit which will ensure accountability as well as integrity of decision-making. I therefore hope that your Lordships will not be minded to accept Amendment No. 1.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have to confess that I am disappointed by the Minister's reply and her failure to accept the principle of fully independent monitoring. In the circumstances, this is not an amendment which I propose to take further and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johnsmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall, with the permission of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 3. These amendments were tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in Committee and supported by my noble friend Lord Higgins. They could not be moved at that stage because we were all struck by a pre-emption which caught us all by surprise. I have explained to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, that I am not trying to steal his very good ideas on this matter. I was aware that he was away last week and therefore might not be able to table these amendments. Because I supported them so strongly, I did not wish them to go by default.
I am concerned about the position of members of tribunals who are appointed for their medical expertise but who simultaneously receive payments from the Secretary of State for medical reports prepared in connection with the award of incapacity and disability benefits. Tribunals must not only be independent and impartial, as I firmly believe they are; it is also important that they are perceived to be so by all parties to appeals, most importantly by those appearing before them as appellants.
The number of those who are potentially involved in compromising the impartiality of the tribunal is, I believe, significant. Figures were released in March 1997 showing that 232 medical members of disability appeal tribunals are also approved by the Benefits Agency medical services to examine people in connection with disability living allowance or attendance allowance. Those figures were given in another place on 11th March 1997. Fees are paid by the Secretary of State to the doctors who carry out such examinations.
In February last year, of 24,401 examinations carried out in connection with DLA and AA cases, approximately 5 per cent. were allocated to doctors who

929
also sit on DLA tribunals as members hearing appeals against the refusal of those same benefits. Details of those figures were given in another place on 18th March last year. In most cases the refusal of benefit will have been based on the medical examination itself.
A further 88 doctors simultaneously sit on disability appeal tribunals and perform work for the Benefits Agency on a fee-paid basis concerning incapacity benefit.
When an ordinary person appears before a tribunal as an appellant, it must seem to them self-evident that a doctor who is being paid by the DSS to carry out medical examinations on the basis of which benefit is then awarded should not at the same time sit on the very tribunal which has been set up to consider whether a decision by the DSS is correct. It is even more vital when that doctor is paid to carry out examinations in connection with the same benefit which is the subject of the appeal.
The practice of appointing to disability appeal tribunals those doctors who perform work for the Secretary of State in connection with DLA was recently accepted by a social security commissioner. However, I note that the president of the Independent Tribunal Service pointed out the controversial nature of that decision, which also has implications for the appointment of medical members to hear incapacity benefit appeals.
At present the argument is that a conflict of interest is only accepted if the doctor who is sitting on the tribunal comes across an appellant appearing before that same tribunal whom he or she had previously examined in connection with the claim for benefit actually under appeal. Indeed, that is a general rule covering all members of appeal tribunals. When I sat as a lay member of a tribunal that situation could arise. I would appear at a tribunal and only then discover that Mr. or Mrs. Smith or Mr. or Mrs. Brown who appeared before me were people whom I had advised in my capacity as a worker at the citizens' advice bureau. I would then withdraw. That same rule is applied to doctors. But the problem with that situation is that recognition of the appellant comes too late. They have prepared their case; they have prepared themselves for the trauma of appearing before a tribunal and only when they appear do they find that the case cannot be heard by one of the panel members. It may well be that the whole case is adjourned until another date.
I believe therefore that we need the amendment in order to be sure that doctors, as a group, do not have their credibility as effective members of appeal tribunals undermined. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for tabling this amendment. It is true that we were not able to discuss this matter in Committee because of the procedural hiccup which none of us foresaw until the net had closed.
I will not attempt to repeat the argument stated so clearly by the noble Baroness. I agree that possibly the best example of the principle to which my amendments
930
in Committee were directed is the example of the doctor who feels that he might be under pressure if he were to displease the Department of Health. That is a genuine problem which I hope my noble friend will consider.
However, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will forgive me if I say that I cannot go with her across the whole width of her amendment. She seeks to disqualify anyone in the employment of the Crown from being a member of a tribunal. A number of people who are in the employment of the Crown are effective and dedicated members of tribunals and do an extremely good job. They may face no danger of a conflict of interest. For example, a scientist working in the Crown's research laboratories would not necessarily have any reason to fear a conflict of interest in this kind of situation.
The amendment goes rather wider than the initiative it seeks to meet. Having said that, I will listen with great care to the reply of my noble friend because the narrower issue is one which should be addressed.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and will do so briefly because all the points that could properly be made on it have been made already by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
The present situation breaches the vital principle that a tribunal should be seen to be independent and impartial. A doctor who is employed by the DSS on other matters relating to disability may face a conflict of interest. I accept also the qualifications of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, that that does not apply across the board and that there are other holders of government posts who could properly sit as members of an appeal tribunal.
The primary point is that made by the noble Baroness. It is an important one and I hope that the Government will see fit to accept the amendment.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I feel extremely doubtful about the amendment, not only for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell—namely, that the amendment is exceedingly broad—but also on the basis that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, tabled the amendment in a way which concerns the credibility of medical practitioners.
As the noble Baroness explained, we are not talking here about a case where the medical practitioner is involved in examining patient A and then finds himself or herself sitting on the appeal tribunal concerning patient A. In that situation there is immediate conflict and there would be a standing down of the medical practitioner involved. But the scope of the amendment means that several hundred—I believe the number was 237—doctors who are currently employed to examine people for the DSS and act also as medical members of appeal tribunals would have to be barred. That is a drastic decision to take. It would deprive a great many people with experience in the field of examining people applying for benefit under the social security system of membership of appeal tribunals.

931
The noble Baroness referred to the credibility of medical practitioners. But credibility also involves integrity. The noble Baroness appears to be questioning the professional integrity of medical practitioners by suggesting that if they are employed by the Crown to examine individuals on behalf of the department on one day they are incapable of sitting on another day as a member of a tribunal hearing decisions about different individuals.
Lawyers—two lawyers have already spoken broadly in favour of the amendment—particularly barristers but nowadays solicitors as well, may act in a judicial capacity on a number of days a month or a year in fields in which their expertise arises, and continue to practise on behalf of a plaintiff or defendant in similar cases. Their professional integrity is not questioned. Indeed, it is a feature of their professional integrity that they are capable of acting in a judicially impartial capacity on some days of the year and on other days of being the most partisan on behalf of an individual and being employed by government departments to be partisan advocates.
Therefore, for practical reasons of depriving the tribunal service of a large number of valuable members, and for reasons concerned with maintaining professional integrity, the amendment is not a suitable one for this House to pass.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, I am sure that the reason this amendment was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was a desire on her part, and also on the part of noble Lords who spoke to it, to ensure that appeals are dealt with in a fair and impartial manner; but not only that. It was in order to ensure that there is a perception of fairness and impartiality. Very often the perception is as important, if not at times more important, than the reality.
The Government share this view and believe that public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the tribunals, and of tribunal members, is crucial to the success of any appeals service, in particular to the new appeals service. While I cannot agree with the manner in which the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve our shared objective, I believe I can reassure her and other noble Lords that there will be sufficient safeguards in place to make these amendments unnecessary.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor believes that the independence of panel members is most effectively guaranteed if the power of appointment is vested in him alone, as it is in respect of other judicial appointments to tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. We share the Lord Chancellor's view and we have therefore made provision in Clause 6 for all appointments to the panel to be made by him. The nature of the appointments will ensure judicial independence and freedom from political pressure or other influence in the selection process.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would be to preclude the Lord Chancellor from appointing to the panel set up under Clause 6 anyone who is "in the
932
employment of the Crown". I associate myself with the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Borrie that the way in which the amendment is framed is far too wide. It would exclude any employee of the Crown. Noble Lords will be aware that the meaning of the expression has caused much debate generally. It may help if I explain that the Lord Chancellor does not currently appoint persons such as serving civil servants to any tribunal where the state is a party to the proceedings. That would continue.
I turn to the question of the medical members, which is the crux of the matter in so far as I understand the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The point has been made that there may be a possible conflict of interest for doctors who are involved in benefit determinations and who are also appointed to the panel. Perhaps I may, as my noble friend Lord Borrie did, split this category of doctors into two. Clearly, if the doctor has examined someone who is appearing before the panel of which the doctor is himself or herself a member, it would be inappropriate for the doctor to sit in such a case. At present, there are regulations which provide for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to this point. I would hope that the problem which she experienced would not arise very frequently in the case of doctors. Unlike the noble Baroness, who would be giving advice in the context of the voluntary sector to a variety of people, where it might be difficult to identify them from reading the papers in the case of a doctor who had examined a patient, I think that difficulty is less likely to arise. However, in the event that it did arise, in terms of the existing regulations and in terms of the new regulations which will mirror them, he or she would be obliged to decline to act in that case. I appreciate that that would cause inconvenience, which is to be regretted, but in the interests of fairness and impartiality it is a necessary requirement.
I turn to the issue as to whether any doctor who has responsibility for examining a patient on behalf of the state should be allowed to sit as a panel member. On a practical level, I am advised that it would be difficult to find a doctor who had not at some time offered advice to the Secretary of State on a medical issue. We could not obtain sufficient panel members with the appropriate medical qualifications and expertise to run the appeal tribunals effectively—this point was made by my noble friend Lord Borrie—if doctors who had advised the Secretary of State at some point were precluded from appointment to the panel.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, observed, this issue was looked at very carefully by a social security commissioner in 1995. I appreciate that Judge Bassingthwaighte indicated that this matter should not be overlooked despite the decision of the commissioner. But one must bear in mind that the commissioner is the ultimate authority. The commissioner has greater authority on such matters than the president of the tribunal service. However, after exhaustive consideration of the role of doctors in the adjudication system, the commissioner in 1995 concluded that natural justice was not compromised by the presence on an appeal tribunal of a doctor who also provided

933
fee-paid assistance and advice to the department in respect of other patients. Nothing in the Bill would change that position.
We understand that there could be concern from an individual appellant that a panel member sitting on a tribunal had previously been involved with him in relation to social security matters. In that situation the doctor would be required not to sit on the tribunal. I should like to reassure noble Lords that the Government will be bringing forward regulations containing similar provisions to those which now exist, which explicitly preclude any chairman or member from considering on appeal a case in which they have had any personal involvement. Currently, it is a condition of their appointment that all ITS members must be independent and impartial. If they realise from the appeal papers or when they turn up that there is a conflict, they themselves have an obligation to draw that to the attention of the authorities and to withdraw from the hearing. I can assure noble Lords that similar arrangements will apply for persons appointed to the panel. In the light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I begin by referring to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Borne, as to whether I question the integrity of doctors who sit on appeal tribunals. Perhaps the noble Lord will recall that when I opened my remarks I said that I had found tribunals to be trustworthy and full of integrity. I did not myself question that. But those who appear in front of them might well say with regard to myself, "Well, she would say that, wouldn't she?", as I sat as a member for 14 years. I was trying to put myself in the position of those who appear before the tribunal. It is certainly my experience that people who appear in front of tribunals do not have the same perception as those who sit on them and that there have been occasions when appellants who had been through a series of medical decisions—if one is suffering from severe medical problems one tends to appeal again and again—found that there was a person on the tribunal who had some time back sat on one of their cases and had rejected them but was not debarred at that stage from dealing with that appeal.
I accept the point made so clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, that my amendment goes too wide. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the same comment. I was trying only to look at the compromise situation of doctors employed by the DSS. On that basis alone, I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment, and I also take encouragement from the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate with regard to the safeguards which the Government intend to introduce. If there were to be further rules with regard to the position of doctors and others who find themselves hearing cases where they had been personally involved, I would welcome that. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

The Irish Settlement
3.49 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being 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 successful conclusion of the multi-party talks in Belfast.
"It is my privilege to be able to tell the House that a comprehensive political agreement was reached late in the afternoon of 10th April—Good Friday. The text has been published as Command Paper 3883. A copy is being sent to every home in Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to the Post Office for providing this service at business rate, so people across Northern Ireland have a chance to study the agreement in detail.
"The Government's main aim through these negotiations has been to secure political stability and lasting peace for all the people of Northern Ireland. As a result of the Belfast Agreement, that goal is now in sight.
"This is a unique agreement born of a unique set of negotiations—involving unionist, nationalist, republican and loyalist around the same talks table. This is a situation in which, though compromises have been made, everyone can be a winner. Everyone's political and cultural identity is respected and protected by this deal.
"Northern Ireland politics for so long has been seen as a zero sum game: this agreement demonstrates the potential for the people of Northern Ireland to move beyond that into a new type of politics in which everyone can gain. It represents a sensible, fair and workable way forward for both communities.
"I want to pay a particular tribute to the negotiating teams of all the parties involved. They have fulfilled the duty placed upon them by the people they represent. I would also like to pay tribute to a group, often vilified, who have worked for so many years to bring about this agreement often at personal risk to themselves and their families—the UK and Irish civil servants.
"It is important when we are talking about all these positive developments that we do not lose sight of the terrible price that has been paid by the victims of violence and their families. No amount of progress in the search for lasting peace will bring back those loved ones who have been lost or take away the pain felt day in day out by their families.
"I hope that Ken Bloomfield's Victims' Commission will, later this month, provide us with some practical suggestions as to how we can best recognise the suffering endured by the victims of violence and their families. Many of those families say to me similar words to those in the agreement itself that,
'the achievement of a peaceful and just society would he the true memorial to the victims of violence'.

935
"The main elements in the agreement are: first, on constitutional issues, the British and Irish governments have formally resolved our historical differences through the general and mutual acceptance of the principle of consent, which means Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and will stay that way for as long as that is the wish of a majority of the people who live there, and it means that if the people of Northern Ireland were formally to consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, the government of the day would bring forward proposals, in consultation with the Irish Government, to give effect to that wish.
"Under the agreement, the Irish Government will bring forward proposals to amend the Irish Constitution to bring it into line with this understanding, and the necessary changes will be made to British constitutional legislation.
"Secondly, there will be greater democratic accountability in Northern Ireland through the devolution of a wide range of executive and legislative powers to a Northern Ireland assembly.
"In the assembly, posts of executive authority will be shared on a proportional basis and safeguards will be in place to protect the interests of both main parts of the community.
"Thirdly, there will be a north-south ministerial council bringing together those with executive authority, north and south, to work together by agreement on matters of mutual interest. Those participating on the council will be mandated by and remain accountable to the assembly and the Irish Parliament. At least six 'implementation bodies' will be identified within the next six months to put decisions taken by the council into effect on a cross border or all-island basis in specified areas. More such bodies or mechanisms may be established by agreement between the two sides, north and south.
"Fourthly, there will be a British-Irish council to bring together our two governments and representatives of devolved administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. This development builds on the Government's key programme of constitutional reform.
"Fifthly, there will be a new British-Irish agreement to replace the Anglo-Irish agreement of November 1985. This new agreement will be brought into effect as soon as the other elements of the deal are in place. The British-Irish agreement sets out the new shared understanding on constitutional matters. It also creates a new British-Irish intergovernmental conference which will deal with all bilateral issues between the two governments. And in recognition of the Irish Government's special interest in relation to Northern Ireland there will continue, as now, to be regular meetings between me and the Irish Foreign Minister.
"However, in future, relevant executive members of the Northern Ireland Administration will also be involved in these meetings to discuss non-devolved
936
issues which arise in relation to Northern Ireland. The existing joint Anglo-Irish Secretariat at Maryfield will close before the end of this year.
"The agreement also includes a range of measures to enhance the proper protection of basic human rights including a new independent human rights commission in Northern Ireland to consult and advise on the scope for defining rights supplementary to those in the ECHR which the Government are already in the process of incorporating into our law across the UK.
"A public consultation is already under way about the proposals in our Partnership for Equality White Paper. Subject to that consultation, those proposals—including the establishment of a powerful new equality commission—are reflected in this agreement along with other proposals to encourage parity of esteem between the two main political and cultural traditions.
"Finally, the agreement looks ahead to the creation of a normal and peaceful society in Northern Ireland. It establishes a clear process for the decommissioning of illegal weapons that can start forthwith and a commitment by all the parties to work constructively in good faith with the independent commission and to use any influence they have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years of the referendum. It commits both Governments to reducing the profile of security measures and emergency legislation as the threat to peace and good order reduces.
"There will be an independent commission to consider what kind of policing service would be appropriate in a Northern Ireland free from the threat of terrorist violence and capable of fully commanding the support of both communities. There will also be a parallel review of the criminal justice system. The agreement also commits both governments to put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners. Let me be clear, this is not an easy issue for anyone. But it is an indispensable part of this agreement.
"For our part, the British Government will establish an independent sentence review body to look at each prisoner on a case by case basis to determine their eligibility for release. Most eligible prisoners will qualify for release on licence within two years. If the circumstances allow, the remainder will be released at that point. It must be emphasised however, that this timeframe is variable, depending on the degree of genuine commitment to peace.
"Prisoners associated with groups who do not maintain a complete and unequivocal cease-fire will not qualify. Those prisoners who do qualify, will be released on licence and returned to prison if they engage in any further terrorist activity.
"These are crucial safeguards and a briefing note giving more detail of the proposed arrangements has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
"This agreement was made possible by the efforts of many people, most of all by the leaders of the political parties involved in the negotiations. The

937
House will, I am sure, wish to join me in also paying tribute to them and to the exceptional chairmanship skills of Senator George Mitchell and his fellow independent Chairmen, former Prime Minister Harri Holkeri and General John de Chastelain.
"No less crucial was the constant support and the direct involvement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, particularly over the last few crucial days of the negotiations. His efforts were matched by those of the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who rose above the personal tragedy of his mother's death, to play an equally decisive role. Honourable Members will also appreciate the enormous value of having a broad political consensus in support of the talks process, both here at Westminster and in the Irish Parliament.
"I should like to pay tribute to the work of the right honourable Members for Huntingdon and the Cities of London and Westminster and to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and his colleague the right honourable Member for Devizes. Equally, successive Irish Prime Ministers and Ministers for Foreign Affairs in the Republic have played a crucial role over many years. I would also like to thank President Clinton in particular, who has been an invaluable support for the talks process.
"Many other governments and individuals across Europe—especially in the European Union—and throughout the world have given years of their lives in help and support to the search for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland; and their messages of support keep coming in.
"I am laying an order today setting 22nd May as the date for a referendum. A parallel referendum will be held in the Republic of Ireland on the same day. If both are successful, elections should be held to the new Northern Ireland assembly before the end of June.
"Following the election, the assembly and the north-south ministerial council would operate in "shadow" mode, making the necessary preparations, until the main implementing legislation, which I intend to bring forward as soon as possible, has been enacted and brought into effect.
"The agreement reached on Good Friday is a significant turning point in the history of Northern Ireland. But let us have no illusions. It will take a long time to repair the physical and emotional damage of the past and bring about a real sense of reconciliation and partnership. The people there have suffered a great deal of hardship and pain. To their strength we must give all our support in the weeks and months ahead.
"Pressures on all sides will seek to bring this agreement down. The best way we can help to fight those pressures is to give this agreement the overwhelming support of this House; and to give the people of Northern Ireland the chance to choose the future, not the past, in which to live. In the end, the decision rests with the people of Northern Ireland. The choice is theirs".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome this agreement? We believe that it provides the basis for a new democratic mechanism for Northern Ireland and that it gives important support to the Union.
I echo the congratulations that have been paid to all those who have been involved in the negotiations and in bringing about this agreement. Senator George Mitchell, Mr. Harri Holkeri and General John de Chastelain have played very important parts with legendary patience. I echo also the tributes that have been paid to successive Prime Ministers, including the present Prime Minister and Mr. John Major, and to successive Secretaries of State, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. All of them, and all the parties concerned, have worked extremely hard to bring about this agreement.
The Minister said that the Government have published the agreement and sent a copy to every household in Northern Ireland. Will they also publish widely a document containing the important letters of interpretation of the agreement which have been sent, we understand, by the Prime Minister to Mr. Trimble and, I think, to Mr. Maginnis and others? Apparently, some of those letters contain important statements about the effect of prisoner releases and other matters and they are crucial to understanding the agreement. The Minister referred to a briefing note being placed in the Library, but I believe that some formal and public document is required if people are to rely on such matters when deciding how to vote in the forthcoming referendum.
We all recognise that the agreement does not yet mean total peace. We hope and pray that some ex-terrorists and their supporters have become democrats, but we know that some others have not. Even if as a result of the agreement they no longer see a political motive for terrorism, there is still a financial motive in the form of the rackets. Therefore, it is not yet time to relax security in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom.
Can the Minister make it clear that decommissioning will be an important part of the criteria that will be used to decide which terrorist-supporting organisations have accepted a permanent cease-fire and that only the acceptance of such a cease-fire will allow their representatives to participate in the executive or prisoners belonging to those organisations to benefit from the increased remission? Will the Minister confirm that as long as some terrorist organisations remain active, it is essential that the Royal Ulster Constabulary should remain fully effective and that the Secretary of State should remain responsible for security and answerable to Parliament? Can the Minister further confirm that as long as any of the Armed Forces of the Crown remain in Northern Ireland in support of the civil power, responsibility for security will remain in Whitehall, answerable to Westminster?
Finally, I echo what was said in the Statement by the Secretary of State about the victims. We welcome the work that is being done by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield and look forward to his report being published. I believe that the Minister said that that would happen later this

939
month. Last week while visiting the Province I was reminded that although some of the victims and their families want the prisoners to rot for as long as possible, there are many others for whom the best memorial to their loved ones is that a solution should be found and that others should not have to suffer as they have done.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. This is an extraordinary moment because although there may be trouble ahead—we can certainly assume that there will be serious difficulties in the next weeks and months—nothing can dim the extraordinary nature of this achievement. So often in this House in recent years we have had occasion to bemoan the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, so it is a happy moment to be able to say that Good Friday represents a good agreement.
An agreement which brings together British and Irish leaders in the form of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach is truly remarkable when one considers the history of the Troubles of the past 25 or 30 years and the much longer history of difficulty between the British and Irish nations. It has been truly remarkable, therefore, to find this degree of unity. I am glad that the Statement remembered the role of the previous administration and the Ministers who served in it. It is right to do so because this achievement relates not only to the past few weeks, but is due also to the efforts made by many people over many years, including previous Secretaries of State. If I have one regret, it is that the Secretary of State prior to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—I refer to Peter Brooke—was not mentioned in the Statement. His was a remarkable paving role for this achievement.
The role played by the United States in this agreement has been crucial. It is difficult for British and Irish Governments to swallow the fact that the American Administration has played a crucial role, but in recent years the learning curve of the United States about the real nature of the Northern Irish problem has been very steep and very successful. The roles played by the President and by Senator George Mitchell and his co-chairmen have been very great.
We are now in a state of precarious momentum. We must keep up that momentum and reduce the risks. That means that we need the largest possible majority in the referendum—not just in the Republic of Ireland where the agreement is supported by all parties, but in Northern Ireland itself. I am sorry that some distinguished noble Lords from the Cross Benches who normally speak in the Unionist interest are not able to be here this afternoon because their interventions when we last discussed the possibility of an agreement were notably pessimistic. I hope that they will be there, alongside the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, supporting the agreement wholeheartedly.
The question of security thereafter will quickly be upon us. If a referendum in the North and in the South shows high levels of support for the agreement—far
940
higher than the normal majority that we require in a democracy—does the Minister agree that there can then be not the slightest shred of legitimacy or the slightest excuse of fighting a great battle for those who continue to take up arms? Does he agree that once the referendum, north and south, has decided that this is the way forward those who pursue violence must be hunted down, caught and imprisoned and that there can be no excuse for continuing violence?
I slightly regret that in the Statement reference was made to "a deal". It is important to turn that into genuine dialogue. This is a beginning; it offers no more than the possibility of a new start. It means that the unionists and nationalists of Northern Ireland, particularly those who pursue the peaceful constitutional path like the SDLP and Ulster Unionists, must turn the heroic effort of overnight negotiation into a continuing dialogue to underpin a peaceful future for Northern Ireland.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I ask the Minister to clarify the exact nature of the understanding given to Mr. David Trimble about the prohibition on the involvement of parties who have not eschewed violence and started substantially to decommission in the process of the assembly and government. I should like to understand exactly what that is. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, if there are letters in existence I should like them to be published.
Finally, the basis of the settlement, not merely the fact that it has been arrived at, of devolved powers so that greater self-government and responsibility can be undertaken in Northern Ireland—shared power so that decisions are not exercised on behalf of one side of the community and proportional representation so that all shades of opinion are fairly represented, with the emphasis on human rights—is part of the general constitutional revolution that the Government, with the support of these Benches, have taken forward in Great Britain as a whole. I believe that of all parts of the United Kingdom it has the greatest relevance in Northern Ireland, and in that sense we support it most warmly.
I do not want to sit down without referring, among those who have made a contribution, to my noble friend Lord Alderdice, the leader of the Alliance Party, who is not able to be here this afternoon. Noble Lords will recognise that to assume that in Northern Ireland there are only two sides does not do justice to those who look for a non-sectarian basis for progress in the Province.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his support and welcome for this particular agreement. He asked whether the correspondence that had taken place between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and various Northern Ireland politicians could be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Essentially, these exchanges were private communications between participants in the process. It would not be normal practice to place such correspondence in the Libraries. However, some of the contents of the correspondence has already been made public and there has been much public comment

941
and discussion upon it. Therefore, we shall look sympathetically at the request to see what can be done to meet the point raised by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asked about matters concerning the cease-fire and decommissioning. We want to see total decommissioning as quickly as possible. We welcome the commitment in the agreement by talks participants to use their influence to achieve this in two years. The agreement represents a package. I argue strongly that all the elements of that package are closely interlinked. The onus is on the participants—the two governments, the parties, unionists, loyalists, nationalists and republicans—to implement all aspects of the agreement in good faith. The agreement cannot work unless all of the participants act in good faith and give effect to the undertakings that they have provided. We see that as a complete package, and we wish the matter to be judged as a whole.
At the present time policing and security matters will remain under the Secretary of State. Other than in the very short term, there will be a change in such arrangements, only if the security situation justifies such a change. But we have not reached that position yet because, regrettably, there are a number of terrorist organisations on both sides which have not subscribed to the cease-fire and still practise violence and murder. Therefore we have to keep the security forces on the alert to deal with such a threat. The Secretary of State will retain her full responsibilities in these circumstances.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for his support. Perhaps I was not very clear in what I said earlier. I repeat my comments relating to Mr. Peter Brooke:
"I should like to pay tribute to the work of the right honourable Members for Huntingdon and the Cities of London and Westminster".
If that was not clear I apologise. Certainly, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wanted to pay tribute to Mr. Peter Brooke, and other Secretaries of State who played such an important part in getting us to the present position.
The noble Lord asked a number of other questions. I very much agree with him that this is just the start and a good deal of hard work must still be done. The Government are not sitting back on the basis that they have done it. Only this morning my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that there was a great deal of work still to be done and the real challenges to take forward the process begin now. The noble Lord also asked about violence and decommissioning. The assembly is for those parties who have taken part in the agreement and have subscribed to peace and consent. I believe that the agreement makes clear that the test must be that the parties continue to believe in a peaceful way forward. I have already referred to decommissioning and the desire of the Government to see this matter as a complete package.
I also join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I am very much aware, both from his contributions here and on the occasions that I have met him in Northern Ireland, that he has also played a very important part for the good in the politics
942
of the Province and should be thanked for his contribution to the achievement of the successful agreement on the afternoon of Good Friday. I believe that I have dealt with all of the main questions put to me by the noble Lord. If not, I shall write to him.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, over centuries many dramatic statements have been made in this House in relation to the conduct of various affairs. Normally, those statements are made amidst great controversy. A painting in a corridor of this House records the famous rejection of the Home Rule Bill in 1893. Had the outcome been different we might not have had to suffer many of the events in the years that have followed.
I believe that it may be a little premature to refer to this agreement as a settlement. It is not. One can only hope daily that it will become a settlement. In the House of Commons today I observed that the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble, sat alone on his Bench without the support of his parliamentary colleagues. I believe that that must be regarded as being as serious as it looks. There is not agreement even among the major political parties in Northern Ireland.
I believe that it is time for everyone who is concerned with Northern Ireland to state where they stand on the agreement. I have no hesitation in saying that I fully support the agreement. I call on anyone in Northern Ireland who has listened to my voice over the years to vote "yes" in the referendum. It is the only possible way; there is no alternative.
I should like to place firmly on record—perhaps to the total disagreement of some of my former colleagues—my support for the RUC. Had it not been for the RUC over the past 30 years Northern Ireland would have descended into absolute anarchy. It is only by the dedicated service of those policemen that there has been a civilised outcome to the events of the past few years. This agreement is only the beginning. There are many people in Northern Ireland, including myself, who are very concerned about the possible early release of convicted prisoners. I refer particularly to those who have lost their fathers, mothers, friends and colleagues.
Will continuing representations be made to the IRA, a terrorist organisation, to do what it can to make public the burial grounds of those people it murdered from within the Catholic community and whose bodies are, as yet, unidentified? There is great sadness and sorrow among those who have lost their loved ones and who cannot visit their graves.
The Minister is entitled to ask for the support of all elected representatives. I wish him well in all his efforts, and the efforts of everyone else in Northern Ireland, to bring about a massive yes vote in the referendum.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support for the agreement. The House knows of the enormously important role that he has played over many years in seeking to move Northern Ireland away from

943
violence and towards peace and reconciliation. That is appreciated by the whole of the House and by many, many people in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Dubs: My Lords, yes, it is an agreement. It is not yet a settlement and we have to make further progress. I thank the noble Lord for urging people to vote yes in the referendum.
I would also thank him for voicing his support for the RUC. I endorse what he has said. The RUC has played a brave and difficult part in the most appalling circumstances over the past 25 or 30 years. Many members of the RUC have lost their lives doing their duty of protecting the whole of the people of Northern Ireland. We owe them a great debt.
I appreciate the difficulties about early release of prisoners. The Secretary of State is fully aware of the difficulties there will be in moving forward in such a way that ensures that victims retain a sense that justice has been done.
I take particularly to heart the comment made by the noble Lord that we must see what pressure we can exert to identify the burial places of people who have been murdered by terrorists, the locations of which are not known. These should be located in order to give the relatives some sense of ease—which is all one can give them, other than a sense that there may be a long-term peace for Northern Ireland.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, decommissioning is a vital issue and I would ask the Minister for certain clarifications.
The agreement says that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the governments have been developing schemes which can represent a workable basis for achieving the decommissioning. It goes on:
"Both governments will take any necessary steps to facilitate the decommissioning process to include bringing the relevant schemes into force by the end of June".
It will be very difficult for people to vote in full knowledge of what is to happen if they do not know, at least in rough outline, the content of those schemes. It may be published somewhere, but I do not remember having seen a clear statement of what the intention is in terms of the actual working of the decommissioning process.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, we had a debate on an order here some while ago which put in place a scheme for decommissioning. In order to facilitate the process of the handing-in of arms—weapons, guns, bombs—those handing them in will have to be exempt from criminal charges, otherwise they will not hand them in. That is difficult. At the same time, where arms are not being handed in, the Army and the RUC will be busy hunting down all people who have illegal weapons. We have in place a scheme for the decommissioning body to receive weapons, either by arms being handed over directly or by tip-offs as to where they are located.
944
It is important that weapons should not be used. At the moment the real test of these initiatives is that there will be proper peace and that none of the paramilitary bodies, who in the past or at present have an association with any of the parties taking part in the talks, will ever use their weapons again.
Then we have to see how quickly we can achieve decommissioning. The Government want to see decommissioning as soon as possible and we are putting in place all the necessary legislative measures as a matter of urgency. We welcome the fact that all the participants have made a commitment to use their influence to achieve decommissioning within two years. We expect all of the parties that have arms to honour the commitment they have made and to ensure that decommissioning takes place.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the ordinary public in Northern Ireland know how it is going to operate?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there has been a lot of publicity in Northern Ireland about all this. I take the point of the noble Baroness. I will consider with my ministerial colleagues whether there are ways in which we can publicise these arrangements more fully than they have been.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking all those who have participated over a vast number of years in trying to cope with the terrible problem of Northern Ireland and peace in Ireland. I thank all those who have been engaged in seeking to find an agreement over the past few nights and weeks.
The decommissioning of arms is one of the most important aspects of the way forward for the agreement. A commission has been established and from time to time it will be dealing with the decommissioning of arms. Are any arrangements yet agreed for the frequency of reporting of the surrender of arms? In order to gain the confidence of the people it is important that they should realise that this is an on-going situation. It is no use waiting for two years for them to find out. If some surrender of arms were to be announced next week, that would be a great way forward for peace.
Will the commission be making statements to Parliament through the Minister for Northern Ireland or will the commission report frequently to press conferences? It is important that Parliament is aware of this, but it is more important that the people of Northern Ireland, Ireland as a whole and the whole of the British Isles, know about the frequency, amount and from where arms are surrendered. If that were announced they would feel that something was being achieved.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support for the agreement. As to his specific question, he is absolutely right that confidence will be significantly enhanced in Northern Ireland when we are able to give positive news about successful decommissioning taking place. I assure the noble Lord that we will ensure that any such good news on

945
decommissioning will be communicated to the people of Northern Ireland as soon as it happens. I hope that we will be able to do that before too long.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I join in the warm welcome and cautious optimism. Will the Minister agree that two changes in mainland Britain have contributed to this agreement? One has been a fundamental change in the attitude taken on this side of the water to Roman Catholics. We understand now that we are a country which was divided by the Reformation and that we have a Catholic heritage as well as a Protestant one. We can take pride in both. Allegiance to the Union Jack is something far wider than allegiance to a Protestant cause.
The other change, as the references to the European Convention on Human Rights in the Statement have illustrated, is that we are far less enthusiastic about the sterile majoritarian view that the winner takes all. In the circumstances, is it now clear that loyalism must be loyalism to the pluralist, diverse Britain of Queen Elizabeth II and not to the mythological Protestant England presided over by King Billy?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am tempted to ask how I begin to answer that. I think that the noble Earl is taking advantage of me and the House in what might be an animate version through the paths of British history. Let me say to him that of course we are seeking in Northern Ireland to achieve the positive relationship between Catholics and Protestants and people of all other faiths, or of none, that we have had for a long time in most parts, if not all parts, of Britain. It is proper that the relationship which we have here should be extended to Northern Ireland. I hope that the agreement will play its part in helping to achieve that. I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I do not pursue the history of religion in this country over the past few hundred years.
As regards human rights matters and the intention of the Government to bring the European Convention into law here, of which the noble Lord is aware, I do not see that as a matter of majoritarianism; I see it as a matter of establishing the rights of all individuals. All individuals should have rights and the law is there to protect them whether they live in Britain or Northern Ireland.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I assure the Minister that mine will be a practical and pragmatic statement. Furthermore, I assure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that what he is talking about is, in fact, actually taking place in Northern Ireland. The news covers the extremes but there is already much integration and pluralism.
I would like to add my congratulations to those who brought forward the agreement on Good Friday, and in particular to the Secretary of State and her colleagues. Anyone who has worked in Northern Ireland will understand that many people in the Province do not believe anything that a British Government Minister says, which makes it twice as hard to bring things forward.
946
I should also like to point out—and I suspect that it will be left to me to point out—this is the first time that we have had women at the negotiating table. It is difficult to identify their contribution as such, but it must be a step forward. I should like also to praise those who had not previously taken part in negotiations. They have kept their feet on the ground, and even this Friday they had to point out that the future of the people of Northern Ireland was no laughing matter. With people like that participating, the future was bright.
In addition to the praise for the RUC, I praise the Army. Every time the going gets tough we are required to bring back military support, taking soldiers away from their families and putting them into a situation which is always fraught. Without them there would have been more deaths. I worry about the fact that, because politics was at the top of the agenda, it was said of the last death in Belfast, "Not to worry too much. It was probably non-sectarian". There is a great danger that we worry only about sectarian activities and not about living and quality of life in Northern Ireland.
I have two specific questions for the Minister. The agreement contains many cross-border bodies serviced by officials. Such bodies inevitably cost money. No one has said where the money is coming from. Can the Minister assure me that it will not come from areas of need such as health and education or from economic support? Secondly, while a visit from President Clinton may be desirable—though not everyone thinks so and certainly not before the referendum—would it not be more practical if the President turned his support to encouraging more funds from the IFI in order to bring together industrialists who would look at inward investment and support for the Springvale complex which the Secretary of State announced last week?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, may I say to the noble Baroness that I am delighted she is in excellent voice. I know that she established a very good reputation in Northern Ireland over the many years that she has served there so well and effectively. Whatever else may be said about any other British Minister, I know that the people of Northern Ireland always believed what she said to them. Certainly, that is what they are telling me now. It is a privilege for me to be able to follow in her footsteps, at least as far as her agricultural responsibilities were concerned. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for the tribute she paid to the Secretary of State and other members of the ministerial team.
I welcome her comment that it is the first time that women have played a prominent part in such negotiations in Northern Ireland during many years. That is another first, and I thank her for drawing attention to it.
I am also grateful to her for the tribute she paid to the Army. We talked about the RUC earlier. The Army has also played its part in very difficult circumstances. Young soldiers have been faced with dangers to themselves and threats to their lives. Sadly, a number of members of the Army and other British troops have lost their lives in the troubles in Northern Ireland. I take her point that if a murder is not sectarian it is still a murder. Simply to dismiss a murder by saying, "It isn't sectarian,

947
that's all right then" is not acceptable. We must have a society where murder of any kind is completely unacceptable, and murder is murder.
I take the noble Baroness's point about the support we have had from the United States for many years and from President Clinton in recent years. I do not know whether he will pay a visit and if so when, but certainly any support that the American Government are able to give us through the International Fund for Ireland, or by encouraging investment into Northern Ireland, would be most welcome. That would play a very large part in helping to reduce unemployment and to bed down the peace process more firmly.
The noble Baroness also asked about money for the cross-border activities and implementation bodies. I cannot say at this stage just where that money will come from, but as a Government, we have made a commitment that health and education are our priorities and we will not cut health and education in order to achieve that. We shall have to find the money from somewhere else, not from health and education.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to everyone who has paid tribute to the establishing of this historic agreement. Is the Minister aware that with such vast constitutional changes—for instance, a Northern Ireland assembly; a North/South ministerial council; a British/Irish council; and a British/Irish intergovernmental conference followed by reviews and commissions on the future of the RUC, of prisoners, of decommissioning, of human rights and so forth—the size of the task ahead will be enormous? We have always said that if there were to be a change it would be by the consent of the majority of the people. I am pleased that that is included in the deal. That has always been the guiding principle and, therefore, in the referendum the people of Ireland will now be determining their destiny.
The Minister is aware of the many issues that have been raised. I shall cover them briefly because I am concerned with matters that will arise for consideration before the referendum takes place. I refer to the future of the RUC; the premature release of terrorist killers; decommissioning, especially those dissident forces outside the deal; and continuity of the IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Ulster Loyalist Forces. Many assurances have to be given on these questions which are still to be answered before the referendum. I hope that the Minister and his group within the Province will be able to give all the assurances necessary in order to get this referendum through.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. I know that he speaks on the basis of long experience as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and he is well remembered there.
It is certainly the case that these are immense changes. It will be a difficult task to ensure that they are implemented and that the process continues at a good pace. I also agree with him that there are a number of difficult issues. Some of them will be the subject of
948
legislation which will be laid before this House in the near future when there will be a chance to discuss them in detail. But it is right that not only the House but also the people in Northern Ireland should be fully aware of all the details so that they can make the most informed possible decision when they come to vote in both the referendum and, it is to be hoped, in the subsequent elections.

Social Security Bill
4.40 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 7 [Constitution of appeal tribunals]:
Lord Archer of Sandwellmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 3, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be for your Lordships' convenience to discuss also Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 11.
This group of amendments relates to an issue which was the subject of much comment on Second Reading and in Committee, although in Committee some of our contributions were subject to the procedural constraint which was mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness was able to make an extremely persuasive argument and was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and to some extent myself, although perhaps having the training that I have of another place, I was more troubled about the rules of order.
I do not propose today to repeat the arguments. I appreciate the advantages of having available a range of expertise among tribunal members. But one essential expertise is an expertise specifically in conducting a judicial hearing; in identifying the issue which falls to be decided; and in marshalling the arguments which have been presented. That is an expertise which is more likely to be found among lawyers. No doubt those were very largely the considerations which motivated the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to table their Amendment No. 8 and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to table their Amendment No. 11.
Being a natural peacemaker, following our debate in Committee, I considered whether there might be a compromise solution to the problem. There is. It might be provided that although it may not necessarily be the chairman who possesses the legal qualification, at least one member of the tribunal shall have such a qualification, leaving it to the president to decide who should take the chair on any specific occasion.
I hope that normally, if the tribunal consists of more than one member, the member so qualified would be in the chair. That would not necessarily and invariably follow from the suggestion in the amendment.
Accordingly, I ventured to table Amendment No. 6 which proposes that compromise. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for discussing it with me through the medium of the international telephone system. I say at once to the noble

949
Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Higgins, that it was simply the geographical distance between us which precluded me from giving notice of what I was proposing to do.
I am sure that it would be in the interests of expedition if I were now simply to revert to silence so that your Lordships might have the reaction of my noble and learned friend and other noble Lords. Amendment No. 4 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 6 and I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, at this stage, with the permission of the House, I shall speak to the other amendments which have already been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. My noble friend Lord Higgins and I have our names to Amendments Nos. 7 and 11 which are grouped with Amendment No. 4.
The noble and learned Lord has mentioned already that the substantive difference between Amendment No. 4 and our amendment is that Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 deal with a compromise situation, as it has been described, whereby at least one member of the tribunal would be legally qualified, whereas our amendments refer to the fact that the chairman should be legally qualified.
I state immediately that I should be in favour of a legal qualification being present at the tribunal in whatever capacity it were held. Therefore, I see the reason behind the amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord. In Committee, I argued in detail the reasons why I believe that a legally qualified, as I then said, chairman (but now I would say "member") is essential to the effective operation of the appeal tribunals. I shall not abuse the Report procedure by repeating those arguments at length.
As has been mentioned earlier, we were rather pre-empted by a matter of procedure, and at that stage I confined myself very carefully to the terms of my amendment. I was rather relieved that other noble Lords were not so constrained and therefore we were able to have a full discussion on the issue of whether or not a legally qualified chairman was an advantage to a tribunal.
I have sat as a member of a tribunal for 14 years during the period in which lay chairmen were removed and the element of having legally qualified chairmen was introduced. From personal observation, I felt that that did nothing except improve the operation of tribunals.
Social security law is notoriously complex and over half of those who appear are unrepresented and therefore, by definition, are disadvantaged if there is no legally qualified person available at the tribunal to interpret the complex law which must be dealt with. Although, as I mentioned, I recognise that not all lawyers are perfect in every respect, I believe that they possess abilities which they can exercise—and I am looking very carefully at the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as I say this—which cannot be possessed by laymen and which are essential to the fair operation of a tribunal hearing.
950
I recognise also that although the Government have carried on from the previous government the very proper objective of getting decisions right first time, in practice, often when an appellant comes to a tribunal it is only to find that the papers have not been prepared properly nor the law properly interpreted. Therefore, it is an advantage if one has a legally qualified member there to assist in the unravelling of the case.
I merely endorse the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I believe that his compromise fully meets the objectives which I sought to achieve in my own amendments.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and I speak also to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell, which seeks to insist on a legally qualified chairman.
I should say at once that while I might have preferred that the requirement was for a legally qualified chairman, I find the compromise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, totally acceptable if, as I hope, it is acceptable to the Government.
As we know, the requirement for a legally qualified chairman was introduced 14 years ago in 1984 as a result of a report a few years previous to that by Professor Kathleen Bell which found that tribunals without legally qualified chairmen had low standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, confirmed from her own experience that the introduction of legally qualified chairmen improved the standards.
Tribunals need, if not a legally qualified chairman, at least a legally qualified member. One would expect that the legally qualified member would normally be the chairman because tribunals must consider evidence properly; they must identify the relevant facts; they must reach the proper conclusions on those facts; they must identify the law to be applied; and they must apply the law correctly. Those are all skills in which those who have been legally trained are likely to perform better than those who have not.
I certainly would not say that a member of a tribunal without legal qualifications will always get it wrong or that a member with legal qualifications will always get it right. But I believe that it is significantly more likely that a legally qualified member will get it right.
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, said that he would reflect on the argument that the chairman should be legally qualified. He has had time for reflection, and I trust that that reflection will have borne fruit in his willingness—as I hope it will prove to be—to accept the compromise put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. I simply endorse and repeat the comments of the presidents of the Independent Tribunal Service, quoted previously in our debate of 30th March:
"We are not therefore comfortable with the proposition that a single decision maker conducting an oral hearing alone should not he a lawyer or he legally trained. The demands of conducting and recording the proceedings and decisions of a tribunal in such a sensitive jurisdiction are such that it is argued that it may simply be too great a demand to place on such a person. Further, where the

951
tribunal is made up of more than one person, the chairman will invariably require legal training because of the additional procedural skills involved".—[Official Report, 30/3/98; col. 124.]
As I said, I endorse those comments. Similar views have been expressed by the NACAB, the Legal Action Group, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Law Society.
Finally, I should like to read out one comment from the Legal Action Group, which is a pressure group concerned with the improvement of access to justice:
"The need for tribunal chairs to be legally qualified has become more, rather than less, pressing, because of both the complexity of the law and the procedural skills involved, including conducting proceedings and recording the decision. The chair has a pivotal role not only in ensuring that the law has been correctly applied, but also in substituting for legal representation. Appellants in social security cases are frequently unrepresented, and are often hopelessly at sea when a legal problem arises. People will frequently be vulnerable, socially excluded, and economically disadvantaged. For some, English will not be a first language, and many will have poor literacy skills, ill health and, increasingly, mental health problems. Many will be unable to understand the law, or to argue their case by reference to the legal rules. Part of the inquisitorial role of tribunals is to ascertain the matters in issue, elicit evidence and reach a view on the facts, as well as to identify and consider any issue of law pertinent to the case".
That is in the context of the assumption that the legally-qualified member would be the chairman. However, it puts the point very strongly and clearly. Therefore, I shall be happy to support the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he could explain to someone who is completely ignorant of all legal matters what is so magic about the five-year period mentioned twice in his amendment? I should point out that the amendment of my noble and learned friend does not mention that period at all so, presumably, the noble Lord has a special reason for specifying it. Can he tell the House what that reason might be?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the five-year period is one which appears in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 as the minimum period of service required for the holding of certain legal posts. It is not essential, but anyone with less than five years' experience would be unlikely to have the necessary experience for conducting an appeal tribunal of the kind under discussion.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I shall deal, first, with Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 11, which all deal with the now-familiar subject of the legal qualifications of tribunal chairmen or members. As has been observed, we debated the subject of legal qualifications at length in Committee. I acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed by noble Lords on that and on this occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded the House, I undertook to reflect on whether all tribunals need to have a legally-qualified chairman.
Before dealing specifically with the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, I do not wish to understate the difficulties involved in the proper recording of evidence, the identification of
952
relevant facts, the reaching of proper conclusions, the identification and application of the correct law, and so on. However, like my noble friend Lord Borrie, who intervened in Committee when we discussed this issue, I remain convinced that, with appropriate training, there are a number of appeals which could be determined by a person without formal legal qualifications.
We want new arrangements for handling appeals which are more effective and efficient. In considering further the need for a legal presence on tribunals, we have looked again at the number of appeals which could be dealt with by a single non-legally qualified panel member and the administrative arrangements for selecting those appeals. It appears that less than 5 per cent. of appeals could be dealt with in that way.
Given the small number of cases involved and the complexity of the administrative arrangements, we have concluded that there would be little benefit in introducing such an arrangement at this time. In reaching that conclusion, we have been helped by the opinions of the President of the Independent Tribunal Service, Judge Michael Harris, who recently briefed Ministers on the administration of ITS.
The same arguments about small numbers of cases and complex sifting arrangements also apply to two and three-member tribunals. In view of this, and in view of the concerns that have been expressed about this issue in your Lordships' previous debates and today, the Government have concluded that, for the time being at least, there is a case for the retention of lawyers on all tribunals.
We may wish to revisit the issue in the wake of welfare reform. In saying that, it will be apparent to your Lordships that we will not readdress the issue in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. We therefore support the amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer—namely, Amendments Nos. 4 and 6. In view of the statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that they will accept the compromise proposed by my noble and learned friend, I believe it is unnecessary for me to explain why we will not accept the other amendments in the grouping. In the interests of economy of time, I shall simply say that that is our position. I invite the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to withdraw their amendments on the basis of my outline of the Government's position.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Indeed, I am especially grateful to my noble and learned friend for his open ear. I accept that the Government cannot pledge their good behaviour in perpetuity, but my noble and learned friend could not have said fairer than that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 3, leave Out ("one, two or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the question of whether tribunals should necessarily, as at present, contain three members. Before I launch on the subject, I noted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said in his last response that this was one of the matters that the Government had considered. The noble and learned Lord referred to the problems of "sifting", and so on. Therefore, I am not entirely sure whether the Government propose to retain three-member tribunals or to maintain their present position in the Bill; namely, that it should also be open to have one, two or three-member tribunals. The noble and learned Lord indicates that that is so. In that case, I shall proceed with my amendment. I was, perhaps, hoping for too much in that respect.
We believe that a three-member tribunal is an important safeguard. That is particularly so when one is handling large numbers of appeals very quickly. It may seem odd at first sight to insist on a three-member tribunal when an appeal from the tribunal lies to a social security commissioner sitting alone. But a case goes to a social security commissioner only when it raises some point of importance or uncertainty and is, therefore, certain to be looked at very carefully by the commissioner.
Cases going to the ordinary second-tier appeal tribunal may often be simple and straightforward and the facts in law may be entirely clear. However, one member going through a string of apparently simple and straightforward cases (and those are the cases that will be assigned to a one member tribunal) may well tend—and this is something that I feel I might do myself in that position—to lose concentration, especially where these are being dealt with as paper hearings. The member of the tribunal will miss the case that has hidden in it a real issue that needs to be looked at but is not necessarily all that clear on the surface. This is much less likely to happen if three people are considering the case. I do not believe that great savings would be gained from having one or two-member tribunals. I believe there would be a real loss of effective justice if the three member tribunal was not a requirement of the law, as it is now. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have added my name. Originally I had tabled exactly the same amendment in my name and therefore when I saw this amendment I simply added my name to it to save time. I, too, was somewhat encouraged for a few moments by the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate with regard to the complexity of the Government's proposals. They have had to introduce that complexity in order to sift cases to render them capable of being dealt with by one and two-person tribunals. The noble and learned Lord also referred to small numbers of cases. It is not acceptable for this House to introduce further complexity in tribunal structures for a small number of cases. Three-person tribunals constitute a much fairer way of hearing cases. Appellants would not know whether one, two or three
954
persons would hear their case. I believe that an appellant whose case is heard by a three-person tribunal is in a much better position.
I believe that the current system works well. The so-called flexible model which the Government have described will alter the balance of fairness as between appellants whose cases are heard by three-person tribunals and those whose cases are heard by just one person. The balance of fairness will also be altered as between appellants and the Secretary of State. If we accept the proposals in the Bill that the number of persons on a tribunal could vary between three and one according to the substance of the appeal, we must accept that an administrator would have to identify in advance the precise issues which the appeal raises and therefore which experts will be needed. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned that. Decisions would already be made in advance of the appeal being heard. Judgments would be made as to whether it was a complex, simple or meritless case and whether any particular expertise would be needed on the part of the tribunal members.
However, I have a far more prosaic argument as someone who has sat on these tribunals week in and week out over many years and has seen the grinding work that is carried out and the difficulties that are faced by the independent tribunal service in summoning tribunal members on a regular basis. My argument is a straightforward and practical one. I believe that if an administration has the chance of summoning three, two or one members, it will inexorably work towards the easiest solution; namely, to summon just one member. At present if three members are summoned and one is sick or unable to attend for business reasons, it is open to the appellant whether he wishes the case to proceed with just two members being present.
The Bill already addresses problems such as the possibility that two members of a tribunal may disagree and how one deals with that disagreement; namely, rather than adjourning, the matter would be decided on the spot. I believe that the difficulties that have been faced on occasion by the tribunal service in summoning members for three-person tribunals would be obviated in future by simply failing to seek three members when it had determined that three members was the appropriate number of people to hear a case. It would be so easy to slip into the administrative convenience of summoning only one or two. I believe that would undermine the fairness of the system.
Decisions about the merits and the complexity of a case would have to be made before a hearing took place. I believe that could tend to favour the Secretary of State. On many occasions I have heard appeals covering perhaps eight or 10 cases in a day. I have looked at the papers of a case in advance and thought that the result was a foregone conclusion. It seemed to be the open and shut case which those who had drawn up the papers had obviously believed was the case. However, as the hearing progressed a different story emerged and it was vital that three people were present with varying expertise in order to tease out information and properly to evaluate the evidence. There may be facts which simply have not been recorded or have not been discovered or there may be a basic misunderstanding of

955
the legal significance of information which should have been supplied. I believe that without the retention of the three-member tribunal system there is a real danger that the fairness of the operation of the system for the appellant will be severely compromised. On that basis I support the amendment.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the model of the three-member tribunal is now something of a tradition as it dates from the time of Lloyd George and the insurance legislation of 1911. Because of its success in the inter-war years it was retained by the Attlee government of 1945. That success has been undoubted. I refer to the "plus" points that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, have commented upon. The appearance of fairness and the different experiences of the members of the three-person tribunals are perceived to be most helpful and are almost certainly objectively extremely helpful. It is a model that is worth following and bearing in mind.
Nowadays we all think of the tribunal system as being part of our general judicial system. Even though that tribunal system has lasted for so long in relation to social security matters and has been copied elsewhere in fields as varied as industrial tribunals and employment appeals tribunals and the restrictive practices court, it is by no means the only or indeed the principal way in which matters are determined judicially in this country. Far more typical is the decision made by one person—sometimes of course with a jury which has a different role from those who sit on a tribunal. Certainly the tradition in the High Court and in the circuit courts of this country of the individual High Court judge or the circuit judge reaching a decision—I hope and believe—is perceived to be fair. However, that is, of course, subject to appeal. That is thought to be perfectly fair and reasonable.
I accept that the model of three-member tribunals is a good one. One would not wish to depart from it for any frivolous reason. The Government appear to want to depart from it because it is an expensive system and one that involves a great deal of personnel and administration. Some cases that must be dealt with at present by a three-person tribunal could be dealt with by one or two persons. They need not necessarily be qualified in relation to certain medical problems; a medical practitioner may determine such questions. However, it seems to me that there is a gap in the arguments of those who support this amendment saying, "This is the norm; this is the model; and this must always be the case". There is a difference between saying, "This is the norm", and, "This is one about which we should have no flexibility", with no possibility for the administration to say when it has studied the case with all due care that it can be dealt with properly by one member or two members. There must be sufficient reassurances—I thought that we were given them by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate on the previous occasion—that if there is any doubt whether there should be one or two members there should be two members. If there is any doubt whether there should be two or three members, there should be three members.
956
I read into the speech of the Lord Advocate the proposition that if for some reason the papers have been misread or not adequately understood, or the case turned out to be more difficult than had been originally perceived, one would say, "Halt, we had better convene a full three-member tribunal". The amendment allows no flexibility; and that is its weakness.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie that whether one requires a three-member tribunal depends largely upon the issue which the tribunal has to address. We are dealing here with social security tribunals. The issues they have to address are very much of their own nature. Even in social security tribunals, some decisions can be, and sometimes are, decided appropriately by a chairman alone; for example, in interlocutory matters which arise in the course of the proceedings.
However, I should have thought that normally there are two great advantages in having a three-member tribunal. The first is the opportunity to discuss the matter. It is not an arithmetical question which falls to be decided. It is not a question of whether someone did or did not do something, but of the needs of a particular individual. There is a great deal to be said there for an opportunity for discussion. I have seen the chemistry which arises when a member of the tribunal who was perfectly clear about the issues comes to a different point of view after discussions with colleagues.
The second great advantage is how the tribunal appears to those who come before it. It makes for greater confidence to see someone on the tribunal who has shared your own problem, who has had the same kind of experience. It is the Government's own case that there is something to be said for the application of more than one expertise in the resolution of the issues we are deciding. For that reason, I follow my noble friend, too, when he says that in the majority of cases there is probably an advantage in having three members but that it does not follow that one has to have three members on every single occasion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked who is to decide on any specific occasion what expertise the tribunal will have, and how many members. I believe that my noble and learned friend gave us some assurance at Committee stage. If I may say so, the assurance that he gave at one stage was not wholly in accordance with the letter from my noble friend Lady Hollis at an earlier stage. I think that there is time for that to be resolved. We may receive some assistance when the Minister moves Amendment No. 9. The issue which among others has to be decided is whether there will be regulations which tell us which categories of case can be addressed by fewer than three members, and which categories ought always to have three members. In advance of our debate on Amendment No. 9, perhaps my noble and learned friend can offer us some reassurance on that matter too. I believe that there is a real problem to be addressed here and I am sure that he will address it.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Government's position on this issue, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie,

957
depends on a great deal of confidence in the ability to conduct the sift accurately and reliably, and to identify in advance from the papers which types of case will need which kinds of panel. My noble friend Lord Goodhart dwelt on the difficulties of the case in which there is a hidden and unforeseen issue. The Minister appeared unpersuaded. But I, too, have some little experience. It is known, I think, to some of your Lordships that five years ago in the medium of my own college I became involved in a case to which a great deal of publicity was subsequently attached. In my view, the principal error in that case, from which most of the subsequent confusion arose, was forming a clear opinion from the papers before hearing the parties. Therefore, in supporting the amendments, I, too, know just a little about that of which I speak.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may deal briefly with the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about his experience almost five years ago. I think that noble Lords are well aware of the noble Earl's involvement in that case and the support he gave to the individual concerned. However, my recollection is that that was a criminal case. The noble Earl's comments about sifting might not be apt in the context of criminal procedures when discussing social security provisions.
I have listened carefully to the comments made by noble Lords opposite and by my noble friend and my noble and learned friend. I also share their concern that appellants must receive a fair hearing, but, like my noble friend Lord Borrie, I do not think that this can be achieved by having only a statutory provision for three-person tribunals in every case. That is the system we currently have within the ITS. Although a huge variety of issues come before the tribunals, it does not appear appropriate to us that identical provision should be made for every appeal. Even the most straightforward appeals have to wait in line to be heard by a three-person tribunal when they could be heard equally effectively by a single or two-person tribunal.
I shall deal later with the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer about the regulations and who determines what cases will be decided by one, two or three-member tribunals. I simply remind noble Lords of the statements that I made in Committee, to which my noble friend Lord Borne alluded today. I hope that those statements will give some comfort to noble Lords about the proposals we have in mind.
Under the present system, where an appeal hearing is finally arranged it is not unusual for it to be adjourned, at great inconvenience to everyone, because one of the members cannot attend. It is little wonder that appeals currently take on average more than six months to resolve and some take a year or more. I mentioned those statistics in Committee and I make no apology for reminding noble Lords of them. I think that such a delay is quite unacceptable when one is deciding the entitlement or otherwise of a claimant to benefit.
It has been suggested today, and it was suggested previously, that the Government are introducing the changes to the appeals system just to save money. It is true that there may be some small saving in abolishing
958
the statutory requirement for a three-person tribunal in all cases. However, the primary aim is not to save money. Indeed, there may be some increased costs in setting up the new service; for example, in the recruitment of panel members and in their training. We want to improve the service to claimants by introducing a streamlined, simple and efficient appeals process. The scope for improving the existing system is limited by the rigid framework of current legislation. The five appeal tribunals have different constitutions, different powers and different rules. All appeals have to be heard by three persons. That limits the scope for directing the appropriate expertise to different cases and makes hearings difficult to arrange.
We believe that greater flexibility in the composition of the tribunals will improve the service for all appellants. I have already reminded noble Lords of my remarks on unacceptable delays and have referred to the times involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said in Committee—he is not presently in his place—justice delayed is justice denied. Such delays cannot be tolerated. The flexibility that we are introducing will assist in improving the service to claimants and in reducing delays by using one and two person tribunals for appropriate cases; three person tribunals will have more time to deal more expeditiously with cases which are waiting to be heard.
However, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the greater flexibility does not mean a gradual move towards single person tribunals as the norm. Indeed, the majority of appeals will continue to need two or three person tribunals because of the nature of the issues raised. Very many appeals—for example, those relating to incapacity benefit—will require medical and legal expertise. Those relating to the mobility and care components of disability living allowance will need the expertise of a tribunal member with knowledge or experience of the needs of disabled persons.
But there are some cases which do not require the expertise of two or three tribunal members—for example, an appeal which is solely about whether a claimant satisfies the residence and presence requirements for a particular benefit could be heard by a legally qualified panel member sitting alone. In the light of amendments that have been accepted, it will be appreciated that one person tribunals will be comprised of a legally qualified person.
As I explained in Committee, we have amended Clause 78 to make regulations under Clause 7 subject to the affirmative procedure. That deals with the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. That will give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise our proposals on which type of appeal will go to different types of tribunal—the regulations will specify that—and to satisfy itself that all appeals will be dealt with by people with appropriate expertise.
To deal with the prosaic argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, these regulations would prevent the administrative drift that she fears. If the regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure, specify what type of cases will go to which category of tribunal, it will not

959
be open to administrators to decide that a case allocated for three people will be heard by two. That will not be an option.
I assure noble Lords that the Government will ensure that the high standards of tribunal decisions are maintained. No panel member will sit on a tribunal without proper training in the relevant legislation, in the powers and procedures of tribunals and in the conduct of hearings. The president will approve individual panel members for their expertise and suitability to sit on tribunals hearing particular types of appeal. He will also be responsible for arranging the training of panel members, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the chief medical officers, as appropriate.
As I said, I propose to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 69 standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis. I understand that the new president of the Independent Tribunal Service, his honour Judge Harris, has recently written to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the difficulties he is experiencing with social security appeal tribunals. He has expressed serious concerns about his ability to continue to operate these tribunals with a chairman and two wing members. He fears that, unless some action is taken now, the delays will increase and the number of outstanding appeals will rise even further in the interim period before the establishment of the new appeals service. The only consequence of that will be a further delay to claimants in the determination of their cases.
The president has asked the Government to take action to allow the Independent Tribunal Service a more flexible regime for the composition of social security appeal tribunals during the transitional period. The Government have therefore responded to Judge Harris's concerns by tabling an amendment to Schedule 6 which will enable the flexible tribunal composition to be introduced as soon as possible after Royal Assent for social security appeal tribunals. Amendment No. 69 will allow social security appeal tribunals to comprise either a chairman sitting alone or a chairman sitting with one or two wing members. That will provide the Independent Tribunal Service with the required scope to continue to hear social security appeals with fewer people available. It would also allow some early testing of the practicalities of the move to flexible tribunal composition.
I invite noble Lords to give effect to the wishes of Judge Harris. He is surely in the best position to judge what is required for the efficient operation of the service of which he is—
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I believe that on Report I am allowed to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord. He referred to the letter that was sent to my noble friend. Does he agree that the reason advanced by the judge in that letter for the fact that it is difficult to empanel sufficient people at present is simply that the bringing forward of this Bill, with the provision introduced by the Government to change the system of empanelment has reduced the morale of those who have been sitting as lay members of tribunals.
960
As I recall from a brief reading of the letter, the judge refers to people leaving the system "in droves". I believe those are his words. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will confirm my understanding of the letter; namely, that the judge is not saying that he endorses fully what the Government seek to do within the Bill and recommends the adoption of its provisions, but that, given the difficulties that he faces because of reduced morale among lay members who are now leaving the service, he finds it difficult to operate under the present conditions and therefore, since he has to operate on the basis of a belief that the Government's will may prevail and the provision may go through, he seeks in the best possible way to continue good administration and to expedite the introduction of the three-two-one system. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to clear up that point.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. It is stated in the letter that that is part of the reason for his concerns; namely, members are leaving because of the changes that are about to occur. However, at paragraph 6 of the letter, the judge also states:
"it is important that we have the opportunity of testing any proposed change before fully committing ourselves to it. I happen to believe that some reduction in the lay element for some types of appeal would not jeopardise our ability to reach fair decisions. It would also reduce our training burden, ease the work of the administration in arranging the attendance of members, and, in some cases, improve our ability to get through the workload quicker. This last point is particularly important in the context of reducing the time which it now takes to get an appeal heard".
So that is obviously a factor which the judge has in mind. It is clear that in the paragraph referred to he supports the flexibility offered by this system. I accordingly invite noble Lords to support government Amendment No. 69. In the light of my remarks and particularly in view of the statements that I made in Committee which I do not think it necessary to repeat but which I confirm we are not departing from—statements about erring on the side of caution, to which my noble friend Lord Borrie referred—if there is doubt, the matter will go to a two member tribunal; if there is doubt as to whether it should be a two or three member tribunal, it will go to a three member tribunal. There will be affirmative regulations, subject to the scrutiny of this House, setting out the type of cases which will go to single member, two member or three member tribunals. In those circumstances I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I recognise it as a step forward that regulations will be made under Clause 7 to identify the way in which different appeals will be allocated to different tribunals and tribunals with different numbers of members. I also welcome the fact that this will be dealt with by the affirmative resolution procedure. I regret that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did not go further and accept the desirability of preserving the present structure of tribunals, for the reasons put forward from this side of the House. However, I believe that at least some of the

961
sting of the amendment has been drawn by the Government's acceptance of the necessity of having a legally qualified member of a tribunal. That means, of course, that, if it is a one-member tribunal, that member will have to be legally qualified. Of the two issues—whether there should be a legally qualified member or whether there should be a three-person tribunal—I believe that having a legally qualified member is the more important. In those circumstances, it might be regarded as churlish to take this matter further. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Archer of Sandwellmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
("(1A) The member, or (as the case may be) at least one member, of an appeal tribunal must—

(a) have a general qualification (construed in accordance with section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); or

(b) be an advocate or solicitor in Scotland.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that during Committee I promised to consider issues raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer about the regulation-making power in Clause 7(3) and about the way expert assistance will be given to tribunals. Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 26, if I may speak to them together, will, I believe, fully meet those concerns.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 make it clear that regulations shall be made, to provide for the composition of appeal tribunals; the procedure to be followed for allocating cases among differently constituted tribunals; and the manner in which expert assistance is to be given to the tribunal. It has always been the Government's intention to make regulations to provide for those matters. These amendments put that intention beyond doubt, on the face of the Bill. I should like to remind the House that the regulations made under Clause 7(3) will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as I said in speaking to Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 26 is a tidying amendment which moves the regulation-making power in respect of the procedure which takes place on an appeal or an application before an appeal tribunal to Schedule 5 to the Bill. Schedule 5 deals with regulations as to procedure, and the power would fit more appropriately there.
I trust that these amendments address the concerns raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and other noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Once again he has demonstrated the listening ear. It is a pleasure to
962
hear some of the speeches that we have heard from the Front Bench today. May there be many more such speeches in the years to come.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: But not for too many years to come, my Lords! But this is not a day for being churlish, as other noble Lords have said. I welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward these amendments in reaction to some of the comments made by noble Lords at Committee stage.
At this point I simply refer to the fact that Amendment No. 10 says:
"Regulations shall make provision with respect to—

(a) the composition of appeals tribunals;

(b) the procedure to he followed in allocating cases among differently constituted tribunals".

We come back to the point I made earlier: I still find difficulty in understanding at this stage how regulations will make the direction about allocation clearly and effectively enough for that allocation to be made fairly. If it is simply the case that regulations are to say that, if the appeal to be heard concerns DLA, a member shall have experience of working in the medical field or have themselves been disabled, that gives a qualification in that way. If the regulations merely say that, if the appeal is on a matter of income support, there will be no such restrictions on membership, or if they say that, if the appeal is contested there shall be three members and if it is not contested there shall be only one, or if they say that where an appeal seems to be unmeritorious there shall be only one member, there will he all kinds of difficulties. There may be cases which are unmeritorious in the eyes of the sifting organisation which later become meritorious. We then get back to the position, which the noble and learned Lord himself earlier recognised, where adjournment after adjournment has to take place, with all the attendant frustrations and difficulties for everyone, particularly for the appellant. In addition, appeals on DLA can be very different in character, not only with regard to the law which is to be discussed but also with regard to the way in which the evidence is to be tested.
Although I genuinely accept that these are welcome amendments, I remain to be convinced that the problems which we discussed at Committee and again on Report can be resolved simply by saying that regulations will wave the magic wand, particularly when none of us has yet been able to see those regulations. I would not expect the Government to be able to give details of them at this stage. They have been very prompt in replying to comments made by noble Lords.
All of us, including those far more experienced than I in these matters, recognise that one can make mistakes. With regard to the previous group of amendments, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to the letter sent to a few noble Lords—not to myself—by the new President of the Independent Tribunal Service. I am aware that most noble Lords will not have had the advantage of reading that letter. I therefore feel constrained in quoting from it but, since it has been referred to, I shall do so. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to paragraph 6 and adduced

963
it as evidence that the new president, appointed in January, supports what the Government are doing. However, the president, the highly qualified judge, concludes paragraph 6 by saying that he may be wrong in saying that the flexible approach is the right way of going about the matter:
"But I may be wrong, and I want to be in a position to report to the Government on this issue before a new arrangement is fully implemented".
I can only congratulate him on his perspicacity. I hope that, by accepting the amendments that the Government have put forward, we shall not leave ourselves in the position of having regulations which do not answer the queries we have put forward. Other people may be wrong, not just ourselves.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I welcome the amendments. I hope that it will be possible to give an equally warm welcome to the regulations when they are laid before the House.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the regulations will, of course, be framed in consultation with the President of the Independent Tribunal Service and the ad hoc group, which includes NACAB and others. It is intended that they will deal with a requirement that tribunals on incapacity-to-work cases would include a medical practitioner and that cases on disability living allowance would require a doctor and someone with experience of disability, as well as a lawyer.
Secondly, the regulations concerning the allocation of cases would ensure that similar cases were allocated consistently to similar types of tribunals. Administrators would be able to seek the advice of a legally qualified member of the panel if, exceptionally, there were any doubt about the appropriate constitution of the tribunal to consider an appeal. These matters will all be dealt with in the detail of the regulations. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and others will scrutinise them carefully when they come before this House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 23, at end insert—
("() Regulations shall make provision with respect to—

(a) the composition of appeal tribunals;

(b) the procedure to be followed in allocating cases among differently constituted tribunals; and

(c) the manner in which expert assistance is to be given under subsection (4) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Appeal tribunals: supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Anelay of St. Johnsmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 57, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("President").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. Similar amendments
964
were moved in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Today I seem continually to persist in stealing his good ideas. The effect of the amendments is to give the president of tribunals power to,
"appoint such officers and staff as he thinks fit for the President and for appeal tribunals".
I supported these amendments in Committee when they were moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, because they raise a fundamental issue which extends to all courts and tribunals; that is, what is to be the relationship between the judiciary and administrators? When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, withdrew the amendments in Committee, he said that what troubled him about the response of the Lord Advocate was that there seemed to be little indication in his reply that the Government had reflected upon this difficult question.
I brought back the amendments on Report to give the Government an opportunity to tell the House whether or not they have been able to reflect further and also whether or not the Minister has now read the report, Tribunals, their Organisation and Independence. I note that at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in his customary generous manner, offered to supply the Lord Advocate with a free copy. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I share the curiosity of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I rise only to add one factual point to what is known already to your Lordships; that is, I came prepared with a copy of the report of the Council on Tribunals, only to discover that my noble and learned friend had already procured a copy for himself.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I can confirm that I have read the report.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 seek to transfer from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the president of appeal tribunals the responsibility for appointing officers and staff for himself and for those tribunals.
It is clear from the full debate in Committee and from the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, today that the concerns centre on three issues. First, the potential for undermining the independence of the appeals system if responsibility for the administration of appeals is removed from the president; secondly, the potential for conflict between the president and the administration in terms of accountability; and, thirdly, the potential for a conflict of interest if the Secretary of State is responsible both for first-tier decisions and the administration of appeals.
I propose to address each of those issues in turn. But first I should like to reiterate a point I made in Committee. The Government's proposal to transfer the responsibility for administration from the president to the Secretary of State, and to establish an executive agency to deal solely with the administration of appeals, so that administration is separated from the judicial

965
function is not a new or strange concept within appeals systems. Rather, it is the current system of a judge as president with responsibility for administrative as well as judicial functions, which is unique to the Independent Tribunal Service.
Separation of administration and judicial functions happens in other appeal systems; for example, pensions appeal tribunals are administered by the Court Service, an executive agency; industrial tribunals and employment appeal tribunals are administered by the Employment Tribunals Service, also an executive agency. Our proposals will mirror those arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, suggested that the independence of the president and of appeal tribunals would be enhanced if the president retained his current responsibility for appointing administrative staff to support their work. In saying that, I am assuming that the noble Baroness is adopting the argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell.
We are fully committed to preserving the independence of the president, of appeal tribunals and of the decisions they make. The provisions we have made in Clauses 5 and 6 for the Lord Chancellor to appoint the president and all panel members enhances their independence. The president will be the judicial head of appeal tribunals. He will be responsible for approving panel members for their expertise and suitability to deal with particular types of appeal. He will also be responsible for arranging the training of all panel members, in consultation with the Chief Medical Officers and the Secretary of State, as appropriate. I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State will have no role in the functions of appeal tribunals or in the decisions they make.
During Committee and again today, reference was made to a report by the Council on Tribunals, Tribunals, their Organisation and Independence. I have now had the opportunity to read the report and have found that it is generally supportive of the measures we are introducing. I do not propose to go through the areas in which I found support, but if noble Lords require clarification, I can do so. There are eight in number.
On the question of accountability, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer suggested during Committee that if the senior administrator or chief executive were answerable to the president, it would be the president who could be summoned to the Public Accounts Committee. Currently, the president is responsible for the administrative as well as judicial functions and he delegates responsibility for administration to a chief executive. However, neither the president nor the chief executive is accountable to Parliament for the performance of ITS.
This lack of accountability for performance within the existing system has the effect of limiting improvements in efficiency and service to claimants. We intend to put that right by separating responsibility for administration from judicial functions, an approach endorsed by the Council on Tribunals. Importantly, the chief executive may be appointed accounting officer, directly responsible to Parliament for the public money spent on administration and the efficiency of the service provided.
966
We do not believe that the changes we are making provide the potential for a conflict of interest. The setting up of an executive agency to deal with the administration of appeals is a measure which is welcomed by the Child Poverty Action Group, among others. Agency status will enable the new appeals service to operate at arm's length from Ministers, and separate from the agencies that are involved in first-tier decision-making.
It is the Secretary of State and not the president who will be responsible for the appeals service as a whole and it is she who will be accountable to this House for the standards of administration and the public money spent. In view of her responsibility and accountability, we believe the Secretary of State should exercise the power, through the appeals agency chief executive, to appoint administrative staff to support the president and appeal tribunals.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that our proposals for the new system are already tried and tested in other systems and that the essential elements of it are supported by the Council on Tribunals' report and welfare rights organisations. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for reflecting further and for reading the report of the Council on Tribunals. Like him, I will not list specific areas in the report, in my case where they do not agree with the Government's way forward. However, I take seriously the arguments he put forward with regard to accountability issues and I shall read carefully what he said in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
ENTITLEMENT TO CERTAIN BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT CLAIM
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in such manner as is prescribed, inform with sufficient particularity a person wishing to make a claim for a relevant benefit what information and evidence is required to support the claim.
(2) Subject to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers Act, where the Secretary of State makes a decision awarding income support, or jobseeker's allowance, the claimant shall be entitled to payment from no later than the date when the claim for it was made.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we covered much of the basic arguments on this amendment in Committee. We were left with the issue behind the basic argument, which is the Department of Social Security's immense confidence in its own judgment.
The basic purpose of Amendment No. 14 is to reverse the onus-of-proof regulations introduced in October 1997. The point of those regulations was that the start of a claim could be delayed if the claimant was late in providing supporting evidence except in certain specified circumstances set out in regulation. It is easy

967
to list circumstances in which the claimants may not be to blame for not supplying supporting evidence. The department's reply to that is that it can foresee all those circumstances and specify them in regulations.
That is a remarkable piece of confidence. The Department of Social Security increasingly reminds me of an 18th century enlightened despot. It is benevolent; it means well; but it has great confidence in its ability to do well according to its own standards of judgment. It does not very often see the need for those standards of judgment to be checked against an external point of reference. For example, exemption is provided in the regulations for mental illness, but we all know that many of those suffering from mental illness have not yet had it diagnosed and may be just as much handicapped as those who have had it diagnosed. There is provision for them to get help if it is needed, but those who most need help are very often those who least know that they need it.
I have not seen any provision in the regulations specifically for illiterates, although they might be covered under the provision that help is needed. I remember discussing in this Chamber a case involving an illiterate who had been summoned to attend the courts. The person who read his letters for him happened to be away for that week so he waited until he came back to get the letter read. When his reader did come back he found that it was too late and that he had already been disentitled to benefit. That is just the kind of thing that no department foresees. We may now foresee that particular case because it has happened before, but this regulation-based method of legislation is one which leads to the endless locking of stable doors after horses have been stolen. It does not lead to the recovery of the horses.
It has been argued by the department that claimants need to be under an incentive to get their supporting evidence in on time. But that argument can apply only to those who do not genuinely need the benefit. If you do genuinely need a means-tested benefit, you are actually in need; you need the money now. This is like an argument that people will not put in their claims for winning the lottery unless they have an incentive to do it. Camelot has thought of a lot of things but I do not think that it has yet thought of that one.
The necessity is very far from instantly apparent. Indeed, there are many people, especially people who may have just suffered a traumatic event, who do not get paper in on time simply because they cannot find it. When I think of the task of finding paper in my study I can think of the possibility of taking a month to find a document I need badly, even when I know perfectly well what it is I need and I know I have to look for it. I do not by any means believe that I am unique in that.
These are a bureaucratic series of provisions capable of causing gross hardship, imposed, I have no doubt, in the fullest good will but showing a confidence in the
968
department's judgment which is the kind of confidence to which I think none of us in this world is really entitled. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, this amendment to a large extent repeats the one put down by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at the Committee stage which was not pressed. The amendment has been redrafted, but the change does not overcome the Government's fundamental objection to it. Our objection is that it is unnecessary because the group which it aims to protect is already protected by existing legislation.
Subsection (1) seeks to place new statutory obligations on the Secretary of State to inform claimants of evidence requirements in such a way as will be prescribed in regulations. I am fully aware of the importance of ensuring that claimants understand what they are expected to provide when they make a claim. That is why we introduced the evidence or onus of proof regulations, to which I shall come later. However, we believe that the best way to achieve this is through agency communications and procedures, not through regulations.
Claim forms for benefits already request the required information and we will be looking to improve these forms further. In acknowledging that we will be looking to improve the forms, the department is not complacent. It recognises that improvements can always be made to any system. Regulations could remove the flexibility to experiment and to innovate in order to continue to improve the effectiveness of our communications.
I turn now to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. The concerns of the noble Earl cover two issues relating to the date of claim; first, the relationship between the date of claim and the evidence or onus of proof requirements; and, secondly, the backdating of claims for benefit. These are separate issues. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain how the evidence regulations on backdating work to understand better why the amendment is unnecessary.
The evidence requirement regulations currently apply to income support and jobseeker's allowance. They apply only after a claim has been made. Those words are significant. Once the claimant has indicated an intention to claim, he or she has one month in which to provide the evidence and information required by the Secretary of State to satisfy evidence requirements. If this is done within that period then the date of the first contact is the date of the claim and the date from which benefit will be paid. The vast majority of people have no difficulty in complying with these regulations.
However, I acknowledge, as the noble Earl pointed out, that there will be people, often vulnerable groups, who for reasons beyond their control cannot provide the information or evidence required. These people are explicitly recognised by the exemption criteria written into the regulations. Perhaps I may pause to consider the examples used by the noble Earl. Although they are not specifically referred to in the exemption to the evidence requirements, they are the kind of cases that the department would look at sympathetically and would

969
probably exempt in any event. I am thinking of the example of the person who was illiterate and through not fault of his own was unable to understand that there was a time limit within which he had to make the application.
For people in the vulnerable categories who are covered by exemptions the date of the claim will also be the date of the first contact. In other words, under the current evidence requirements the regulations have been drafted so that no one should lose benefit. I hope your Lordships will be reassured to learn that this will not be changed under the new system.
The time limit for providing evidence to support a claim for income support or jobseeker's allowance should not be confused with the time limit for backdating a claim for benefit. The evidence regulations are concerned with events after the claim has been made. Backdating the date of claim is concerned with events before the claim is submitted. People usually claim income support or jobseeker's allowance immediately because, as the noble Earl observed, they have an immediate need for the money. However, benefit will continue to be backdated by up to three months if there are special reasons for delaying a claim. Those reasons would include illness, disability, domestic emergencies and incorrect information by the department. Another example used by the noble Earl at the Committee stage was bereavement. That would fall within the category of a domestic emergency. The department would look upon that favourably. Subsection (2) of the amendment would not improve on the provisions. For these reasons we cannot support it.
I have listened carefully to what has been said and I sympathise with the concerns expressed by the noble Earl. I fully appreciate that he and other noble Lords quite properly wish to protect vulnerable groups. I can assure the House that the Government already do so, will continue to do so and are committed to doing so. I hope that I have reassured the noble Earl that the amendment is unnecessary and I trust that he will feel able to withdraw it.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he said about the claimant who was illiterate and the reader who was away. Unfortunately, that is not what actually happened in that case: he did lose benefit. The noble and learned Lord has also illustrated the great value of the concession that he made earlier about lawyer-members of appeal panels. He has set out to discern the principle behind the regulations and attempted to apply that principle to the kind of cases that I have cited in just the sort of way for which legal skills are most valuable.
But behind that there still remains a very real area of disagreement. I did not suppose for a moment that I had overcome the Government's most fundamental objections. We have here a clash of cultures which is even more a constitutional matter than a social security matter. We are here arguing about two different methods of legislation. Legislation by detailed regulation involves confidence in the department's capacity to enumerate in advance all possible causes of hardship.
970
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is already aware of the comments on that subject in the Renton Report which I have repeated many times and will not repeat again today. We have a culture clash here to which we shall return. I hope that over the years we shall have a little more meeting along the edges of it. I do not believe that we are getting any further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Appeal to appeal tribunal]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 41, at end insert—
("() Regulations under subsection (6) above shall provide that—

(a) a person's appeal shall he determined at an oral hearing, unless he requests otherwise;

(b) the panel member who constitutes the appeal tribunal or, as the case may be, is its chairman shall order that there be an oral hearing where he believes one to be desirable in the interests of justice, irrespective of the wishes of the person bringing the appeal.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that this is an amendment of considerable importance. Since October 1996 the rule has been that appeals are dealt with on paper unless the appellant asks for an oral hearing. This amendment seeks to reverse that position and return to the situation as it was until October 1996—that is to say, the appellant will get an oral hearing unless he or she asks specifically for a paper appeal. At first sight one might think that there was some justification for the present rule, and indeed there is to some extent.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, pointed out during the debate in Committee on this amendment that 30 per cent. of appellants failed to attend the oral hearing at the time when an oral hearing was automatic unless a paper hearing was asked for. As he rightly said, that involved a waste of time and money. Again, it can be said that it is not difficult to ask for an oral hearing if that is what the appellant wants. It was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord that the Government's literature properly explains the right to an oral hearing and refers to the greater success rate that is obtained as a result of such a hearing.
That would be fine were it not for the astonishing difference in the success rates of oral and paper appeals. In 1996 the success rate was 53 per cent. where the claimant appeared in person or was represented at the tribunal hearing. Where the appellant did not appear and was not represented, the success rate was 13 per cent. As regards incapacity benefit, where a personal appearance is particularly important, there was a 57 per cent. success rate for attended appeals and a 7 per cent. success rate for non-attended appeals. It may be that people with stronger cases are more likely to request oral hearings, but that cannot remotely account for the full difference in the success rates between attended and non-attended hearings.
I suggest that there are two other reasons at least for the difference in the success rates. The most important one is that claimants are unlikely to understand the regulations or be skilled in presenting their cases on paper. They need help in explaining their case and at an

971
oral hearing that help is obtained from the tribunal. If essential facts have been omitted from a written case they may be brought out by the tribunal. In a paper appeal that cannot be done because there is nobody there to answer questions that the tribunal might wish to ask. Another reason might be a feeling by the tribunal that if the appellant does not want an oral hearing he or she cannot have a serious case to make.
It stands to reason that if claimants have to ask for an oral hearing a good many of them will not do so. Tony Lynes, who is an expert in this field, has estimated that as a result of the 1996 changes to the procedure, some 10,000 people a year lose benefits to which they are entitled. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, in the debate at Committee stage, said that the Government do not have sufficient data to draw conclusions. Mr. Lynes has written to me to confirm that success rates for attended and unattended hearings since the change in procedure have remained roughly constant, but the proportion of hearings which are attended has fallen steadily. Mr. Lynes accepts that the DSS statistics on which its conclusions are based are not as complete as they should have been. But the problem of waiting for more statistics from the DSS is that the opportunity for action will have passed. It is unlikely that any initiative to increase the percentage of oral hearings will come in future from the DSS given that there will indeed be some increase in the time and expense of appeals if that change is made.
It may be that there will be no new legislation on appeal tribunals for some years to come. Indeed, I hope that there will not be because that will prove that the new system has succeeded. So this may well be the only opportunity we have for many years to go back to the system of making oral hearings a default procedure, which is a procedure which takes effect unless the appellant asks specifically that it should not. We surely know enough already to be satisfied that the October 1996 changes have worked an injustice and I believe that that should be reversed now. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we have already discussed this matter at some length. The statistics are fairly impressive. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the chance of success on appeal is three times as great if there is an oral hearing as opposed to the matter being dealt with on paper. That being so, we would need to consider further what attitude one should take to this matter.
I have more problems with the second part of the amendment which refers to there being an oral hearing where the panel member or the chairman,
"believes one to be desirable in the interests of justice, irrespective of the wishes of the person bringing the appeal".
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just pointed out that about one-third of the people who are expected to appear at an oral hearing do not do so. As regards the second part of the amendment, I am not clear as to what happens if the chairman decides that there should be an oral hearing, but the appellant does not appear. Perhaps
972
that is a point on which the Minister can comment. We may give further consideration to the matter between now and Third Reading.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, this issue has been discussed a number of times during the passage of this Bill. I have listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as to why he believes that this amendment is necessary. I would like to explain to the House why we have taken our position. Noble Lords will recall, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, outlined, that there used to be automatic provision for an oral hearing. But as I said in Committee, officials found that about one-third of appellants failed to attend the hearing, which resulted in an inordinate waste of hearing time. That is expensive to set up and it also causes delays to others when arrangements are not used.
We were concerned about the amount of time people have to wait—it is even longer if hearings are set up to no purpose. As a result, a change was introduced under which an appellant had the right to an oral hearing, but an oral hearing was not automatically set up unless the appellant requested one.
The forms that are sent out are quite clear. The front page explains clearly that there is an advantage to the appellant in asking for an oral hearing. Indeed, there is a specific question asking, "Do you want a hearing?" and the applicant has to tick either the "yes" or the "no" box. The appellant should therefore be aware of the advantage of going to a hearing if he so chooses. The change that was introduced allowed the Independent Tribunal Service to organise hearings more quickly and effectively. We believe that it is a sensible system and we want to retain it.
We want people to get the benefits to which they are entitled, but we also believe people have a responsibility to make claims, to provide information, and to make appropriate representations to receive benefit.
This Bill does not remove the right to an oral hearing. The right remains. All appellants receive a letter asking them to confirm whether they want an oral hearing. The letter states:
"If I do not hear from you within 14 days of the date of this letter I will assume you wish the appeal to be decided on the papers".
That is to cover the situation where an appellant chooses not to return the form.
A leaflet is sent out with the letter, which explains the difference between an oral hearing and an appeal decided on the papers. It is made very clear that all the appellant has to do if he or she wants an oral hearing is to request one—by ticking the box on the enclosed form, and sending it back in a pre-paid envelope. As my noble friend Lord Borrie indicated in Committee, the leaflet attached to the appeal form clearly points out that claimants who attend the hearing of their appeals usually do better than those who do not.
We are asking people to confirm that they do want a hearing. The noble Lord's amendment would require people to say that they do not want a hearing. The risk is that people will not make a decision until the day—and then not turn up, as in the past; and, as in the past, a proportion of hearings will be convened unnecessarily.

973
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, described in Committee her experience on industrial tribunals where the situation is very similar. She highlighted that claimants who realise their appeal has no chance of success often do not turn up for their hearing as they would be wasting their time, but these people may not opt out of an oral hearing. This means that oral hearings are arranged for people who do not want one and the whole process is delayed, to the disadvantage of those people who are entitled to benefit and to have their case dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer told us that he, too, had seen tribunals where the claimants simply do not turn up, leaving the tribunal waiting for customers. It is unfortunate that resources could be wasted in that way when there are thousands of people who are waiting for their appeal to be heard. There is no question that we should return to that position. Appellants can exercise their right to an oral hearing, but they must shoulder the responsibility for the simple process of letting the appeal service know that is what they want.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, supported a similar amendment in Committee. In moving this amendment today, he suggested that following the introduction of paper hearings in 1996, the proportion of hearings attended has fallen from 62 per cent. to 44 per cent. and the success rate from 40 per cent. to just over 30 per cent. Those figures, however, relate to single year quarters. It is difficult to rely upon a single quarter as indicative of a general trend. However, I should also add that there are doubts about the validity of the published figures due to problems with the Independent Tribunal Service's computer system. A new computer system is being introduced. We are committed to undertaking an evaluation of the 1996 changes when robust data is available and will publish the results. We expect to be able to do so later this year.
I believe it is reasonable to expect people to think carefully about their appeal and to decide whether they want the oral hearing to which they have a right. If they make a positive choice, we believe they are more likely to turn up for the hearing. The fact is that all appellants have to make a decision about whether to turn up for an oral hearing. They should not leave it until the last minute.
The second part of the amendment would place on the face of the Bill a requirement for tribunals to order oral hearings irrespective of the applicant's wishes. This provision already exists under Regulation 22(1)C of the Social Security Adjudication Regulations. It is our intention to retain it, as we think it is a valuable tool for tribunal chairmen. For example, the tribunal may wish to examine the Secretary of State's representative or her expert witness. An oral hearing will be convened if the tribunal considers it necessary, but only after the claimant has been invited to attend. The claimant will also be given the reasons why it is thought that this may allow a better opportunity to examine the case. I do not, however, believe it is necessary to write this on the face of the Bill. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
974
Before sitting down, perhaps I may answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The chances of success are greater if one attends a tribunal. That is explained to all applicants in clear terms. It is explained that it is in their interests to attend. Therefore, they can make an informed choice. I appreciate that some people have less ability to take in information than others but, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, such people often receive assistance from friends who can read or they can obtain help from citizens advice bureax which would, I am sure, direct them to having a hearing. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's arguments would be very convincing were it not for the enormous disparity in the success rates between oral and paper hearings. For that reason, I believe that every effort must be made to give priority to oral hearings and to encourage people to seek such hearings. I believe that the system that has been in operation since October 1996 has been a cause of genuine injustice in probably thousands of cases. For that reason, on this occasion I feel it necessary to take the opinion of the House.
6.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Razzall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Calverley, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Sandberg, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Falkland, V.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Geraint, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Goodhart, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ludford, B.

Tope, L.

McNally, L.

Tordoff, L.

Maddock, B.

Ullswater, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Waddington, L.

Meston, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Methuen, L.

Williams of Crosby. B.

Newby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Perry of Walton, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Barnett, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

David, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blease, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Borrie, L.

Desai, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dixon, L.

Burlison, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Dubs, L.

Carter, L.

Erroll, E.

975

Evans of Parkside, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Molloy, L.

Fitt, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gilbert, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Orme, L.

Hanworth, V.

Palmer, L.

Hardie, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Puttnam, L.

Hattersley, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hayman, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Hoyle, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hughes, L.

Sefton of Garston, L

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sewel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Simon of Highbury, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Islwyn, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Varley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Whitty, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Winston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 is to retain the three-month period for appeal and give greater discretion to allow appeals out of time. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, confirmed at Committee stage, the Government intend to impose by regulations a one-month limit for appeals to appeal tribunals. It is true, as the Government have said, that most people if they intend to appeal do so within one month, but those who do not are likely to be the most vulnerable: the disabled, the mentally ill, the very old, the immigrant and the illiterate. They are the people who need help. While there are organisations which will give claimants help, they may not know where to go. They may take some time to find out where to go to get help. The organisations which provide help may take some time to organise a visit or meeting to enable claimants to find out what the situation is and to give them advice as to whether an appeal should be brought and how to bring it.
At Committee stage I read comments by the Richmond citizens advice bureau. I do not propose to repeat them at this stage. Those passages can be found at col. 416 of the Official Report of 2nd April. Those
976
comments are made by people who have great experience of the system and I believe that they make a very strong case for a longer and more flexible time in which to appeal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, said that the appeal period de facto would be two months because time would run only from the end of the one-month dispute period. I am not clear what is meant by "dispute period", but I understand from what the noble and learned Lord has said that that period arises only if some action is taken by a claimant within one month of the decision to query that decision. Effectively, we are back where we started; that is, people who do not know what to do will not initiate the dispute provision.
The problem occasioned by the reduction in time for an appeal would matter less if there were greater flexibility in allowing leave to appeal out of time. The present position is that under regulations made in February 1996 time limits can be extended only if an appeal has reasonable prospects of success and it is in the interests of justice to grant leave. The reference to "interests of justice" has been interpreted very narrowly. Under the existing practice of tribunals the power to extend the time limit is considered to apply only if there are special reasons which are wholly exceptional. In the view of the citizens advice bureau, in practice it is virtually impossible under the present system to obtain leave to appeal out of time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, said that new regulations for setting time limits would be discussed with the interested parties. However, in replying to this amendment at the Committee stage, he gave no undertaking to relax the present criteria for leave to appeal out of time. If the regulations provided that a chairman of the tribunal or another legally qualified member of the panel could give leave to appeal out of time whenever the complainant had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the time limit, that would to a very great extent draw the sting of the reduction in the standard time for making an appeal.
Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate willing to accept that the corollary of shortening the time is that the present criteria for appealing out of time should be relaxed and leave to appeal should be capable of being given whenever there is a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the time limit?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, at the Committee stage I spoke generally in favour of the amendment, partly because the Government had already indicated that most people made their application within a month. It was not logical to say that just because most people made their application within a month that should be a rule, an outside limit, and that anybody who applied outside one month would not be entitled to make a claim.
The argument goes completely the other way. If there are only a few people who apply beyond the month, why are the Government being so rigid in saying that there must be a one-month time limit? The Government must bear in mind the kind of points made by the noble

977
Lord, Lord Goodhart, both today and more extensively at the Committee stage and the quotations of the Richmond CAB and so on.
As to the point that the kind of people who are likely to apply for social security benefits need advice and do not know where to go, I suggest that they may go to the citizens' advice bureau or some other adviser. They in turn then need time to consider whether the claim is justified, and before you know where you are the four weeks are up. The Government suggest that only in a minority of cases more than a month expires before the claim is made.
In response in Committee, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate mentioned the dispute period, which would add one month. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could explain that further. As I understand it, if in the example I mentioned the CAB—which is a lot more knowledgeable than individual claimants about these things—simply put in a claim without any reasoning it would have another three or four weeks in which to substantiate the claim. The claim would then be allowable.
If that is so, the Government have modified what some thought was the rather rigid position of having only one month within which to make a claim. I am not sure that that entirely solves the problem because, as I asked a moment ago, if only a relatively few number of claimants claim outside the one month period, why do the Government stand firm on this being an outside limit with no possibility of the claim being made at a later date?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, perhaps I may first respond to the points raised in relation to Amendment No. 16 where it is proposed to change the word "may" to "shall" in Clause 12(7). I can assure the House that we will make regulations under the power in Clause 12(7) to prescribe the time and manner in which appeals may be brought. As I indicated in Committee, in this context "may" and "shall" have the same meaning. It is drafting convention that leads us to prefer "may".
The real issue is Amendment No. 17, which seeks to ensure that the time limit for appealing is not less than three months. As I stated in Committee, the Government intend to make regulations setting a time limit of one month in which an appeal can be made. We have previously stressed our view that rights go hand in hand with responsibilities. A person who is dissatisfied with the decision has the right to appeal, but the responsibility to do so within the time limit rests with the appellant. We believe that one month is a reasonable period and most appellants make their appeal within one month.
As to my noble friend Lord Borrie's point, if people know that they have a month within which to appeal they will aim to achieve that target. The one-month period must also be seen in the context of the dispute period. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The effect of the dispute period and the appeal period is that
978
effectively one has two months within which to lodge an appeal. The decision will be issued and there will be one month in which to dispute it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is this provision in the Bill or does it arise somewhere outside the Bill? I have looked for it but am unable to find anything of that kind in the Bill.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I will try to have it confirmed. My understanding is that it is in the regulations. That is just being confirmed.
There will be in the regulations a provision for a month's dispute period. Within that one-month period, if there is a dispute and if the department considers that the decision was wrong, the department will correct the decision, confirm it and intimate that to the claimant. If the department considers that the decision is correct, that again will be confirmed in writing. If the claimant is unhappy with the decision at the end of the dispute period he has a further month in which to appeal.
As to the proposal in the amendment that the chairman should have a discretion to extend the appeal period, regulations will cover the question of late appeals and make provision for them.
Returning to the question of the timescale, the effect of the dispute period is that an aggrieved claimant would have two months within which to lodge an appeal. This would have the effect of ensuring that appeals were lodged reasonably soon after the decision complained of and, it is to be hoped, tribunals would be seized of the decision sooner rather than later. The longer one allows for an appeal to be lodged the more likely it is that people will wait until the last minute before doing so. It is human nature to delay until the last minute, at least for some people.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am still trying to adjust to the rules of order in your Lordships' House. I apologise if I am not correct in intervening at this point.
I have had considerable difficulty in understanding the point which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate made earlier. I am not clear whether he was saying that the existing regulations provide for this two-month period or whether it is the intention that future regulations would cover the two-month period. I am not at all clear how this two-month period comes about.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the two-month period is a combination of two separate months. The first month is a dispute period within which a claimant may raise concerns about the decision with the department. At the end of that month a letter will be issued confirming the decision or stating the final decision. So the claimant will receive a letter indicating what the decision is. If the claimant is unhappy with it he goes back to the department. If the department accepts there is a mistake it will issue a corrected decision. If it does not accept there is a mistake it will issue a letter confirming the original decision.

979
At the end of that period of a month, the appeal period will commence. There is a period of one month after that within which one has to lodge an appeal. The regulations to which I have referred are future regulations which will be made under Clause 9 of the Bill.
The amendment which we are considering would also require the regulations to give discretion for a legally qualified chairman to accept a late appeal where he considers that the claimant has reasonable excuse for not bringing the appeal within the time limit. There are at present late appeal provisions. They were tightened in February 1996. The changes that were introduced at that time were to help chairmen decide special reasons under which late appeals could be admitted. That was necessary because over a number of years the application of special reasons had become diluted, with some chairmen granting applications where there were no special reasons, and there was no consistency across the country. I am able to say that the department is discussing with the Independent Tribunal Service and welfare rights organisations the new provisions for regulations on late appeals. They will be brought forward in conjunction with and after discussion with these parties, who obviously have an interest, both from the point of the view of the tribunal service and from the point of view of claimants.
We are anxious to ensure that we get the provision for late appeals right. As I have said, we will discuss these with interested parties, including claimant representatives, through the ad hoc group that we have set up to consider draft regulations and new procedures. In doing so, we will have regard to the sort of instances described by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, at Committee where some of the most disadvantaged people are unable to make their appeal within the time limits.
We will also give consideration to the suggestion to include a ground for unforeseen circumstances, but we see no reason why a general time limit of one month—in practice, with the dispute period, two months—which is manageable for the vast majority of appellants, should be extended. We feel that that would have the effect of delaying appeals unnecessarily.
I should like to repeat a point that I made previously concerning the requirement for legally qualified panel members to make decisions on late appeals. We consider that it is unnecessary for a legally qualified panel member to make that decision of whether to allow a late appeal in every case. Such a restriction would be an obstacle to our efforts to establish a modern, efficient service and a service which makes optimum use of legal expertise. There will certainly be occasions where decisions on straightforward cases can be taken by a clerk. They will be rare, but, for example, current regulations specify an absolute time limit of six years for making a late appeal but clerks are not allowed to dispose of those appeals. In no way could an appeal be allowed after that period. That is the sort of issue which could competently be dealt with by a clerk and does not require a legally qualified member.
980
With the explanation and assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he said, if I have him right, that "may" means the same as "shall". When he said that, was he speaking with the case of Pepper v. Hart in mind and, if so, how far does the principle extend?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I was not speaking with the case of Pepper v. Hart in mind. I think that it is a principle of draftsmanship with which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be familiar.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of the fact that discussions are continuing with voluntary organisations concerned with these matters, and in the hope that the Government will be prepared to introduce a greater degree of flexibility in regulations than exists at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Decisions against which no appeal lies]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 59, 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: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall speak to the group of amendments comprising Amendments Nos. 19, 81, 83, 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 87, 88, 78, 104, 85 and 86. They all amend provisions relating to child support appeals to ensure that parents with child support assessments can have related issues considered easily and effectively.
The procedure which a tribunal follows in dealing with a departure from a child support assessment differs in detail from other appeals because decisions are largely discretionary. Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 insert a provision maintaining the existing rules which govern how a tribunal approaches these issues.
In addition, Amendments Nos. 19, 81 and 83 clarify the appeal rights against a reduced benefit direction. These amendments ensure that claimants are able to appeal the decision to reduce benefit based on its foundation in child support legislation.
Turning to the second group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 87 and 88, these provide for appeals relating to the requirement that certain groups of non-resident father pay a contribution to child support maintenance by deduction from their benefit. These amendments correct an omission from the initial draft of the Bill.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 78 and 104. These amendments provide a delegated power which will enable us to extend the appeal rights available against

981
child support decisions. They allow us to specify additional appeal rights as child support policy and operations develop.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 correct a minor drafting error in the provisions of the new Schedule 4C introduced into the 1991 Child Support Act.
I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Redetermination etc. of appeals by tribunal]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, One 10, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 14(10) provides that no appeal shall lie from a tribunal to a social security commissioner unless leave to appeal is given by the chairman of the tribunal which decided the case, if available, or of a social security commissioner. Clause 13, which is somewhat back to front—one might have thought that Clause 13 would follow rather than precede Clause 14 but that is a matter for the parliamentary draftsmen—provides that the person to whom the application for leave is made must, in certain circumstances, instead of giving leave or refusing leave, set aside the decision and refer the case back for redetermination by the tribunal. Those circumstances are two: first, that the person hearing the application for leave thinks that the decision of the tribunal was wrong in law; or secondly, that both the parties to the appeal think that the decision was wrong in law, whether or not the person to whom the application for leave is made agrees.
Originally, in Committee, I took the view that what is now Clause 13 was in fact wholly misguided. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, persuaded me that that was not so and that there are cases—for example, where it becomes obvious that a mistake in law has been made by the tribunal, perhaps because a regulation has been overlooked—in which it is appropriate, instead of referring the matter up the tree to the social security commissioner, to pass it straight back to another hearing before the tribunal. Therefore, I accept that there should be a power to order a redetermination, either by the same or another tribunal as appropriate, on an application for leave to appeal to avoid the need to go back up the tree to the commissioner and then be sent down again for redetermination of the case.
But the person to whom the application for leave to appeal is made should have a power to take the short cut of sending it back and never be under a duty to do so, because a mandatory obligation to order a redetermination produces some absurd results.
Let us take the decision of a three person tribunal: there is a split decision; the tribunal has been unable to agree. That particular appeal has raised an important point of law. The chairman believes that it is therefore suitable that that important point of law should go to the commissioner. If the chairman was in the majority, he can give leave to appeal. But if the chairman was the odd one out, then he obviously thinks that the decision of his colleagues was wrong. By definition he does so.
982
Therefore, he is bound by Clause 13(2) to refer back the case for redetermination. That is a completely ridiculous result.
Under subsection (3) as it is to be amended, the case would be referred back if both the parties believe that it was wrongly decided. But let us assume a case in which the claimant believes that the tribunal was wrong in law because it gave him too little and the Secretary of State believes that the tribunal was wrong in law because it gave too much. Therefore, the case would simply be in limbo and it could not reach the commissioner even though it was entirely suitable to do so.
This is not by any means the most important amendment to come before your Lordships' House and there is no point of principle here. But there is what seems to me to be an obvious drafting misconception which is producing potentially some very odd results. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to accept the amendments or, alternatively, to refer back Clause 13 for redetermination. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am surrounded by lawyers, but there seems to be a degree of unanimity about this. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and, subject to being persuaded the other way by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seems to have a good point.
In an earlier discussion on a previous amendment, we were told that there was no difference between "may" and "shall" in relation to drafting. Now we all seem to be agreed that we should change "shall" to "may". I am not quite clear what is the relationship between those two issues.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, in supporting Amendment No. 20, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. Our previous debates on this matter have resulted in our decision to improve the drafting of the clause through Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. In fact, when the Government amendment was tabled, it was in identical terms to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Hence, the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis has been added to that amendment. However, we can support Amendment No. 22 and it may be helpful if I explain the Government's thinking.
Where leave to appeal against a decision of a tribunal is sought, Clause 13(2) requires that, if the chairman or other person considering the application agrees that the tribunal erred in law, he will set aside the decision. The case may then be referred for re-hearing by a tribunal. The intention is to prevent cases being passed to the commissioners unnecessarily.
Where the chairman does not consider that the tribunal erred in law, he may grant leave to appeal to the commissioner. If the chairman is not available, regulations will provide for another panel member to consider the application.
Amendment No. 20 will give the chairman the power to remit a case to a tribunal or grant leave to appeal to the commissioners instead of, as currently drafted, impose a duty on them to remit the case to a tribunal

983
where they considered there had been an error in law. That introduces an element of discretion and that is the difference between "may" and "shall" on this occasion.
During debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised the question of a chairman, outvoted at the tribunal, and he raised that point today. As drafted, the subsection could require him to consider the application for the decision to be set aside. That might place him in a difficult position.
I promised to give the matter further consideration and am now pleased to support Amendment No. 20. Government Amendment No. 21 is a simple tidying amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 22. Currently, even if all the parties to an appeal agree that a tribunal decision is wrong in law, the appeal must proceed to a commissioner. Of course I agree that there may be different reasons for thinking that something is wrong in law, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has indicated. But if everyone is agreed, for different reasons, that it is wrong in law, on any view, the decision is wrong. There are very few exceptions to the rule which requires that a decision wrong in law must proceed to a commissioner.
The effect of that is that commissioners have to deal with many appeals which a tribunal could resolve more easily and quickly. Many of those appeals relate simply to procedural errors; for example, where a tribunal has failed adequately to record facts or give adequate reasons for a decision. From my experience as a chairman of a tribunal, I am aware that many of the commissioners' decisions relate to the fact that a tribunal has failed to give adequate reasons for a decision. If parties were agreed that there were not adequate reasons, it seems inappropriate to burden the commissioners with that.
Clause 13(3) requires that where the principal parties to the appeal agree that the tribunal's decision was wrong in law, the tribunal chairman must set aside the decision and refer the case to a different appeal tribunal for determination. That will have the effect to which I referred that commissioners will not be burdened except in cases which concern substantive points of law. That is a more sensible use of the expertise of commissioners.
The effect of Amendment No. 22 would be that even in cases where the appellant and the Secretary of State agree that the decision was wrong in law, chairmen could refuse to refer the case for redetermination. Such discretion is not appropriate in those cases. If the principal parties to the case agree that the decision was wrong in law, there is little value in passing on the case to the commissioner. Appellants could be denied speedy resolution of their appeals and backlogs and long delays at the commissioner stage would continue.
I hope that my explanation has clarified for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, why the Government consider Clause 13(3) as drafted offers benefits both to claimants and to the commissioners and that he will, therefore,
984
not move Amendment No. 22. As I indicated, I support Amendment No. 20 and will move Amendment No. 21 in due course.
7 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I greatly welcome the fact that the Government have accepted Amendment No. 20. As regards Amendment No. 22, I must say that I still believe that the Government are wrong. It is well known in the ordinary courts to have situations where both parties think that the judge has got part of the decision wrong and where the conclusion is one which satisfies neither party. I believe that that could well occur from time to time—although I do not suppose that it will be at all frequent—in the appeal tribunals here. However, I am quite happy to accept half a loaf rather than no bread. In the circumstances, it is not my intention to move Amendment No. 22.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 8, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert ("each of the principal parties to the case expresses the view that the decision was erroneous in point of law,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Appeal from tribunal to Commissioner]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("The Lord Chancellor may by regulations') and insert ("Regulations may").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this Amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 64, 65 and 66: The amendments are designed to ensure that the Lord Chancellor retains the necessary regulation-making powers in respect of proceedings before commissioners. Section 189(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides the Lord Chancellor with the power to make procedural regulations with respect to proceedings before commissioners. Section 189(10) goes on to state that the Lord Chancellor must consult the Lord Advocate before making regulations under the administration Act. Both subsections are repealed by the Bill.
Amendment Nos. 65 will re-enact the provisions to ensure that, as now, only the Lord Chancellor will be able to make regulations in respect of proceedings before commissioners. The regulations in respect of proceedings may relate to the determination of any matter by commissioners, or leave to appeal to, or from, the commissioners. Where the Lord Chancellor proposes to make such regulations he shall consult the Lord Advocate. In the light of that amendment, references to the Lord Chancellor's regulation-making powers in Clauses 14 and 15 are no longer necessary. As a result, Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 64 remove references to the Lord Chancellor in Clauses 14(11), 15(6) and consequently Clause 77(1).
Amendment No. 66 simply clarifies that the definition of a commissioner in Clause 77 has the same meaning as in Chapter 11 of Part I of the

985
Bill, as a reference to "Commissioners" is made in Amendment No. 65. The amendments clarify the Lord Chancellor's regulation-making powers in respect of proceedings before commissioners. I trust that your Lordships will agree to them. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I simply rise to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, far be it from me to object to anything which I suppose strikes out reference to the Lord Chancellor in such matters. However, be that as it may, reference is made in Amendment No. 65 to consultation with the Lord Advocate. In Committee, I recall that we removed Clause 7 with regard to the Lord Advocate's powers. As noble Lords will recall, that was as a direct result of the procedure that will be required upon the introduction of devolution.
The question that I have for the noble and learned Lord is: does he foresee that there will be any further amendments put forward on Third Reading with regard to the Lord Advocate's powers, or absence of them? It appears that we are having a considerable number of government amendments placed before us in an attempt to improve the Bill—amendments which are of their own, shall we say, promulgation or gestation, rather than being prompted by either of the Opposition parties. Since the Bill started its passage through another place last July, there have been several months in which to consider the administrative side of such matters. I am somewhat concerned that there appears to be quite a large number of amendments that might, perhaps, have been thought through earlier. Therefore, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether there will be other consequential amendments on Third Reading with regard to devolution matters.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, this is not a matter which is consequential upon devolution. I certainly do not anticipate any further alteration in the powers of the Lord Advocate during the course of the proceedings on this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie: moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, leave out lines 5 to 7.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Appeal from Commissioner on point of law]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 11, line 5, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Regulations as to procedure: provision which may be made]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 64, line 9, at end insert—
(" . Provision with respect to the procedure to be followed on appeals to and in other proceedings before appeal tribunals.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
986
Clause 17 [Finality of decisions]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 27, leave out from ("to") to end of line 28 and insert ("such a decision, or on which such a decision is based, shall be conclusive for the purposes of—

(a) further such decisions;

(b) decisions made under the Child Support Act; and

(c) decisions made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 74 and 77. In Committee we had the opportunity to debate the provisions in the Bill which make decisions final, and which allow for regulations to be made for findings of fact contributing to such decisions to be made conclusive for the purposes of further decisions. I explained that the purpose of these provisions was to allow, by regulations, for findings contributing to decisions to be made once only. Findings or determinations made in relation to one benefit or business area could be made to apply across the whole system, without the need for the matter to be re-investigated. I subsequently wrote to noble Lords giving a fuller explanation of the policy underlying the provisions with more details of how we expect them to work in practice. In fact, the letter emanated from the department in my name because I was absent at the time in question.
These technical amendments ensure that subsection (2) of each of the finality provisions for benefits, child support and vaccine damage payments, mesh together properly. They do not change the policy as set out in earlier debates and subsequent correspondence.
As currently drafted, the Bill may only allow regulations to provide for findings contributing to decisions on benefits, child support and vaccine damage payments to be conclusive for the purpose of further decisions in those particular benefits or business areas. Our intention is that we should be able to make findings contributing to any decision covered by the Bill conclusive for the purpose of any other decision covered by the Bill. The amendments achieve this by ensuring that each of the provisions enabling sub-issues to be conclusive cross-refers to the others.
It is our aim for the future development of the welfare system to find ways for information to be collected from claimants once only, and then used as appropriate across all areas of the department's business to reduce the burden on claimants and agencies alike. These amendments ensure that there is maximum flexibility for findings to be made conclusive in regulations across the boundaries of the Bill, the Child Support Act and the Vaccine Damage Payments Act. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, first, may I say that I was grateful to receive a letter sent on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, dated 16th April on this question of finality of decisions. It is right that we should aim at finality of decisions, but there are circumstances—I should have thought—in which further facts arise

987
which were not available at the time the decision was made. The decision might have been made differently if those facts had been available. It seems to me that there should be some provision for exception to finality when these further circumstances appear. I realise that it is not an easy matter. I realise that it is a matter that would not arise very often, but in order that justice should be done on those rare occasions I think we should have some provision which, so to speak, makes an exception to finality. I should be glad to go on talking a little while in order to enable the noble and learned Lord to receive the advice which no doubt he wishes to have, but perhaps by now he is in a position to reply.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me time to receive the necessary information. All new information will be taken into account and any decision can be reviewed at any time where there is a change of circumstance. In a situation where new facts apply the claimant ought to make that new information available to the department and the decision will be reviewed in the light of those new facts. Those new facts would then become the final facts for the purpose of benefits.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, which is obviously a satisfactory one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Matters arising as respects decisions]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Decisions involving issues that arise on appeal in other cases]:
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johnsmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 15, line 21, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. Clause 25 deals with the power to stay a decision pending another decision in a lead or test case. These amendments would restrict that power. Amendment No. 30 seeks to delete the words "it possible". If those words were deleted, Clause 25(2) would state,
"In a case relating to a relevant benefit, the Secretary of State need not make the decision while the appeal is pending if he considers that the result of the appeal will be such that, if it were already determined, there would be no entitlement to benefit".
If the Secretary of State has only to consider it possible that the test case is relevant, this gives her the licence to withhold decisions in a wide range of cases. The proposed amendment does not require the Secretary of State to be certain that the test case is relevant, but it places a greater burden of certainty on her than is the case at present.
Where a decision is withheld under Clause 25, the claimant could be left without benefit for a considerable period of time while the test case is decided. In view of
988
that, I believe that the exercise of these powers should be restricted to those cases where the Secretary of State is of a firm view that the test case is relevant.
Amendment No. 31 requires the Secretary of State to give the claimant an opportunity to make representations as to why a decision should not be withheld in his or her case. The reason for this is that there is no right of appeal against the exercise of the powers under Clause 25. Before 1996 the Secretary of State used the power to suspend benefit in similar circumstances. In theory, it should have been possible to get the Secretary of State to lift a suspension either on the grounds that the case was not a look-alike or because the claimant was experiencing hardship. In practice, however, I am told by the Child Poverty Action Group that the experience of advisers was that once a decision to suspend was made it was difficult to get it lifted. If the Secretary of State is required to consider representations before she makes a decision, I believe that she is more likely to consider them with an open mind. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a sensible amendment. It is a little milder than mine, which is to come next. It might perhaps therefore be rather more acceptable as a compromise. The trouble with the Secretary of State's power here is that she at least risks the appearance of acting as judge and party in her own cause, being herself a party to a number of the cases which are being disputed. It is a good idea that there should be some machinery which causes the Secretary of State to pause before making such a declaration. The noble Baroness may perhaps have found it. I shall listen to the Minister's response with a good deal of interest.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to alter the provisions in subsection (2) of Clause 25. Amendments Nos. 29 and 31 would make subsection (2) subject to a new subsection (2A). This would require the Secretary of State to provide a 14 day period for a claimant to make representations before exercising the provisions of subsection (2). Amendment No. 30 narrows the provision in subsection (2).
We have previously discussed the operation of Clause 25 and I shall not repeat all the arguments we rehearsed in Committee. But I should like to explain to the House why we have taken the position set out in the Bill.
In Clause 25 as drafted, if the Secretary of State considers it possible that the result of the appeal in a lead case will be such that if it were already determined there would be no entitlement to benefit in a look-alike case, she need not make a decision on that case until the appeal in the lead case has been decided. Amendment No. 30 seeks to remove the qualifying words "it possible". Presumably, the intention is to require a greater degree of certainty on the part of the Secretary of State that the case is indeed a "look-alike". But I am not convinced that removing these words will achieve this. Nor do I consider that it would be realistic to expect an absolute certainty that an appeal will be decided in a particular way.

989
If there is an appeal pending in a lead case in which the Secretary of State is an interested party, she will have either made or joined in that appeal on the basis of legal advice as to the proper interpretation of the issue of law in question. She will not have acted on a whim. She therefore considers her interpretation—that there would be no entitlement to benefit—to be correct and that it should be upheld by a court. However, as a matter of common sense, this cannot be held to be an absolute certainty.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 31 would prevent the Secretary of State from exercising her power to delay making a decision until the person concerned has had 14 days in which to make written representations about why the power should not be exercised. But as the Bill stands, this would not have any material effect. If the Secretary of State were required to make a decision immediately in a look-alike case, she would make an award and then suspend payment of benefit, until the lead case was resolved. Following determination of the appeal, she might, in some cases, then be required to revise this decision. The amendment would introduce an additional administrative step into all cases which are stayed in this way, even where there is no disagreement that an individual case is a "look-alike". Any claimant who considers his or her case is not a genuine "look-alike" will be advised to make contact with the relevant office of the Benefits Agency so that the case can be reconsidered.
I hope that with this explanation the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. I shall read carefully his words in Hansard. His closing remarks did much to reassure me with regard to Amendment No. 31 to which I have spoken. As I have remarked on previous occasions, I have no intention of clogging up the appeals process unnecessarily where that is of no material advantage to the appellant. I shall look with care at his words with regard to Amendment No. 29, and in particular Amendment No. 30. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Appeals involving issues that arise on appeal in other cases]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 32 I must inform the House that if Amendment No. 32 is accepted I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 16, line 13, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a more far-reaching amendment. It deals with provisions in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 26 which allow the Secretary of State, if she considers it possible that the result of an appeal would affect the determination of another, to require the tribunal or commissioner not to
990
determine the appeal. That is curious language. The Secretary of State is a member of the Executive and must speak in that capacity. So we have the courts required by the Executive to take a particular type of action. That is not the language that I am used to finding in Acts of Parliament. The independence of the judiciary is a vital principle. It should be preserved. It should have at least a show of being preserved. That is not available here.
These provisions have caused some dismay to Judge Bassingthwaighte, the former president of the Independent Tribunal Service. He draws attention to a ruling by deputy commissioner Edward Jacobs who says:
"The constitutional difficulty is that it is the Secretary of State who makes the decision that a case is to be so treated"—
that is treated as a test case.
"The Secretary of State is a party [or at least would be a party if an appeal were allowed to be brought] and will be the one under the adjudication procedures to be introduced under the Bill who made the decision on the claimant's benefit which the claimant might now wish to challenge. This does seem very like a case of 'nemo judex in causa sua'. [No-one should be a judge in his own cause]".
We have here a power—shall I say startlingly expressed?—to do something about which there is at least room for some doubt as to the constitutional propriety. I am not at all happy about seeing that sort of provision in an Act of Parliament.
I am not happy either about how the provision might fare under Article 6, the fair trial provision, of the European Convention on Human Rights. It might appear, to put it no higher, to be casting doubt on the independence of the judicial tribunal which is making the ruling. As the noble and learned Lord will remember, that clause provides for a fair trial by an independent judicial authority. It will be a little difficult to assert that a tribunal to which the Secretary of State may so unambiguously give directions is independent. I hope that the Government can find some other way of going about this. It is not something with which we can be content. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are grouped with the amendment. With the leave of the House I shall speak to them. On this occasion, I cannot be as extreme as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and accept the amendment he has moved. But I understand the great misgivings he expressed about the clause.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 follow closely those which I moved with regard to Clause 25. As the noble Earl explained, Clause 26 deals with appeals which may be affected by other test cases. I believe that the arguments against my amendments here are not exactly the same as the arguments against the amendments I put forward to Clause 25. I noted that, with some mental agility, the Minister in another place tried to argue that the arguments were the same.
Amendment No. 33 deletes the words "it possible" from subsection (2), thus requiring a greater degree of certainty before the relevant powers can be used. Amendment No. 34 requires the Secretary of State to give notice to a panel member of her intention to

991
exercise powers under Clause 26. That panel member is then given an opportunity to consider whether this is a case in which the exercise of those powers is appropriate. In other words, is the case under appeal in fact a look-alike case such that a decision in a lead case would affect its determination? If the panel member considers that there are grounds for believing that the lead case is not relevant to the decision on the appeal in question, he or she gives the Secretary of State notice to that effect. The Secretary of State is thus prevented from exercising her powers under Clause 26. The superior status of the appeal tribunal is thereby maintained.
If the tribunal goes on to make a decision with which the Secretary of State is unhappy, she can then appeal that decision and use her power to suspend payment of benefit under Clause 21(2)(c).
I cannot support the amendment which has been moved. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to my amendments.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 32 to 34.
Amendment No. 32 proposes to remove the Secretary of State's ability to direct how a tribunal or commissioner should handle a look-alike appeal. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would prevent the Secretary of State from exercising her power to direct the tribunal or commissioners when she had not secured the agreement of a panel member.
We had a detailed debate about Clause 26 at Committee stage of the Bill and I recognise the concerns that noble Lords voiced then and have repeated today. I should like to try to meet those concerns.
Clause 26 makes arrangements for look-alike cases which have gone to appeal. It is intended to prevent decisions being made on appeals which rest on an issue of law that is being challenged in the courts on another case. Its purpose is to reduce the burden on the appeal system which has become clogged up with look-alike cases which could be dealt with more efficiently by the department. It aims to enable tribunals and commissioners to focus their attention on other appeals and deal with them more speedily.
Under the current arrangements, there is no formal legislative provision to delay or stay appeals where the appeal concerns an issue of law which is being challenged in another case. In practice, tribunals and commissioners have often delayed listing cases of this sort. However, there is great variation in practice between different tribunals. Thousands of cases which turn on the same point of law as a lead case may be decided before the lead case is resolved. If, following the decision in the lead case, it emerges that the tribunals have made erroneous decisions in these look-alike cases, each individual case has to be appealed to the commissioners, in order to have that erroneous decision overturned. This means that the commissioners have to hear a series of straightforward appeals where the point at issue is identical—namely the point of law decided in the lead case. It also means that overpayments of benefit may have been made which are impossible to recover.
992
Under the new arrangements, the Secretary of State will identify which cases are look-alikes. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 26 allow her to require an appeal tribunal or commissioner to return these cases to her if an appeal rests entirely on the same issue of law as in the lead case. Apellants will be advised that their appeals will not proceed and that if the lead case is decided in their favour the Secretary of State will revise or supersede the decision under appeal in accordance with the decision in the lead case. Our position is that this is more sensible than requiring commissioners to handle blocks of straightforward look-alike appeals where there is no substantive point of law to consider. Each appeal is simply a matter of applying the law as it has been interpreted in the lead case.
This new provision will be better for claimants than the current arrangements and will not be a burden on the valuable resources of tribunals and commissioners. As soon as the lead case is settled, claimants can have any increased benefit due paid immediately, rather than wait for their case to be heard by a tribunal or the commissioner. Decisions on whether to stay appeals will be taken by the Secretary of State based on guidance from her legal advisers.
Perhaps I may deal with the constitutional point—if I may put it that way—raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Decisions will not be taken on a whim; they are subject to the checks and balances which are well established in administrative law. In view of the concerns expressed, we intend to consult with the president of the Independent Tribunal Service and the Chief Social Security Commissioner on the preparation of the guidance on the identification of look-alike cases.
Anyone who believes that their circumstances are materially different to the lead case should contact the appropriate office of the Benefits Agency without delay. I can assure your Lordships that any representation made by the claimant, or any evidence which is provided, will receive urgent, careful and sympathetic consideration. The claimant will receive a full explanation of the decision as to whether his or her case is a "look-alike" or not.
If a new interpretation is put on a law that has been in operation for some time, most claimants affected by the new interpretation will have arrears paid back to one common date. That is fair and reasonable. Full arrears will be paid to the lead case. People whose claim was withheld by the Secretary of State, and those who had their appeal stayed or determined unfavourably due to the lead case will also be awarded any increase in their benefit from the date of their original application.
To deal with the point relating to the human rights issue, I do not accept that this is an interference with a fair trial by an independent body. The point is that there will already be an issue which has been determined by a tribunal or which is awaiting determination. All that is happening is that the decision in this case is being delayed pending the decision in the lead case.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification. What if the tribunal thinks that it is not a look-alike case and the Secretary of State thinks it is?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I thought I had dealt with that point earlier by indicating that there will be guidance set out indicating how one identifies a look-alike case. That guidance will be formulated in consultation with the president of the Independent Tribunal Service and with the Chief Social Security Commissioner.
Clearly the Secretary of State, if she is involved in an appeal, must obviously think that the issue is worth pursuing. If, in terms of the guidance, the case can be determined by the same legal point as in the lead case, then it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should determine that this is indeed a look-alike case.
If at the end of the day the Secretary of State, having called back the decision and having decided in accordance with the determination of the tribunal—this would arise only where the determination was against the claimant; clearly, if it was in his or her favour, the Secretary of State would find in favour of the claimant—that the decision of the look-alike case was against the claimant, then the Secretary of State would reach a similar decision. At that point the claimant would have the right of appeal to the tribunal against that decision. So we are not cutting out a right of appeal. The claimant can still appeal to the tribunal against the decision of the Secretary of State if the claimant considers that the Secretary of State is wrong in determining that this is a look-alike case.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would prevent the Secretary of State from requiring a tribunal or commissioner to refer the case to her or to deal with it as though the lead case had been decided unfavourably to the claimant without the agreement of a panel member. That could result in inconsistent treatment of look-alike cases, as panel members may have different interpretations as to whether or not a case is a look-alike..
As I have indicated, we think there is a role for the judiciary in the identification of look-alike cases and in the preparation of guidance. That is where the consultation with the president of the Independent Tribunal Service and the chief commissioner would come into play.
There is a balance to be struck between judicial consideration of cases and administrative efficiency, and, where many cases turn on the same straightforward issue of law as a result of a decision in a lead case, it is our view that the arguments for continuing to allow judicial consideration of each individual case are not sufficiently strong. As it stands, the Bill will prevent cases where there is a substantive issue of law to consider from waiting in line to be decided by commissioners while a run of "look-alike" appeals are determined.
994
It is our submission that these provisions are sensible, and in the light of my explanation I invite the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to withdraw his amendment, and, ultimately, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to withdraw hers.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his small crumb of comfort in relation to the guidance. But it was a very small crumb indeed. If the Secretary of State is not a competent authority to identify a look-alike case, then arguably the claimant is not either. After all, we have been talking all day about the difficulty of ordinary claimants in understanding precisely what are the legal issues behind their cases. That provision may lead to a good many representations. However, I am not at all sure that they will be directed to the cases where they are most needed.
I think that the noble and learned Lord has not entirely taken on board the case that I am making; namely, that the identification of a look-alike case is actually a judicial power. The Secretary of State is no doubt a person of very great ability and very wide knowledge. But she is not judicially qualified. She does not have the authority to take judicial decisions. I think the noble and learned Lord came very near to shooting himself in the foot at one point when he referred to courts in the past having refrained from listing cases of this type. If the courts take such a decision, they are at least a competent authority to take it. Whether it is a good thing from a social security point of view and from the point of view of the interest of the claimant is quite another question and one that is not before us at this moment. The courts at least have the authority and the knowledge and legal understanding to do it.
Part of the trouble with talking about a look-alike case is that whether matters look alike depends on exactly where you are looking from; it is not an absolute question, it is a relative one. So the Secretary of State will probably be considering only one legal principle, which happens to be the one that is the present object of departmental policy. That is fair enough. But cases may be look-alike or not look-alike from completely different perspectives, according to some completely alien legal issue which, although it has not occurred to the Secretary of State because it is not what she happens to be thinking about, would occur fairly quickly to somebody who is properly and professionally legally qualified.
Naturally, I do not intend to divide the House at this time of night. However, in begging leave to withdraw my amendment I am a long way from being satisfied that these issues have yet been properly addressed. I hope that thought about them may continue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Restrictions on entitlement to benefit in certain cases of error]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 35:
Leave out Clause 27.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to delete Clause 27. That deals with what has come to be known as the anti-test case rule. This deals with cases where there is a dispute about how far back an entitlement to benefit may go. Where there is a case that finds an entitlement in a particular place, the position under the anti-test case rule is that entitlement goes back only to the point of the judgment in the case. In fact, the judgment is being treated as if it were legislation.
In Clause 27 the anti-test case rule is extended from appeals and reviews to the High Court, to the House of Lords and even, to my great surprise, to the European Court of Justice. Here again I believe there is real room for doubt about Parliament's competence. According to my understanding, it is not within the power of Parliament to bind the powers of the European Court of Justice. Those powers are derived from the European treaties, which we in this House cannot unilaterally alter. At the very least, I hope to hear that the European Court of Justice will be taken out of this clause.
The anti-test case rule has been a matter of considerable litigation in the past and of some dispute in this Chamber. The question that arises is: what is the distinction between judgment and legislation and what is the nature of entitlement? The department's position, if I understand it correctly—and I should be grateful to be corrected if I do not—is that the entitlement is to be treated as if it were created by the judgment. But the judgment does not change the law; the judgment interprets the law as it already was from the making of the statute or the regulation which is before the court.
I believe that the entitlement to the benefit is much more like a peerage in abeyance than like something conferred for the first time by the judgment. It is the practice of this House that a peerage in abeyance is legally a peerage, whether the House's Committee for Privileges recognises it or not, until—in some cases maybe five centuries later—the House recognises that there is a valid line of succession and the person takes his or her seat. Since I accept the assumption of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that all social security law rests on entitlement, with a few exceptions which have been made by recent legislation, I believe that that is the right way to treat the matter.
In the case of Bate v. Chief Adjudication Officer, which went to the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Millett, commenting on the provision in the 1990 Act that the court should treat past judgments as if they had not been made, said that this provision attempted not so much to change the law as to rewrite history. He said in that case that the Secretary of State's interpretation of Parliament's intention was so unreasonable that Parliament could not possibly have intended it. The Appellate Committee of this House saw that case otherwise. There is here a real issue to be addressed.
When there is so much doubt about whether this is the right way to set about the matter, whether the function of a judgment is correctly interpreted and
996
whether the nature of entitlement is correctly interpreted and a much more fundamental doubt about how far this Parliament can bind the European Court of Justice, I believe that there is something here that needs a good deal more thought and more round-table discussion, preferably in private, than we have yet had. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, we had a long and interesting debate on this clause during the Bill's Committee stage, at which time the Government brought forward a number of amendments to address concerns which had been expressed by noble Lords. Indeed the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, acknowledged the significant movement on the part of the Government in meeting their concerns.
I have listened carefully to the continuing concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about some of the provisions of the clause and will try to provide him with some reassurance. However, it is clear that there may be some fundamental disagreement about the Government's policy in this area and I therefore cannot promise to meet all his objections.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested a round-table discussion. I and my fellow Ministers are more than happy to discuss concerns with noble Lords at any time. If the noble Earl wishes to have a further discussion between now and Third Reading, about this or any other matter. I shall be pleased to accommodate him.
It might be helpful if I first explain the intention behind the clause. The clause deals with restrictions on entitlement to benefit where a decision by commissioners or a court overturns the view of the law that was previously applied by the Secretary of State. It replaces and clarifies existing provisions currently in Sections 68 and 69 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The clause applies where a commissioner or a court makes a decision in an individual case which reinterprets the law in a particular area. Where the Secretary of State makes a decision after the lead case has been decided following a claim for benefit or to revise or supersede a decision, the restrictions provided for in the clause will apply. Claimants to whom the restrictions apply will have the increase in entitlement as established in the lead case paid from a common date, set in regulations.
Occasionally, a long-standing interpretation of the law is overturned by the courts. The restrictions on arrears are intended to protect the public purse. Without a power to restrict arrears, the new interpretation of the law could mean that increased benefit would be payable to large numbers of people from the date of their original benefit decision. The Government do not believe that it is an effective use of limited resources to make large payments of arrears of benefit for past periods following a reinterpretation of the law. The Government want to target benefits better and not become involved in a system of poorly targeted and arbitrary payments. What is more, trawling through thousands of cases to find the ones affected would cost time and money—money which would be better spent on improving services for all claimants. We want to make sure that the department's expenditure is focused

997
where need is greatest. This clause means that the department can exercise proper stewardship of the public purse by making sure that changes in interpretation of the law do not consequently result in a large amount of unforeseen pubic expenditure.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the question of binding the European Court of Justice. The provisions of this clause, and those currently included in Section 68 of the Social Security Administration Act, do not seek to bind the European Court of Justice. The clause restricts arrears in certain cases where a new interpretation is placed on the law by a commissioner or a court. Subsection (6) makes it clear that decisions of the European Court of Justice are determinations of a "court". It is not a new provision. Restrictions on arrears in look-alike cases will apply equally following decisions made on a lead case by the European Court of Justice and decisions made by other courts. The provision does not propose to bind the European Court of Justice. The restrictions of the clause do not apply to the lead case which is decided by the European Court of Justice. In his judgment on the Bate case, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, was not persuaded that the result of the application of the anti-test case rule was incompatible with European Community Law.
An analogy was made with peerages in abeyance. I regret that I am unable to advise noble Lords of the precise reference, but it is my recollection that there was a report of the Committee for Privileges about peerages in abeyance. The noble Earl referred to a period of 500 years. My recollection is that the committee indicated that after a hundred years peerages in abeyance ought not to be resurrected. If I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Earl about that.
I believe that we are all agreed that this is a very complex area of social security law. I have tried to explain these provisions as clearly as I can. I have also pointed out the Government's wish to meet as many of your Lordships' concerns as we possibly can and I have indicated our willingness to have further discussions with any noble Lords who wish to have such discussions. I have also indicated that we have moved a considerable way forward on this matter. In the light of my explanation, I commend the clause to the House and hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said about the European Court of Justice. That was extremely helpful and clarified a great deal. I am grateful to him also for his offer of a meeting. However, what is really needed here is better communication between the Executive and the judiciary.
I will be extremely glad of a meeting if there is a prospect of any change in the clause. However, I doubt that there will be between now and Third Reading. If we can arrange a much wider round table discussion to help to improve communications between Ministers and judges roughly along the lines recently suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that would be very helpful. Were such a thing possible, I would be extremely proud to participate in it.
998
The noble and learned Lord referred to the law being "re-interpreted". That is absolutely correct. But it is not the same as the law being changed. If the law is re-interpreted, it means that previously it was incorrectly perceived. Obviously, there must be protection for what happens when cases are re-opened after a long time. But I ask again the question I asked before: which is more in need of protection, the claimant to a means-tested benefit or the public purse? I admit that a balance must be struck, but it is not self-evident that as a general matter of principle the public purse is always entitled to the greater protection.
In relation to the earlier point of peerages in abeyance, I look forward to the noble and learned Lord's letter. My recollection is that a peerage which had been in abeyance since 1497 was revived by the Committee of Privileges in this House in the recent past. That is, to be precise, 501 years. That was the reason for the choice of 500 years; it was not simply a figure of speech.
It is possible, when we read the noble and learned Lord's report, that it turns out, as prudent rulings do, to contain the word, "normally". That is merely a hypothesis, but it seems to me to meet all the known evidence.
The disagreement between us about the nature of "entitlement" remains wide and deep. I thank the noble and learned Lord for the care he has taken in attempting to answer the questions. He attempted to take them seriously and has done his level best to narrow the gap between us as much as possible. There remains an underlying difference. It is not the kind of issue which, if we can possibly avoid it, we should resolve in the Division Lobbies. As with so many other issues, there is a culture clash and those are best resolved by interpretation. With that principle in mind, I withdraw my opposition to this clause standing part of the Bill, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Payments treated as remuneration and earnings]:
Lord Haskelmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 35, line 19, at end insert—
("(1A) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6) For the purposes of section 3 above regulations may make provision for treating as remuneration derived from an earner's employment any amount on which the earner is, by virtue of any provision of sections 140A to 140H of the 1988 Act, chargeable to income tax under Schedule E in respect of an acquisition of shares or an interest in shares." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 110 and 111.
At Committee stage in this House, we said that we intended to introduce amendments at Report to change the national insurance treatment of employee-acquired shares which are subject to risk of forfeiture or conversion. These measures are needed to keep national insurance in step with income tax changes announced in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. These

999
changes affect a small number of payments made in the form of shares outside Inland Revenue approved employee share schemes.
When we debated this matter during Report on 2nd April, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised the matter of Commons' privilege. He also raised it earlier today. My noble friend Lady Hollis, when responding to Amendment No. 1, replied to that point and it is not therefore necessary for me to repeat the arguments. Perhaps I can move straight to the amendments.
The amendments deal with the national insurance treatment of non-approved schemes involving restricted shares and convertible shares which are not able to be used in Inland Revenue approved schemes. I will not detain the House with a detailed account of those schemes, though I shall be happy to say more if noble Lords find that helpful.
The Finance Bill inserts new Sections 140A to 140H into the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Those sections change the income tax treatment of shares carrying a risk of forfeiture and of convertible shares. The inserts will help businesses by giving them legislative certainty about the tax position. Similar changes are needed so that business will also have legislative certainty for national insurance purposes. The amendments do precisely that.
The new amendments to mirror those Budget income tax changes are placed in Clause 50 because they also require an amendment to Section 4 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 which treats certain kinds of payments as earnings for national insurance. Amendment No. 36 provides for regulations to match the income tax changes. There will be a direct read across to the relevant tax provisions when they are introduced. Amendment No. 37 is a minor change which simply provides greater clarity by inserting the full title of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Amendment No. 38 provides that the regulations made under Clause 50 shall come into effect after the passing of the Finance Act 1998, but will have effect in relation to this type of share acquired on or after 6th April.
We intend to use the regulations to provide for liability in respect of shares acquired on or after the date that the amendment was introduced; that is, 9th April 1998. This is important because it will enable business to apply the same regime for tax and national insurance as early as possible. Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 amend Clause 84 so that this measure comes into force following Royal Assent.
We believe that these arrangements provide the most practical way to mirror in national insurance legislation the income tax changes in the Finance Bill. They will ensure that business is not faced with the burden of administering two different sets of rules over an extended period. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as the noble Lord pointed out, in Committee and again earlier today we raised the question of the relationship between the two Houses. I do not wish to pursue that point in any detail now; it arises more appropriately on some of the later amendments.
1000
These amendments relate to a fairly narrow and technical point, as I understand it. It is essentially an anti-avoidance measure on the part of the Treasury and when that is debated in another place it will no doubt be duly considered. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, the measure brings into line with the tax changes the changes in relation to social security provisions.
What gives me more concern is that the distinction between a national insurance contribution and a tax has now disappeared effectively to vanishing point. The contributions are now to be transferred to the Inland Revenue, so they come under its province rather than otherwise. In addition, for the first time the Government are fundamentally undermining the contribution principle which has been the main reason for maintaining the distinction between taxation, pure and simple, and national insurance contributions in the past.
People will now be allowed to have the benefit of social security payments without, in some cases, having contributed. The contributory principle is therefore being undermined. This is a fundamental matter. There will be no distinction at all between tax and national insurance contributions. I am not clear why the Government are timing it in this way. The timing is somewhat strange. Indeed, the Government's own brief accepts that it is unusual. Effectively, the change is backdated on the one hand and delayed in implementation on the other.
The amendments suggest that the provision will come into operation only when the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent. It is highly unlikely that the Finance Bill will not receive Royal Assent. I presume that what is intended is that the provision will come into operation only if this set of tax clauses come into operation. Otherwise we will be landed with the situation whereby the social security benefits side is implemented but the tax side is not. That would be an absurdity.
Having said that, what the amendments together with the proposals in the Finance Bill do is to remove the income tax charge when the shares are given to someone and impose it when, for want of a better expression, they are cashed in. As has rightly been pointed out, that means that a possible way of avoiding taxation is prevented. I make no complaint about that. However, it brings out another point. This is said to be a national insurance contribution, but the charges that will be imposed as a result of the amendments impose a contribution on people for which they will get absolutely nothing. The fact that they are paying the contribution will in no way entitle them to any increased benefits. That brings through once again my fundamental point that national insurance contributions are now pure and simply a tax.
I do not want to delay the House, but I wish to raise one point which was made by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks this afternoon. She said that it would not be possible to make any of these changes with regard to national insurance contributions in the Finance Bill. If it is now the case, as I believe it is, that national insurance contributions are a tax, I am not clear what the basis is for the noble Baroness's assertion that this could not be done in the Finance Bill. All the horrible

1001
problems of timing which the amendments now present in terms of the implementation being delayed but when they are finally implemented being backdated, which is a strange situation to envisage, would be overcome if the whole matter could be tied up in the Finance Bill. As I understand the position, the Bill is not to receive a Second Reading until tomorrow, so there is time for the matter to be sorted out. Having said that, I understand why the Government are proceeding as they are with the basic decision on taxation. In due course it will no doubt be considered in another place.
8 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the distinction between tax and national insurance contributions has now for all practical purposes been eliminated. I may have more to say about that when the Report stage resumes on Thursday, but I do not propose to deal with it now.
These amendments are directed to stopping an extremely artificial tax avoidance scheme which will enable companies to provide benefits to a small number of "fat cat" employees without having to pay employers' national insurance contributions. It will not affect employees' national insurance contributions because anyone who benefits from the scheme will be earning more than the upper earnings limit anyway. The companies which make use of this scheme will, as a result, be throwing a greater burden on other contributors and other taxpayers. I therefore give completely wholehearted support to this group of amendments.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Goodhart, that national insurance and income tax are entirely separate. National insurance is what it says. One gets benefits from national insurance by being insured. Income tax is what it says. It is a tax. If the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would recognise that there is a difference between the two, he would not have such difficulty in understanding why these regulations are having to be handled in the way that they are.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The fact is that the additional contributions which will be collected as a result of the amendments in no way give any additional benefits.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. We are dealing with it in this way because it is a national insurance matter and we have to deal with it in national insurance legislation. All employees pay national insurance charges on earnings. After a certain level the effect on benefits is non-existent. I think I have dealt with the points that the noble Lord raised. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskelmoved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
Page 35, line 21, leave out ("1988 Act") and insert ("Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988").
Page 35, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) Regulations under subsection (6) of section 4 of the Contributions and Benefits Act (as inserted by subsection (1A) above)—

(a) shall not he made before the passing of the Finance Act 1998: but

(b) may make provision having effect in relation to acquisitions on or after 6th April 1998.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Sport: Listed Events
8.7 p.m.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefractrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report and recommendations of the Advisory Group on Listed Events.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am deeply grateful and indeed privileged to have the opportunity this evening to speak in your Lordships' House and to draw the Minister's attention to the report and recommendations of the Advisory Group on Listed Events, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane. Any comments I make are no criticism of my noble friend or any members of the advisory group. I am satisfied that they have looked at the overall situation and have come out with recommendations which on the evidence available they believe are the correct ones.
Before I present my case I just want to say to the House that over the weekend a note was sent to my home telling me that my late friend Lord Howell was to support me and speak in the debate tonight. I can do no more than associate myself with the many wonderful tributes which we have seen in the national press this day. He was a personal friend of mine for many years and he was a friend to many other people in this Chamber. We all mourn his loss and we shall miss him greatly.
I shall attempt to speak on two issues in relation to the recommendations of the report made by the advisory group. The first is the principle of listing events. The argument against listing events is that sporting bodies are quite capable of managing their own affairs and have the sense to be able to dispose of their television rights in a manner which is lucrative and which affords them widespread coverage. That is understandable to a point.
However, these are times when the numbers of children participating in sport are falling and when youngsters need more than ever to be exposed to the influence of sport for the good of their own health and that of society. The prime marketing tool for any sport is for it to be freely available on television at the press

1003
of a button. Children in particular are especially impressionable and acknowledge as their heroes those whom they see on television on a regular basis.
There is a fear that, if sport disappears from free to air television, then children will not be captivated by sport and will not be drawn into wanting to emulate their sporting heroes. I certainly share that view. In that respect, the benefits of sporting activities for youngsters, both in terms of their healthy well-being and of the social co-operative virtues which team sports especially convey, are well established. For children to opt out of sport would be for them to miss out on those benefits and so become more and more unhealthy and undisciplined. An extra burden would then be placed on the state, which must pick up the pieces of this decline.
The comparative viewing figures achieved by sport on terrestrial and satellite television speak volumes for what is at stake. As an example, in Rugby League the Silk Cut Challenge Cup-ties broadcast live by the BBC regularly attract an audience of between 4 million and 5 million. In contrast, the Super League matches on Sky Sports average between 150,000 and 200,000. Similarly in Rugby Union, while as many as 7 million watch England internationals on BBC, the matches shown on satellite television have viewing figures similar to those I referred to on the Rugby League scene.
The marketing effect, then, of terrestrial television making sport freely available is colossal. Its potential impact on youth and the health of the nation is huge. Can we really trust sport to realise the unseen benefits in that regard or are the administrators blinded by the huge sums of cash which are offered by satellite television in exchange for their rights? Do we require instead legislation to save sporting governing bodies from themselves to guarantee that the next generation of British youngsters sees sport for itself and is inspired by its example?
The second point I would like to present to the House is the national spread of Rugby League, which means that the Challenge Cup Final is indeed an event of national importance—contrary to the findings of the Advisory Group on Listed Events. I form the opposite view to the review. I do not believe that the group has done enough in-depth research into the case for Rugby League. I must emphasise this evening that I am putting the case for only one match a year—the Rugby League Cup Final.
There is also the international spread of Rugby League and the fact that 16 nations now play the game, with 10 recognised as senior test-playing countries, which is more than for cricket. Rugby League in this country has 26 full-time development officers working to spread the game at junior and youth levels in places such as the North East (Gateshead), South Wales (Cardiff), Scotland (Glasgow) and Ireland (Dublin). Each of these target development areas has a thriving amateur league at junior, youth and open-age levels, which gives the lie to the theory that the game is confined to Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria.
1004
Through the Rugby Football League and the British Amateur Rugby League Association, known as BARLA, there has been created a league called the Rugby League Conference, which draws together 16 leading amateur clubs in the Midlands and the South in a competitive environment—which will in time take them to semi-professional status—including towns such as Birmingham, Oxford, Worcester, Bedford, Ipswich, Cheltenham, Chester and Leicester. That is the spread of Rugby League football in our country today.
Rugby League is the fastest growing sport in universities and institutes of higher education, with 68 student teams now playing the game in all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and the first national development officer for the women's game, Jackie Sheldon, was appointed only last year.
BARLA itself in a quarter of a century has increased the number of teams playing Rugby League from 200 to 1,400 teams. That is success. We wish that success to continue, but we do not believe it will if the youngsters who today are keen on playing Rugby League are denied seeing the jewel in the crown, the Rugby League Cup Final. That will be helpful for their advancement.
I say to my noble friend Lord Gordon that each of the factors I have described bears witness to the wrong done by the Advisory Group on Listed Events in denying Rugby League a place in the national consciousness. It does and it will continue to grow apace in future years as the professional and amateur arms work in unity together.
The Rugby League Challenge Cup is an English institution, despite its perceived parochial northern base. As such, the annual final at Wembley goes out to a worldwide audience of millions and is part of the high profile British sporting heritage and should therefore be protected for the benefit of the people.
The foundation of the sport is the amateur game under the jurisdiction of the British Amateur Rugby League Association. I have already described its progress. It is estimated that there are nearly 100,000 people playing the amateur game throughout this country. One can imagine the contribution of recreational hours that that gives to many young people who enjoy playing this wonderful game. Many of the players taking part are unemployed due to the industrial decline in the areas where the game has been traditional. Terrestrial TV is the perfect vehicle for promoting this "all-action sport" to the nation. The Rugby League Challenge Cup is probably the most famous rugby competition in the world. The final is staged in the country's national stadium, Wembley, and is watched by a worldwide audience.
I bring my contribution to a close to enable others to have more time to make theirs, but first I must say that, apart from the issue of encouraging youth interest, a major problem has developed especially in the strongholds of Rugby League but also, I believe, throughout the country. In my own area, which I was privileged to represent in another place for many years, most of the Rugby League teams received financial help from the mining industry. Many former miners who are

1005
now elderly are disabled as a result of chest diseases or have other disabilities. Many are lifelong Rugby League supporters who love the game. They cannot get out of their houses because of their disabilities, but they are being denied the right to see the game that they have supported and loved all their lives. Why? Because they cannot afford commercial television. That cannot be right. Of course, I acknowledge that finance comes into most things and that, when somebody like Murdoch comes along and offers millions of pounds, the clubs are under a great temptation to accept. In many ways, I think that that is ruining a great game, though I can understand the temptation. However, people are much more important than finance and generations of people, and many old people, are now being denied the right to see sport simply because Murdoch has control.
I was worried when I read the Answer to a Question that had been tabled in another place by Sir Raymond Powell about who had given evidence to the group. I noticed that Mr. Maurice Lindsay was among the names. That same Mr. Maurice Lindsay was the main negotiator in the Murdoch deal.
According to the Guardian, the other day, a recent poll asked whether such sports should be protected, and 73 per cent. of the public agreed that they should be. I am being nodded at and it is time for me to sit down. I have gone over my 10-minute limit, but as we all sat in the Chamber waiting for the other debate to finish, we now have an hour and a half instead of one hour for this Unstarred Question, so I do not think that I need apologise.
8.23 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, for initiating this debate. I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the late Lord Howell whose contributions to your Lordships' debates on sport we all greatly enjoyed.
I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, on his useful report. There is much with which one can agree, but it also gives me an inviting target as I believe that its main conclusion is flawed and wrong, but for very different reasons from those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse. So I shall attack the report from the opposite end, as it were.
There seems to be a view that free-to-air sport is diminishing and that the public are losing out. I believe that nothing could be further from the truth as ITV alone has increased the amount of sport shown this year by 50 per cent. A quick glance at the newspapers for last week reveals that BBC1 put on "Match of the Day", showing Blackburn v. Arsenal, on Monday. That was followed by the UEFA Cup semi-final on BBC1 on Tuesday. On Wednesday, ITV scheduled the Champions League semi-final and on Thursday it showed the European Cup Winners Cup, Chelsea v. Vicenza, both live. There is plenty of high quality sport on BBC, ITV and Channel 4, and I advise any noble Lords who do not want to listen to this debate that there are two hours of snooker on BBC2 tonight.
Television has transformed sport. It has provided money but, even more importantly, it has made sport more popular. Sporting events are now more accessible
1006
to the public; they are safer; and many more people attend them. Yesterday I went to Watford football ground to watch Saracens and Newcastle play rugby. There was a crowd of nearly 20,000—a record for a club game. The match was shown on BSkyB with highlights on terrestrial television. Television and its investment in sport have made rugby popular.
I believe that the report was right to point out that many take differing views. Some believe that there is too much sport on television and that the logical place for live coverage of events of long duration should be special channels catering for those who want to watch such sport. However, the report also pointed out that it is right to say that the enjoyment of sport on television is a force for cohesion in society where events are of national interest or importance. We had a long debate on that during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill in 1996. I believe that the results of that Bill have worked. The voluntary code, adopted by the Central Council of Physical Recreation, has worked. Indeed. I understand that in the past 18 months no complaints have been made to the monitoring committee.
The report attempts to take a voluntary code, which is working, and to place it in regulations, ruled by the ITC. I believe that that would be a wrong and retrograde step. As your Lordships are aware, sport and broadcasting are rapidly changing worlds. We shall have digital terrestrial television later this year. The report's proposals could be detrimental to its success. The direction in which sport on television is going means that sport will be available in a way that the viewing public actually want. There will he live coverage for those who wish it, with highlights for those who do not want to watch hours of sport. There will be a mix for others. Parts of some events will be shown on specialist channels with, say, the final on free-to-air networks. There will be a mix of events on both free-to-air networks and specialist channels. That mix is wanted by both the sports rights holders and the viewers.
I agree with and fully support one suggestion in the report. I refer to the unbundling of sporting rights. Again, we have had a debate on that in your Lordships' House. I believe that we should have gone further. Broadcasters should be able to bid for the sports and particular events that they want to show.
However, all is not had because changes are already happening, driven by the sports themselves which want unbundling. The market is solving the problem. I realise that those on the Benches opposite regard it as strange that the market should solve a problem, but that is what is happening—and it is working. I refer to what is happening in English cricket. The English Cricket Board wants a mixture. It is clear that it wants to negotiate a fair price for broadcasting rights, but that does not mean that it will simply sell them to the highest bidder. It does not want to walk away from terrestrial television. The bodies believe that they must decide what to have and that the mix must be right.
The report dealt with this matter in a rather strange way. It suggested that if a sporting body was free-to-air somehow it would achieve better sponsorship contracts and matters of that kind. The right balance must be for the sporting bodies themselves.

1007
The report is what one gets if one puts together people of differing views on a committee. They come up with a recommendation which to an extent is a compromise. I do not believe that that compromise is generally welcomed by the sports bodies or the commercial broadcasters. I am not sure that it will produce better viewing for the public. The noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, questioned whether one could trust the sports bodies. We can and should trust those bodies. I accept that in the past some have made mistakes, and they realise that. They also realise that in some cases they do not appeal to youth, which they know to be important. The Broadcasting Act works. I believe that the concept of a B list means more regulation and is detrimental to sport. The report speaks about an acceptable level of secondary coverage on generally available terrestrial channels to be decided by the ITC. I believe that that gives to the ITC a role that it does not want.
Having said that, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, must be pleased by one matter. His report has been attacked by both sides. Perhaps it means that his report is rather sensible because it has been attacked by both sides. It would be a pity if it was attacked by only one side or, even worse, by nobody. There are differing views, but each has merits. I recognise the merit of much of what the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, said. I hope that the Secretary of State will take serious note of all the views expressed this evening in your Lordships' House and the views expressed in the report.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, for giving us the chance to discuss this important subject. I also join in the tribute to Lord Howell. One would always listen to Lord Howell on a subject of this kind even if one did not agree with him. The fact that one always listened to him is perhaps the greatest compliment that this House can pay him.
As to the final recommendations in the report, I do not agree with the list but, I would not anyway. I am a Rugby Union fan. I believe that Rugby Union should come higher up the list. That is my prejudice out in the open. The little graze on the top of my forehead proves that I am still playing the game although not quite as fast or as well as I once did. When we talk about sport we always have this kind of disagreement. If the committee had been appointed by others perhaps the list would have been slightly different. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that it was a very good list if one liked association football or soccer. There is a lot of it about at the moment and I have been rather inundated by it. It is always washing around at the back of events.
A good deal of the concern in this area is that we are attacking a situation in which certain sports have their moment of glory compared with the main spectator sports in this country such as association football. For example, the five-nation rugby tournament extends over four or five weekends a year when everything revolves around that sport. Rugby League has its one great day and then its test series. There is a sampling process in which people are exposed to certain sports on certain
1008
days and they are shown in a good light. This is not always to one's taste. Up until the age of 10 I did not believe that anyone played tennis other than for two particular weeks in the summer. I also believed that they wore only white outfits. Wimbledon created that impression. There was a great concentration on sports in blocks which meant that every sport had its moment in the sun.
The current arrangements for the broadcasting of sports is beginning to attack that. If one does not have access to cable or satellite systems one begins to feel that one is losing out. The fact of the matter is that television works and can create tremendous interest. One example of its power and limitations occurred 10 years ago when everyone expected Rugby Union, Rugby League and association football to be swept aside by American football. We were all told that it would happen. Ultimately, the game was ruined when people saw the whole game instead of just the highlights. I do not believe that a sport which appears to last for one hour and takes five hours to play will ever fit into our sporting culture. But everyone was told that that game would take over. Both Rugby Union and Rugby League have said at various points in the past that one will sweep the other under the carpet. Neither of them will do that. A cultural base is required to attract a sport and we have proven that quite satisfactorily.
We are in danger of pushing certain sports off the broadcast air waves altogether or into little ghettoes. Ultimately, the multi-channel approach may save us because there will be so many channels readily available that virtually all sports will be available at all times. There is also a danger that a sport will become a series of glossy jerseys running around and marketed like soap powder or soft drinks. The exciting bits of the sport will be priced out of people's reach. One will see it only secondhand. The fact is that highlights do not and cannot convey the whole of the sport. Sports are about pressure and how people react to it; it is about how people develop games. A sport is a contest which takes place over a period of time, possibly with very short bursts of activity. But the highs and the lows must be seen to get the whole drama and excitement, and highlights do not do that.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Viscount who have spoken have referred to the fact that steps must be taken towards unbundling. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that the marketplace might already be doing that. It is right to say that the marketplace created the problem in the first place. We must allow events at least to be recorded as live even if they are not live, because that is what the sport is really about. Unless one manages to do that in one's broadcasting, ultimately one misses the essence of it.
The report responded to the framework given to it. Thus, it could make recommendations only similar to those that it did. I hope that the noble Lord who is to speak next agrees with me. We must try to take a step forward in this matter and consider why we are interested in it. Sport is a huge part of the cultural and social life of this country. It means different things to different people, but it is watched for a variety of reasons, one of which is its internal drama. Thus, to

1009
cherry-pick the greatest moments is pointless. It is like having a video of the 100 greatest goals and watching it 20 times. The ball always goes into the back of the net. If one has the highlights one knows that the ball will always go into the back of the net. That is not about sport; effectively it is all about repeating an exercise. As the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, has pointed out, the health and social benefits of sport, particularly for the young, are incredible. They give a sense of belonging to a group and a sense of achievement and pride and can instil discipline in order to achieve a result in constructive competition. That is something that we must encourage.
Television is the mass media par excellence and it is the one that most people look to. Unless we get the coverage of sport on television right ultimately it will be damaged. One may well drive certain sports into tiny ghettoes which are watched by only a small number of people. We must achieve sporting democracy in this country. One does not play a sport because one is brought up in a certain area or goes to a certain school; one plays it because one wants to try it. Television took steps towards this but it has now stepped back from it as a result of financial pressure on sporting bodies who never have enough money for all that they want to do, be it the development of the particular sport or whatever. They grab the money to meet the needs and problems that they face at the moment. Ultimately, they may destroy themselves by turning themselves into tiny participating groups. I hope that for the foreseeable future the structure can be changed to address this problem.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, all previous speakers have paid tribute to the late Lord Howell and I am happy to join them. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred to the memorable debate on the 1996 Act when Lord Howell's amendment was carried by a huge majority. That effectively marked the turning of the tide. Death is never timely, but it is particularly cruel that Lord Howell was not spared for another few days to participate in the debate. I say so out of no self-interest because I strongly suspect that Lord Howell would have felt that the report of the committee of which I was chairman did not go far enough and that we should have listed every sporting event and put Sky and cable television out of business. That is a perfectly respectable view, and one which has been hinted at in the debate. I, however, think it is a wrong view.
First of all, let me take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. He is correct to point out that our report was produced in response to stated criteria. I say that not to shelter behind the criteria. I support the criteria, and the Secretary of State was wise to consult separately on the criteria against which we should judge whether an event should be listed and then appoint a separate body—our committee—to look at which events met the criteria.
1010
It is important to realise that, even if an event is listed, we do not control whether or not it is seen on terrestrial television. If an event is listed but the terrestrial broadcaster does not offer a fair price, then the event is not seen on terrestrial television.
If the bodies running the sports referred to share the views expressed in this House that the missionary activity, as it were, of terrestrial television is all important, then even if the price offered by Sky is higher they will opt for terrestrial television. Let me point to one example, the Open golf championship. The Royal and Ancient has deliberately stayed with the BBC despite a higher offer from Sky.
As to the criteria, the main criterion is that the event has a special national resonance, not simply a significance to those who ordinarily follow the sport concerned. It is an event which serves to unite the nation, a shared point on the national calendar.
I should declare an interest. As chairman of the committee which produced this report, I am very happy to justify its recommendations and urge the Secretary of State to accept them.
Let me refer to the changes we have made to the status quo. At the moment the status quo provides for the events listed, thus protecting full live coverage. If an event is not listed, nothing is guaranteed. I concede the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that we have a voluntary code which is working well. I pay tribute both to the CCPR and the sports bodies for making it work well. It is, however, rather early to judge whether it will survive the test of full market forces.
One also has to bear in mind, without being unduly cynical, that perhaps people are on their best behaviour at the moment. There has been a change of government, and the election of a government which perhaps has not been as favourable towards non-terrestrial broadcasters as their predecessors. The fact that the Government looked immediately at this issue might have persuaded some sports organisations to behave slightly more responsibly than they might otherwise have done.
As to the changes that we have made to the criteria, the most publicised change is that we have removed full live coverage protection from Test cricket and placed it on to the secondary coverage protection list. We have done so for a very simple reason, which I hope does not cause offence to aficionados of cricket. It is very difficult to defend 30 days of cricket as a fixed point in the national calendar. It is a shared summer, not a shared point. If you list Test cricket then, logically, you should list Premier League football which, in total, takes up less time than the summer Test matches.
Another change we made, in response to one of the subsidiary criteria, was that the national team should be involved. I am a great fan of the World Cup—I would watch every match—but we cannot say that a match not involving one of the home nations is something of national resonance. Therefore we have said that World Cup matches which do not involve the home nations are not listed, with the exception of the semi-finals and final.

1011
We have added, entirely logically, coverage of the European championships. In many ways they are just as important as the World Cup and, without being unduly pessimistic, perhaps the home nations stand a greater chance of progressing further in that tournament.
That is what we have done in terms of the listed events. Nothing else has been changed. We have added considerably to the protection afforded to sports which were previously denied any protection whatsoever other than that provided by the voluntary code. We thought that the existing system was inflexible in that it was all or nothing and we were anxious to reduce the impact of exclusivity.
Exclusivity is not the epitome of market forces. It is a denial of market forces. Why people who want a free market should think of exclusive coverage—which means paying more to keep the other fellow out and not compete—I do not know. Taking an analogy, if I owned a supermarket chain and bought up the entire supply of milk and said "You cannot buy milk even in a corner shop; you must come to my supermarket to get milk. Not only that, we will not sell you milk on its own but you have got to buy butter, eggs and bacon when you come in", would the Government of the day stand by idly and do nothing? I suggest that it would be regarded as unthinkable.
There is a danger that we can carry this too far. I do not think it is necessary to ensure that every store is allowed to stock a particular brand of trainer shoe for children. We might allow people to have a monopoly to sell one product like that, but not if the product is important enough, like milk. As the noble Lord mentioned, it is a force for the cohesion of society if certain sporting events are generally available on terrestrial television.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned that the market was doing this to some extent. I agree that there are some forces working in the direction of what we are trying to achieve. The point made in the report about advertising and sponsorship is important. The revenue gained by the broadcaster from selling broadcasting rights is only part of the equation. If that means that he puts his sport on a cable or satellite channel with much smaller audiences, as the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, has pointed out, then the advertiser or sponsor would feel cheated and say "I want a wider audience for my product".
If sports are shown on terrestrial television they will secure more sponsorship and bigger advertising deals, which are equally important in raising revenue. Let me give an example from my own part of the world. We had a tournament called the Bells Scottish Open—sponsored, as the name indicates, by Bells Scotch Whisky—which took place at Gleneagles and was building up in importance because it was held the week immediately prior to the Open. Then the owners of the television rights decided to sell them to Sky. Bell's withdrew its sponsorship and the event no longer took place at Gleneagles. It lasted one further year, limping along at Carnoustie and now no longer exists as an event. That is a salutory lesson.
1012
Even those who are not inspired by the altruism of making the sport available to young people—the missionary activity to which the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, referred—may well feel that, in their own self-interest, terrestrial television is the right way ahead. But there is a difficulty here. Knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will be intervening later in the debate, I will simply refer to the rules of public service broadcasting. It is up to public service broadcasters to provide a wide range and balance in their programming. I must ask noble Lords, in all honesty, can we really say that ball-by-ball coverage of Test match cricket for 30 days in the summer does not despite the schedule, which should be serving a much wider audience than simply cricket lovers? I think the answer is that full coverage of certain events of long duration properly belongs on channels devoted entirely to sport. I agree that it is perhaps regrettable at the moment that such channels are only available by payment of an extra subscription.
Lord Orme: And it is a large one as well!
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, it may well be a large one, but that is exactly why we have made sure that the alternative for those who do not want to pay that large subscription is not nothing but secondary coverage, which should be quite meaningful.
I therefore feel that the ITC is the proper body to administer this. We considered, obviously, the report of the DEMOS think tank which recommended that we should have an "Ofsport" just as we have Oftel and Ofwat. We decided that the ITC was the proper body to do this. But we must ensure that the secondary coverage provided is a meaningful alternative for the viewer who does not subscribe to cable or satellite. By meaningful coverage, I mean that within perhaps an hour of the finish of the event proper edited highlights are available. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that in many cases that is not perfect. I accept that, but there are many cases where it is slightly better. Those of your Lordships who have watched the Open Golf Championship will be aware that in the last few minutes there is only one couple coming down the fairway. The whole thing slows up. Highlights can remove the long hours. Talking of long hours, I take the broad hint that I may be indulging in them unless I finish rather quickly, so I will.
It is important that the Secretary of State accepts the recommendations. It is important that the ITC ensures that secondary coverage is meaningful. As a final point I would simply say that if eight people drawn from widely different backgrounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says, reach a unanimous conclusion, perhaps that augurs well for the general acceptability of our report.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Orme: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend's analogy with supermarkets cornering the milk market could get him into some difficulty because that market is being cornered already in certain products and certain areas.

1013
I am very disappointed with this report. It has weakened the case for national sporting events to be on television, both terrestrial and independent as a right. That is a blow to millions of people on small incomes who cannot afford cable television. I can afford it and so can many other people, but many people from inner city areas, who I represented when I was in the other place, cannot. People complain about the cost of a television licence for BBC, which is £92 a year, but to watch sporting events on Sky costs me and other people £360 a year. Many people cannot afford to have cable TV.
I should like to deal specifically with the issue of cricket. My noble friend mentioned cricket coverage 25 days a year. That is exactly what Sky intend to show if it takes control of the coverage. It will put cricket on a sports channel. I would like to know why BBC and ITV cannot have a sports channel. Why should it just be Sky? Let us face it, at the back of all this we are dealing with the Murdoch millions. That is where the pressure is coming from; he is capturing markets. One can already see in pay-to-view television, for instance, how boxing started out at £15 for an evening's entertainment. That has gone up to almost £17 and is increasing all the time. What would happen if the company finished up with a complete monopoly? There is a real problem in that regard.
I turn to the issue of cricket. I declare an interest here as a member of Lancashire Cricket Club and a lifelong cricket supporter. I believe that Test Match cricket is second to none in its appeal to millions of people. But, compared to soccer and rugby, cricket is a minority sport. We want to get more people playing and more people watching, but the one way not to do so is to put it on Sky or cable television because they will remove it.
I know that those involved in cricket want more money. I know that they lobbied my noble friend's committee very strongly with regard to cable TV companies being able to buy out television companies. In the short term, they may receive the money, but in the longer term there is the question of attracting young people into watching and playing cricket like many other sports.
We can see what is happening now in soccer; how it is being handled and diverted into certain areas where it is impossible for people to watch. I know that cable television operates very professionally, but there is a real danger here. It is a danger that the advisory committee, in my opinion, did not take into account. I believe that it has seriously weakened the case for listed events, and I believe that is the thin end of the wedge.
If we give cricket to cable television it will be game, set and match so far as the major sporting events in Britain are concerned; that is, soccer, rugby, tennis, which is going in that direction, and cricket. That is the area where it will have an effect upon our national viewing. For instance, on the question of 25 to 30 days coverage of cricket, many older people watch Test Match cricket in the daytime. Many of them are retired, many are on low incomes. They cannot afford Sky or cable TV and therefore have to rely on terrestrial
1014
television. I do not believe that the committee took into account the effect of moving Test Match cricket away from that particular area.
I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about the Secretary of State. I believe that the Secretary of State must take into account the many views which have been expressed in reply to my noble friend's advisory committee. He must look at the issue from the point of view of what is best for the majority; what is best for those who cannot afford cable television; what is best for those who want to see such events. I hope that the Secretary of State rejects many of the proposals.
9 P.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, has done the House a good service by introducing this timely debate on an extremely important report. I very much agree with the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken that it would have been an even better debate had Lord Howell been spared to take part in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and his colleagues have made a courageous attempt to balance the intensely opposing and difficult conflicting interests in the broadcasting of great sporting events. From these Benches, we broadly support the conclusions that the committee has reached.
I am a Scot and I speak about cricket, as did, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, conscious that cricket is not a major sport in Scotland. But I should say to noble Lords who are concerned about it that there is a real practical problem about cricket in the modern broadcasting scene because of the length of each match—a Test Match is a five day match—and the cumulative effect of 30 days. If only cricket were like Wimbledon, for example, where you could have a final day or two with the climax of the event as operates in relation to Wimbledon, it would be a different matter. But sadly cricket is a very special sort of game which does not lend itself to that kind of finality. Given the present state of the England cricket team, generally the fifth day is not required for that purpose.
Therefore, I personally support what the committee has recommended to the Government in that respect. However, I do not underestimate the courage that the Secretary of State may require if he is to remove the home Test Matches from among the "Crown Jewels" of protected events. I hope that he will have that courage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, emphasised—and I very much agree with him—the price of the kind of proposals which the committee makes, and which applies in particular to the major changes that there would be in relation to cricket Test Matches, is that there should be effective arrangements for secondary coverage. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, and his committee had the terms of reference and the framework set for them. But we on these Benches take the view that the report itself does not and, indeed, could not really go to the root of where the public interest lies in achieving the right balance between the free-to-air viewing on terrestrial channels, which is still the major

1015
source of broadcasting for the large majority of viewers and will be the major source of broadcasting for quite a long time ahead, and the pay-to-view television of satellite or cable.
The heart of the problem is that paid-for broadcast sport has been allowed to become a virtual monopoly of one operator; that is, Rupert Murdoch's Sky Television. In the absence of effective statutory regulation, Sky Television has naturally made the most of its monopoly. We should not complain about it acting as a monopolist does act, but we do complain about the inadequacy of the legislative arrangements to deal with that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned the English Cricket Board. The information which the BBC has given to me—and perhaps has also given to him—is rather different from the view which the noble Viscount expressed. In relation to next year's cricket world cup, the BBC reports that,
"the ECB sold all rights into one market, effectively making Sky the broker for the extent of live coverage on terrestrial television. Their interest, naturally, is to release as little as possible free to air—for instance should England reach the semi-final, only those with the ability to pay will see any live coverage".
That is a very unsatisfactory situation.
Therefore, within the two-tiered system that the committee has recommended to the Government, it will be vitally important to have effective arrangements for secondary coverage. That was the issue with which we wrestled during the course of the 1996 Broadcasting Bill in which Lord Howell played such a prominent part. The result of that was the voluntary code and the compromise arrangements which arose out of that.
I do not follow those matters as closely as I once did, but I do not know whether I am pleased or puzzled by the fact that the code and monitoring arrangements do not seem to have been needed to be brought into operation at all. I feel very sceptical about the way it is operating and I feel that there is a great need to strengthen those arrangements. Speaking personally, I know only that to watch live Premier League football, I not only have to subscribe to BSkyB but I also have to buy a bundle of other channels to which I do not wish to subscribe. I only know that to watch "Match of the Day" on BBC—and that is a poor substitute for live BBC football—I have to sit up too late on a Saturday night for a septuagenarian like myself, or get up too early on a Sunday morning, which is even worse.
Even within the limits of the report, it has the aim of ensuring that,
"there is good secondary coverage available on free-to-air channels".
That will demand, I believe, more vigorous implementation of the code by the sports rights holders and more vigorous regulation by the broadcasting authorities. If I read the report rightly, I believe that that was the thrust of what was said.
1016
However, it probably demands more than that. Indeed, I was encouraged by the fact that the committee in its major recommendation about secondary coverage said that the Secretary of State,
"should investigate the possibility of such a revised framework",
which the report describes and,
"if its implementation proves impossible … he [should] introduce early legislation to facilitate it".
From these Benches we strongly endorse that aim. In fact, I would go further. I believe that what is required to deal with the new broadcasting landscape with its proliferation of channels is a new broadcasting Bill, which will deal quite fundamentally and fairly with the present distortion that exists in broadcast sport between pay television and public service television.
Surely in a world where the digital channels are now going to proliferate—and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Orme, said—it should be practicable and possible as a matter of public policy to ensure that some of these new digital channels can be dedicated free-to-air channels, covering the sports that substantial sections of the population enjoy. It is my hope that what will eventually arise from this useful report will be the Government's acceptance of its recommendations.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, add my tribute to those already expressed to the late Lord Howell, whose contributions on sporting matters will be sorely missed in this House, not least tonight. I, too, welcome the report. I believe that the Government are in a quandary over the live coverage of sporting events on television.
The Secretary of State has given a commitment that major sporting events will remain on what is mistakenly called "free to air" television. I say, "mistakenly", because of course it is not free. On the other hand, the Government are under pressure from sporting bodies to allow them to strike the best deal that they can. That deal will almost certainly be with Sky, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who naturally wants to increase the number of subscribers to his programmes. It is a nice circle to square, and the Government sensibly set up a committee which has produced a sensible report—a report, which the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, has given us the opportunity to discuss tonight.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, reminded us, his report was in response to published criteria which had been issued. A-listed events must be broadcast live on BBC, ITV or Channel 4—the main ones being the Olympics, international football championships, the Wimbledon finals, the Grand National and the Derby. There is a further category of B-listed events which can be broadcast live on satellite TV, provided that edited highlights are also available on free to air terrestrial channels.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, objected to edited highlights. I must confess that I am an unrepentant highlight person, except for Jimmy Connors of whom I can never get enough; indeed, I buy all full-length videos of his matches. I even hold the heretical view that edited highlights of our own debates in this House

1017
are rather more enjoyable than the live, full-length versions. Test matches have been moved to List B because the time that they take presents serious scheduling problems. That seems to be a sensible compromise.
I said that I welcome the report, but I wish it had been a bit more forward looking. I shall return to that point later. I agree with the report when it says that sporting events which have a "national resonance" and represent a,
"shared, fixed point on the national calender",
should continue to be listed. Such events provide unifying moments which reinforce our sense of national identity in an enjoyable and perfectly harmless way. In ancient Greece they interrupted wars to enable the Olympics to take place. We have turned our great sporting occasions into substitutes for war, which must be an improvement.
However, the fact remains that these events would not be available to the whole population if they were shown exclusively on a subscription or a pay-per-view basis. Indeed, 97 per cent. of households have television but, whereas the licence fee is £91 a year, Sky Sports costs £300 a year. I did not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Orme, that people have an unlimited right to watch as much cricket on television as they like. That seemed to be the thrust of his argument. But I believe that other viewers have rights. Public service broadcasting has to strike a balance between the rights of aficionados and those who want to watch other programmes.
Lord Orme: My Lords, I said, in effect, that there will still be 30 days of that viewing if it passes to cable television, as cable has three sports channels. The point I was making, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, endorsed, was that ITV and BBC should have their own sports channels; in that case the viewing I mentioned would not impinge on other programmes.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. That may well become possible when digital television is introduced. I shall discuss that in a moment. I am presenting one side—the side for listing. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that more money would come into sport if franchises were auctioned off to the highest bidder. Funds from satellite television have transformed football finances, the current contract being worth £742 million a year to the clubs. The noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, argued last year that the Government should lift restrictions on the sale of test match rights on exactly those grounds. The ECB has commended the advisory group's report which proposes in effect to do that.
The broader context for this debate—as my noble friend Lord Astor has pointed out—is the huge increase in choice of programming that the new technology makes possible. I believe that will help to solve many of the problems of access which have troubled some noble Lords this evening. The current analogue terrestrial broadcast technology offers five channels. Digital terrestrial television will offer 30 channels from
1018
the autumn. Digital satellite will offer the possibility of up to 200 channels from this summer; in theory, cable could support up to 1,000 channels. That will break up the Sky monopoly in due course. The reason for this proliferation is that digital compression allows use of the spectrum to be much more efficient than current analogue technology and will hugely increase the capacity of the different delivery platforms. This does not necessarily mean that there will be more choice of what to watch, but there will certainly be more of whatever it is you choose to watch. As satellite sports channels have shown, some people are willing to pay a significant premium to get a lot of what they are interested in.
A general, all-purpose TV channel, which is all the current analogue terrestrial channels can ever be, cannot compete with the scope for specialisation which the new technology offers. The likely growth of subscribers to digital terrestrial will surely undermine not only the monopoly of Sky as at present but also the case for the old licence basis of financing. Eventually people will pay for whatever package of channels they want. In the meantime I wish to congratulate the advisory group on a balanced report. I am sure that the Government will give serious thought to its recommendations as well as to the views expressed here tonight.
9.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this debate is, of course, overshadowed by the sudden death of Denis Howell. I cannot hope in any way to emulate his lifetime of experience, skill and knowledge in sporting matters. I remember that he never took himself too seriously and was always willing to accept or even make jokes about himself. I was reminded by an obituary today of his story about refereeing a match in which the young Jimmy Greaves played. He had cause to be in dispute with Jimmy Greaves and asked, "Who do you think is refereeing this match?", to which Jimmy Greaves replied, "I don't know but I'm sure it isn't either of us." Denis Howell was a great man and we would have benefited greatly from his presence tonight. He had intended to be present.
I suppose that I have peculiar qualifications to speak in this debate in the sense that I vary between having a small interest in sport and no interest whatsoever, with no interest in sport being the dominant characteristic. Perhaps that is a good thing, as I can be entirely neutral as between the claims of different sports for attention and coverage. As noble Lords know perfectly well that my response to the Question of my noble friend Lord Lofthouse will be to stonewall rather than to give the Government's response to the advisory group's report, I can do so with a good deal of conviction without any personal prejudices coming into the matter. I suppose I also represent a group referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—those who are interested in other subjects on television or radio; those who believe (to adapt the famous phrase) that coverage of sport has increased, is increasing and should be diminished. I hasten to say that that is not the view of the Government.

1019
The advisory group's report is a quite remarkable document in a short space. It recognises the argument for wide availability of sport. At the same time it recognises the needs of the sports themselves. Noble Lords are right to demand that the Government should think carefully about the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Gordon and his colleagues before coming to a conclusion and making that conclusion public. I can confirm straight away that this debate will be an important part of the consultation process. For that reason again I shall not attempt to pre-empt the conclusions the Government may draw.
It is significant that my noble friend's report was unanimous despite the wide variety of membership of the group—a deliberately wide variety consisting of members of great distinction in all matters relating to sport and broadcasting. Reference has been made to the criteria which the Secretary of State set down for the report. Minimal criteria are prescribed in the Broadcasting Act 1996, but after extensive consultation the Secretary of State felt—I have heard no disagreement with that tonight—that it was necessary to be more explicit in setting out the criteria for listing than was possible in legislation.
Of course the advisory group could have taken the populist view and simply recommended a much longer list, as my noble friend Lord Gordon rightly said. But the group recognises that, whether or not we like it, sport is now big business. It requires investment in facilities, in providing for the safety and comfort of those who go to see sporting events, and in particular in training and bringing new people into sport. When I read some of the reactions to the report, and having heard some of the contributions tonight, I wonder whether it follows that the best deal, as the noble Lord. Lord Skidelsky, said, will almost always be Sky. I thought that the example given by my noble friend Lord Gordon of the Scottish Open was a good one.
It is important to remember that, in considering the best deal for them, the governing bodies of sports in this country will not simply take the largest amount of money available from the deal itself but will be concerned with the possibilities of sponsorship, advertising support and, above all, the popularisation of the sport. As has been rightly said, that is more possible from terrestrial television with its much larger audiences than from Sky. Sky, pay-to-view and subscription television will always be more restricted to fans for obvious economic reasons—and, as my noble friends Lord Lofthouse and Lord Orme rightly said, on the whole to the better off fans. That is a serious problem. But the popularity of sports will be very much greater if the boards of control take into account what can be achieved indirectly by making their sports available on terrestrial free-to-view television. I do not know any alternative to that phrase.
At the same time, it is quite right to say that none of these issues is set in concrete; they are not going to survive the arrival of digital television from the end of this year—although I suspect it will take much longer to be fully operational than some people now think. Clearly, digital television will need attractive
1020
programmes in order to justify investment by viewers in the set-top boxes or in the new television sets themselves. Clearly sport will play some part. But a very large part of digital television is going to be free-to-view and will overcome some of the problems of competition between sport and other subjects on our television screens, whether terrestrial, satellite or cable.
So I do not accept the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that somehow my noble friend's report is detrimental to the development of digital television. I take rather the view of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that we shall have to see how digital television advances. It may well be that whatever decisions we take now in relation to listed events will have to be changed when digital television takes root.
There have been a number of references to individual sports—notably and most powerfully to Rugby League by my noble friends Lord Lofthouse and Lord Orme. We recognise the devotion of many thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands or millions, of people to Rugby League. However, it is important that we should not get into the habit of thinking of listing, in the sense in which it is used here, as an honours list, and that if an event is listed it is somehow a better or more important sport. That is not the issue at all—
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. I certainly appreciate the point that he just made. However, does he not think that the request that I have made on behalf of rugby—namely, one match a year, to the massive benefit of the youth who have an interest in the game and the elderly who want to watch television—is a rather modest request and that serious consideration should be given to it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I understand the powerful emotion behind that idea. The point that I want to make about all the reactions to the Gordon Report is that listing does not mean that any particular match will be shown on terrestrial television. It is simply not true to say that if an event is listed it will be shown on terrestrial television, and that if it is not listed it will not be shown. I sought to argue that the case for a wide audience for Rugby League, and for the Challenge Cup in particular, does not depend on whether or not the event is listed. It seems to me highly unlikely that, even if it is not listed, the Rugby League authorities themselves will go for an exclusive deal with Sky which would stop the event being shown on terrestrial television. There are failures in logic, at least in some of the press discussion that I have seen. Listing gives no certainty of showing on terrestrial television, and non-listing does not give certainty of exclusive pay-to-view or subscription deals, or the exclusion of terrestrial deals. That is the context in which we should be examining the whole issue of listed events.
I recognise of course the force of the arguments for the importance of Rugby League football and the force of the arguments by my noble friend Lord Orme for cricket; but I remind him that the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, the Chairman of the English Cricket Board, has himself said that, whether or not there is listing, he

1021
wishes to keep English cricket on terrestrial television. Since he is a member of the body that makes decisions about the deals that are done with broadcasters, I believe that that should be taken with a considerable degree of seriousness.
No one will be satisfied with everything that is said in any report, particularly a report which obviously has within it an element of compromise because it is unanimous. However, I believe that the welcome which my noble friend Lord Gordon has received from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front Benches
1022
ought to weigh with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He will make his own decision. I am not in any way pre-empting that decision, but I believe that the debate we have had this evening will help him to do that. I hope that it will be possible for him to make his decision responsibly and after proper consideration, within a very few weeks. I repeat the expressions of gratitude which have been made to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract for introducing this important subject.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  Reservists Serving in Former Yugoslavia
  Reservists Serving in Former Yugoslavia
  TAVR Associations
  TAVR Associations
  Organic Farming: Assistance
  Organic Farming: Assistance
  Common Fisheries Policy: Zonal Management
  Common Fisheries Policy: Zonal Management
  Fishing Quota Transfers
  Fishing Quota Transfers
  BSE Statistics
  BSE Statistics
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group
  BSE: Compulsory Slaughter of Offspring
  BSE: Compulsory Slaughter of Offspring
  Food Safety Surveillance: Reporting of Results
  Food Safety Surveillance: Reporting of Results
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Greater London Assembly: Electoral System
  Greater London Assembly: Electoral System
  Greater London Authority
  Greater London Authority
  Jubilee Line Extension
  Jubilee Line Extension
  A.12, Witham: Advertisement Hoardings
  A.12, Witham: Advertisement Hoardings
  Petrol Price Comparisons
  Petrol Price Comparisons
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Turkey: European Court of Human Rights Awards
  Turkey: European Court of Human Rights Awards
  Turkey: European Commission on Human Rights Opinions
  Turkey: European Commission on Human Rights Opinions
  Turkey: OSCE Summit
  Turkey: OSCE Summit
  Habitual Residence Test
  Habitual Residence Test
  Criminal Appeal Act 1995: Insanity Verdicts
  Criminal Appeal Act 1995: Insanity Verdicts
  Campsfield House: Report
  Campsfield House: Report
  Positional Asphyxia
  Positional Asphyxia
  Isle of Man: European Convention on Human Rights
  Isle of Man: European Convention on Human Rights
  Cannabis-based Medicine
  Cannabis-based Medicine
  Treaty of Amsterdam: UK Border Controls
  Treaty of Amsterdam: UK Border Controls
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Competent Authorities
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Competent Authorities
  Controlled Drugs and the Internet
  Controlled Drugs and the Internet
  Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
  Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
  Firearms Acts: Correspondence with Chief Officers of Police
  Firearms Acts: Correspondence with Chief Officers of Police
  Tamil Tigers: Fundraising in UK
  Tamil Tigers: Fundraising in UK
  Mr. Sidney Cooke: Photographs
  Mr. Sidney Cooke: Photographs
  Electronic Tagging for Girls under 18
  Electronic Tagging for Girls under 18