Sitting of 15 December 1998

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

    Ambulance Response Times (Cornwall)
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: If he will make a statement on ambulance response times in Cornwall. [62442]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Ambulance response times in Cornwall improved in 1997–98. The percentage of 999 calls reached within 19 minutes rose by more than 1 per cent. despite a 1.5 per cent. rise in the number of ambulance callouts.
    Mr. Taylor: The Minister did not say, however, that the response times were very much below those in the citizens charter for health standards. Anyone calling an ambulance in Cornwall stands a very high chance of it taking well over the response time in the citizens charter. Is that not because there is no proper funding for ambulance services in rural areas to take account of the obvious extra difficulties in reaching patients quickly? Does that not result in patients' lives being put at risk?
    Mr. Hutton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not feel able to join me in congratulating NHS staff in Cornwall on achieving the improvements in response times to which I have referred. We are aware of the difficulties and officials in the NHS regional office are working closely with the health authority and the ambulance service in Cornwall to see what further action can be taken to improve response times. The hon. Gentleman mentioned resources. The changes introduced to the weighted capitation formula for 1998–99 include a geographical cost adjustment for emergency ambulance services which benefited Cornwall health authority by more than £1 million.

    Dental Services
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: When he will publish his strategy for NHS dentistry. [62443]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We will publish our new strategy
    744
    before too long, when we have considered all the points raised by those who have contributed their views on the future of NHS dentistry.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank the Minister for that reply and for the additional funding promised by the Government to increase people's right and accessibility to NHS dentistry. I note that it is 20 times more than that provided by the previous Administration, but I would like to ask the Minister for his proposals and his strategy for sorting out the current bureaucratic muddle that seems to be delaying the allocation of funds to dental practices.
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend rightly says, we have made available extra money to improve access to NHS dentistry and to try to clear up the mess left by our predecessors, who ran down NHS dentistry in too many parts of the country. The Government are committed to building it up rather than running it down, and to date we have approved some 250 bids under the investing in dentistry initiative. As a result, an extra 600,000 patients now have access to NHS dental care. An additional 90 proposals are in the pipeline, including some from my hon. Friend's area, and we are assessing them carefully.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: On the issue of free dental checks for all, the Deputy Prime Minister said on the BBC:
    "We've got to find the money to finance it".
    Does the Minister still stand by that commitment?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, his party was in power for 18 years. If he is so committed to free dental checks, perhaps he should have done something about it.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if a dentist mistreats patients in order fraudulently to create work for himself, those patients should be properly compensated? Does he agree that it is not acceptable for any insurance company to reject any such claim without giving proper reason? Does he plan to do something about that in future?
    Mr. Milburn: I am not aware of the issue that my hon. Friend raises, although I am happy to look at any individual case. The overwhelming majority of NHS dentists—and NHS staff—are trustworthy, honest and reliable. However, we intend to take tough measures against the minority who are not. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have recently appointed a new director of counter-fraud work who will spearhead the assault on fraud wherever it occurs—in dentistry, medicine or anywhere else within the NHS.

    Cancer Patients (Drugs)
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the refusal by some health authorities to fund recently approved drugs for cancer patients. [62444]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): We want to ensure that cost-effective clinical services, including treatments for cancer, are provided on a consistent national basis. There is unacceptable

    745
    fragmentation and variation which we are tackling, first by establishing next April the national institute for clinical excellence, which will set standards for clinical excellence and secondly, through the commission for health improvement, which will ensure that those standards are applied in practice.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: On 30 June at Health questions, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) told the House:
    "no one will be denied the drugs they need. That is a guarantee."—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 143.]
    Yet we hear today from the Minister that there is differentiation in the allocation of drugs that cancer patients need. How can she possibly justify an immediate breach of the promise by her ministerial colleague less than six months ago?
    Ms Jowell: Frankly, that is pretty thin. My right hon. Friend was referring to the approach to consultation and the local priorities that would be adopted by primary care groups. The hon. Gentleman's question was about cancer. For the benefit of his constituents, who may feel cheated if he does not receive the answer, I shall set out precisely what is happening in cancer treatments involving Taxol, about which there is some concern.
    We asked the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to assess the latest research results and evidence; it endorsed the view that Taxol is the preferred treatment for ovarian cancer. We then wrote to all national health service regional directors of public health to inform them that the committee had endorsed that evidence. Evidence-based guidance on improving outcomes in gynaecological cancers will be published in the spring and will be sent to all health authorities and trusts. It will refer to the use of Taxol in the treatment of ovarian cancer.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Many cancer patients will have cancer because of smoking. Although no doubt many people will continue to choose to kill themselves through smoking, does my hon. Friend agree—bearing in mind last week's White Paper, particularly its title—that it is unacceptable that those of us who do not smoke should continue to be put at risk of being killed by those who do smoke? What steps will she take to protect non-smokers from the dangers of passive smoking?
    Ms Jowell: The title of the White Paper—"Smoking Kills"—is a statement of fact. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we will not make progress in tackling cancer or heart disease unless we reduce the number of deaths from smoking. He will know that the measures set out in the White Paper include an agreement with the Health and Safety Commission for consultation on the establishment of an approved code to guide practice on smoking at work, which will have legal status if approved. Moreover, the five leading organisations in the hospitality trade have given a commitment to work together to improve ventilation in pubs, wine bars and restaurants where people smoke, and to increase the number of smoke-free public places.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Lady said that she had a system for the evidence-based prescribing of Taxol, but will she accept that there will be new drugs, which will not be as widely
    746
    available as they should be? Does she recognise the fact—I seem to invite her every three weeks to do so—that rationing is taking place in the NHS? That is nothing to be ashamed of—there will always be such tension. Will she at least start a debate with Liberal Democrats and the public and find out how much people are prepared to pay to ensure that rationing—I invite her to use that word—is not as extreme as it is at the moment?
    Ms Jowell: I make it clear once again that the NHS will not apply blanket bans to clinically effective treatments. We have also made it clear that the NHS must be able to keep pace with what are, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, rapid advances and developments, particularly in new drug treatments, so that those treatments are properly assessed for their clinical and cost effectiveness. We must ensure that the status and benefits of the new drugs are established through the work of the national institute for clinical excellence and the commission for health improvement.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is there rationing or is there not?
    Ms Jowell: No.
    Miss Widdecombe: In view of the Minister's unequivocal statement that there is no rationing—which I think will be greeted with disbelief by the medical profession—can she now comment, for the benefit of the House, on the availability not only of the cancer drugs, but of beta-interferon, which is rationed; recombinant, which is rationed; Aricept, which is rationed; and the new anti-psychotics, which are rationed?
    Ms Jowell: There are two ways of dealing with precisely the kinds of prescribed drugs to which the right hon. Member has referred. We had 18 years of the Conservatives' way, which produced fragmentation and 3,000 GP fundholders, who all had different systems of prescribing. The alternative—which would be just as unacceptable to the people of this country—would be to define clinical protocols, which would mean that everybody's treatment was preordained in Richmond house.
    What we are doing—in, as I am sure the right hon. Lady will forgive me for suggesting, a third way approach to treatment—is establishing the national institute for clinical excellence, which will assess and evaluate new treatments, and we will ensure that those new treatments are made available as quickly as possible to patients, who will benefit from them.
    Frankly, the right hon. Lady does her constituents and the people of this country no good by raising spectres that are not borne out in practice. In practice, people will receive treatment on the basis of their clinical need.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am tempted to observe that the pantomime season must have come early. May I ask the Minister a straightforward question? Under her Government, are any drugs not being prescribed by practitioners or others on the ground of cost—yes or no?
    Ms Jowell: I would be very happy to volunteer to be either the front or the back of the right hon. Lady's

    747
    pantomime horse. I have already made it clear that the basis on which drugs are prescribed and treatment administered is clinical need and proven clinical effectiveness.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. Mark Todd: What assessment he has made of the preparedness of ambulance services in respect of year 2000 compliance. [62445]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Ambulance services are making good progress towards ensuring year 2000 compliance. Progress is monitored quarterly by the national health service executive.
    Mr. Todd: May I point out to my hon. Friend that Derbyshire ambulance trust has not yet reached year 2000 compliance? However, the recently announced merger between Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire ambulance services may allow it to use the more advanced technology available in those services. I very much hope that the merger will not distract Derbyshire ambulance trust from improving response times in the area, which, sadly, are the worst in the country, in spite of the tremendous efforts of the trust's hard-working staff, who have put in a great deal of time and effort to try to remedy the situation.
    Mr. Hutton: I can assure my hon. Friend that the new trust that will operate in the east midlands will improve the delivery of service to his constituents and others in the east midlands. That is clear, and we approved the merger for those reasons. We are monitoring closely issues concerning improving response times for the Derbyshire ambulance service. As he will know, additional expenditure has been authorised to ensure year 2000 compliance, and we expect to see an improvement in response times.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Can the Minister confirm his current estimate of the total cost to the NHS of millennium compliance? What progress has his Department made in seeking to recover any part of that anticipated cost from suppliers of equipment to the NHS?
    Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I am unable to respond in detail to the hon. Gentleman's questions. I am happy to look into the matter and respond to him in writing, if that would be helpful. However, Government Members will take with a pinch of salt the lectures from Conservative Members, who had plenty of opportunity to address these issues in government, and conspicuously failed to do so.
    Mr. Paddy Tipping: As Derbyshire does not have millennium compliance and Nottinghamshire does, will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the new ambulance trust of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire rises to the level of the best rather than sinking to that of the worst.
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Let me make it absolutely clear
    748
    that, following approval for the merger, the Derbyshire ambulance service will use the same accident and emergency control systems that are currently in use by Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, and that those two systems are completely year 2000 compliant.

    NHS Review Panels
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What plans he has to review the workings of independent review panels in the NHS. [62446]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): An independent evaluation of all aspects of national health service complaints procedures is due to begin in the new year. It will include consideration of the independent review procedures.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister agree that there is a great danger that the review panels' independence—which is so vital for patients—could be undermined by the intervention of health service officials? Will he agree to take a fresh look at a case about which I have written to him, concerning a constituent of mine, the Hertfordshire health authority and the Queen Elizabeth hospital? The authority arbitrarily ruled that a maximum of two members of a family could be present at an inquiry into their mother's death, and as the family is larger than that and is unwilling to be divided, the inquiry cannot proceed.
    Mr. Milburn: I am certainly extremely happy to refer that case to the people who will carry out the review of the NHS complaints procedure. That procedure was introduced by the previous Government in 1996; as it has now operated for a couple of years, we think that it is right to review it, and in particular to consider it from the point of view of complainants, patients and indeed the NHS staff who have to operate the system. I am happy to take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments and to ensure that they are fed into the review.

    Tobacco
    Mr. Andrew Love: When he expects to publish his White Paper on tobacco. [62448]
    Mr. Ian Stewart: When he expects to publish his White Paper on tobacco. [62451]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The White Paper, "Smoking Kills" was published on 10 December 1998.
    Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that the pressure group ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—recently described the White Paper as the first serious and sustained assault on the enormous burden of illness and death caused by smoking since scientists first brought its dangers to our attention 40 years ago? Is she also aware that, each and every day, about 450 children take up smoking, and that half of all smokers will die from the habit? In the light of the White Paper, what further action will the Government take in their war against smoking?
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for that question. I am glad that ASH, and almost every

    749
    other organisation except the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, welcomed the White Paper's sensible approach and the fact that we have set very clear targets and recognised that achievement will come through the combined efforts of Government and other organisations that can deliver solutions to the many problems that arise.
    At the centre of our concern about smoking is the objective of cutting the number of children who take it up in the first place. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the staggering figure of an estimated 450 children a day taking up smoking. The action that we intend to take was clearly set out in the White Paper: tough enforcement, including a ban on advertising, and an unprecedented campaign to start shifting children's attitudes so that they no longer see smoking as a passport to adulthood. We, and all the organisations that we have worked with, recognise that it will take time, which is why we have set targets for 2005 and 2010.
    Mr. Stewart: Smoking causes one in seven deaths from heart disease, and my constituency has the highest incidence of heart disease in the country. In my local authority of Salford, the British Heart Foundation runs the Heartstart scheme, which trains young people to give emergency life support to those suffering from heart attacks and teaches them about the causes of heart attacks, including smoking. Does my hon. Friend agree that such schemes help local communities and educate young people about the dire consequences of smoking, and will she commend the scheme to other areas?
    Ms Jowell: I am happy to commend the Heartstart scheme that my hon. Friend mentions. We want to ensure that we do everything we can to spread the benefits of best practice more widely. Next year, we will publish the public health White Paper, which will set clear targets for tackling heart disease, especially in areas where the rate is high, such as my hon. Friend's constituency. I reiterate the point I made earlier: that the White Paper "Smoking Kills" is a critical part of our battle against cancer and our battle to reduce unnecessary deaths from heart disease.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: I declare an interest as a smoker. Although I welcome the Government's proposals, I am sceptical about their likely success. If the Government are serious about curbing smoking, why do not they adopt a fiscal approach and massively increase the price of cigarettes, so that people cannot afford to buy them? The Government could also levy a windfall tax on the tobacco companies, so that they are no longer so profitable.
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend will see from the White Paper that fiscal measures are part of the battle against smoking, because keeping the price up means that children are less likely to be able to afford them and to take up smoking in the first place.
    I emphasise the extent to which all the measures in the White Paper are based on the best available evidence that they work. Seven out of 10 smokers want to give up, and access to smoking cessation services is critical in enabling smokers to do so.
    All the evidence from other countries is that one cannot stop children taking up smoking unless tobacco advertising is banned. Our approach to developing the package of proposals announced last week was guided by and rooted in the evidence.

    Mixed-sex Wards (Goodmayes)
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the advice given to Goodmayes hospital by the NHS executive concerning the possible continuance of mixed-sex wards in psychiatric units. [62449]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The advice given to the Goodmayes hospital about the elimination of mixed-sex wards in psychiatric units is exactly the same as the advice that has been given ever since the new Government started to issue advice on the matter. We are determined to eliminate mixed-sex wards in all hospitals, including psychiatric ones.
    Dr. Lewis: Does the Secretary of State understand that a contradiction is apparent? Does he recall that on two previous occasions when I have raised the issue of the continuation of mixed-sex wards—and even the construction of new mixed-sex wards in psychiatric units—he said, in forthright and welcome terms, "If this is going on, I am going to put a stop to it." In the light of what he said when stopping the mixed-sex ward at Charing Cross hospital, how does he explain the letter from the NHS executive to Goodmayes hospital which stated:
    "completely segregating services would not be acceptable, as there are good clinical reasons to provide an environment in hospitals which, as closely as it can, prepares people for their return to their own accommodation"?
    Is not that a backsliding on the categorical commitment that the Secretary of State has given? That backsliding was confirmed in a letter to me, dated 1 December, from the Under-Secretary of State, in which he says:
    "Within a mental health unit, medical opinion favours an environment which is as normal as possible."
    Does the Secretary of State accept that medical opinion, as represented by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, does not favour that sort of latitude?
    Mr. Dobson: Our promise was to eliminate mixed-sex wards. I am confident that about 95 per cent. of health authorities will have done so by 2002. When the hon. Gentleman raised with me the matter of the building of some mixed-sex psychiatric wards at the Charing Cross hospital, I put a stop to it. They have been redesigned, and they are no longer mixed-sex wards. The proposal for Goodmayes hospital is not for mixed-sex wards, but will mean that some of the day rooms and other facilities will be available to both male and female patients. That is reasonable, if the clinicians responsible for those patients consider it appropriate.
    I have made it clear to those clinicians that such a decision must be subject to the absolute certainty that measures are taken to protect women from any form of harassment—sexual or otherwise—by the men in the unit. However, the wards in which the patients sleep will be segregated, as will the washing facilities and lavatories. If the women want to get away from the men, they will be able to do so. That means that we are keeping our pledge, not evading it.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Government are to be commended for ending what has undoubtedly been a very unpopular practice, which was introduced by the

    751
    previous Government to save money. Does my right hon. Friend agree that elderly people who are sick and need to go into hospital will especially welcome the measure?
    Mr. Dobson: In fairness to the previous Government, I must say—it grieves me to do so—that the practice was not entirely their fault. For a brief period during that Government's time in office, the conventional wisdom among some of the practitioners in this sector was that mixed-sex wards were all right and were akin to mixed hairdressers and mixed saunas. However, it is not like that for people in hospital, and we are putting a stop to that mistaken fashion. The previous Government did nothing about it, but we are going to eliminate mixed-sex wards. We are going about doing so, and have found £70 million to do it with.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I have constantly welcomed the Secretary of State's stance on mixed-sex wards, which I know were introduced by the practitioners. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in a recent answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stated that about six or seven of the units in Northern Ireland still run mixed-sex wards? Will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to speak to his right hon. Friend to ensure that Government policy is consistent throughout the nation?
    Mr. Dobson: It is foolish in this House for people who are not experts to tread on Northern Ireland territory, as the history of the area shows. However, I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Road Accident Victims
    Mr. David Taylor: If he will make a statement on his policy on emergency treatment fees in the NHS for road accident victims. [62452]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government intend to end collection of the emergency treatment fee by national health service trusts. An amendment to section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, removing the right of NHS trusts to the fee, is contained in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons on 27 November 1998 and which was given a Second Reading on 8 December.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware, that on 12 March 1991, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who was then a junior Health Minister, stated in a written answer that the Conservative Government intended to abolish the emergency treatment fee
    "as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle becomes available"?—[Official Report, 12 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 493.]
    That vehicle was clearly involved in a nasty collision, because the then Government announced the death of that intention in June 1995.
    In the light of that, how does my hon. Friend react to the Opposition's criticism of what the Government intend to do, and how does he rate, on a scale of one to 20, the utter political hypocrisy of that criticism?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful for that question. It is probably another example of hot air as regards the Opposition's promises when they were in government—promises on which they conspicuously failed to deliver. On this occasion, as on many others, it has taken a Labour Government to clear up the mess that they left behind.

    Children's Homes
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future management of children's homes. [62453]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): On 5 November, I spelled out to the House our plans for the future management of children's homes to ensure that children are better looked after and to protect them from abuse, exploitation and neglect. Further details were given in our White Paper, "Modernising Social Services", which I announced to the House on 30 November.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank the Minister for his reply. I sympathise with the view he takes, and admire the fact that he intends to do something about that serious matter. Given the risk that is posed by men running some care homes, which is obvious from the number of cases of abuse, he might consider recycling grannies—women who have raised families and who are good at spotting when something is going on. If such people were in charge of homes, the children in them would have a naturally sympathetic character to whom to turn. Will he consider that as a practical and serious proposition?
    Mr. Dobson: The short answer is yes, I will consider it, as it seems to be a perfectly sensible proposition. My only point on the hon. Lady's introductory remarks is that for boys in homes, as in schools, it is a good idea to have safe men around to provide role models of how grown-up males should behave. However, we need to ensure that they are not among the abusers and exploiters of children. The hon. Lady's point is practical and sensible, and I will look into it.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: May I commend my right hon. Friend's commitment to the radical reform of the care system and the ending of abuse in it, to improve a situation that has brought great shame on this country? Perhaps he will reconsider his recent remarks. Surely men can play a tremendous role in the care system, in children's homes, in foster care and in social work with children. We have to get the protection of children in the system right, and we have to ensure that we have the right people in it, rather than making facile judgments based on gender.
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend may have misheard me. I said that, provided that the men are safe, it is as well to have men around, because they set a proper example to young people of the way in which decent adult males should behave. That certainly applies to boys, and to some extent it may also apply to girls, some of whom may have come from homes in which the adult male has knocked about and battered the women of the household. It is

    753
    probably a good idea for children who come from such households to discover that there are men who do not behave like that.

    Health Trusts
    Mr. David Kidney: How many health trusts have become technically insolvent. [62455]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): None.
    Mr. Kidney: Do I thank my hon. Friend for that answer? He is aware that there are some health trusts, such as the Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS trust in my constituency, whose finances are sufficiently precarious to need special monitoring by his officials. Does he agree that national health service staff in such trusts work in a dedicated and committed way and yet sometimes feel that the financial position is such that they are working with one hand tied behind their backs? Can he assure us that the monitoring is sufficiently robust to ensure that the full range and quality of services that the local populace, including trust employees, require will be available in those trusts?
    Mr. Milburn: Of course staff in organizations that have been landed in debt as a consequence of the policies carried out by the previous Government are at the sharp end of dilemmas. When we came to power, two thirds of health authorities were in debt and the national health service as a whole was in debt to the tune of £450 million, thanks to the lacklustre and reckless performance of the Conservatives. We have halved that debt and are well on target to get the NHS back into financial balance. That is largely a consequence of the record levels of investment that we are now making in the NHS, including the extra £38 million that has gone into the South Staffordshire area.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the way he is tackling the funding problem in Worcestershire is to close Kidderminster general hospital and to downgrade the accident and emergency departments at Kidderminster hospital and at the Alexandra hospital, Redditch, to the status of glorified minor injuries units. That is the policy of the Labour Government, whereas, for 18 years under the previous Conservative Administration, those facilities remained open.
    The Minister might not be aware that, during the last general election, his hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) campaigned saying that a Labour Government would keep Kidderminster general hospital open; or that his hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) campaigned on the basis that the accident and emergency department at Alexandra hospital would not be downgraded. However, both those things have come to pass under a Labour Government who promised to improve our national health service.
    All we in north Worcestershire have experienced are cuts. I should be grateful if, instead of conversing with other hon. Members, the Minister answered the real concerns of the people of north Worcestershire who are finding that the Labour Government, who promised to improve the NHS, are cutting it.
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Lady must be the only person in Worcestershire who thinks that Kidderminster general
    754
    hospital is closing. It is not closing; it is staying open. Instead of condemning my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, she would do better to praise him for the conscientious campaign that he has led to ensure that there is a high-quality, modern and dependable emergency centre at the hospital. Its existence is thanks to the decisions that we have taken, which are getting Worcestershire health authority and the good people of Kidderminster out of the mess in which the Conservative Government landed them.

    Care Standards
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What roles and responsibilities he proposes for regional commissions for care standards. [62457]
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What roles and responsibilities he plans to give the regional commissions for care standards. [62458]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The current system for checking on children's homes and residential and nursing homes for adults is simply not up to the task. Some places are not regulated at all and there is no check on the standard of care delivered to people in their own homes. The commissions for care standards in each region will change all that. Their job will be to check on every aspect of social care, and to ensure that top-quality services are delivered and that no one is abused, exploited or neglected by the people who are supposed to be looking after them.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I warmly welcome the commissions on care standards and many of the other measures contained in the White Paper, not least the general social care council and the new national performance framework. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those measures to increase openness and accountability are vital if we are to deliver better services to carers and their families and to the staff who work in those vital services?
    Mr. Dobson: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's point. The system we inherited is a shambles—it does not work. It leaves small children's homes and local authority homes uninspected; and in some cases, it leaves people of extremely dubious background delivering services into the homes of people who are often elderly or disabled. We believe that those arrangements need to be better regulated than they have been in the past, and I am confident that our proposals will do the job.
    Mr. Foster: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Will the regulatory arrangements go beyond residential centres, such as nursing homes and children's homes, and extend into the community to cover those services that are carried out in the community?
    Mr. Dobson: Yes. As I have already said, we want to make sure that the standard of care delivered in the homes of individuals who are living in their own home is checked on and raised. Organisations such as fostering agencies also need to be checked on. The fact is that nearly everyone who provides social care to people in residential settings, in their own homes or through

    755
    agencies does an absolutely first-class job. However, there are some rotten apples in the barrel and we need to sort them out.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What flash of inspiration led to both the previous questions being identical? Were they planted?
    Mr. Dobson: I think they reflect the degree of concern on this side of the House about the appalling state of regulation, which we inherited from the previous Government, governing children's homes, old people's homes and other domiciliary services. I think they also indicate the extent to which my hon. Friends are determined to put the matter right and stick up and speak up for the people whom they were elected to represent. If one or two Opposition Members had been interested, they might have put down similar questions.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will we have to wait until the regional commissions are in place before we are told how mental hostels in places such as Weymouth are to be funded? The Secretary of State will know that, before he moved to the Home Office, his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) was working to ensure that people with mental illness who did not need medical care could be looked after in the community in the types of hostels that we pioneered in Weymouth decades ago.
    We have not received any information about the funding of those hostel—whether it be through housing benefit, the health service or social services. Will the Secretary of State please resolve that difficult problem, which he and his hon. Friends have acknowledged is real, and help the mentally ill whom his White Paper was supposed to assist.
    Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman will provide details of the particular circumstances in Weymouth, I shall do my best to sort them out.
    Mr. Bruce rose—
    Mr. Dobson: It is no good the hon. Gentleman jumping up in the Chamber and expecting me to know the details of what is going on in Weymouth. I am very sympathetic to the problem as he has outlined it. I shall look into the matter and try to sort out the problem, if there is one.
    Our general position is that we want to improve the system of care and treatment for everyone who is mentally ill across a wide range of circumstances. We are determined to provide that improved care, whether it is delivered in secure units, purpose-built hostels or people's homes. If there are particular problems in Weymouth, I am happy to look into them.

    Refugee Doctors
    Mr. Mike Gapes: What plans he has to facilitate the employment of refugee doctors.
    [62459]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We are aware of the difficulties faced by refugee doctors and the problems that they can
    756
    encounter when trying to secure appointments in the NHS. Overseas-trained doctors provide an invaluable contribution to the effective operation of the health service. I shall ask the advisory group on medical and dental education, training and staffing to consider the needs of this particular group of overseas doctors and make recommendations as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gapes: I am very grateful for that reply. My right hon. Friend is probably aware of the important initiative taken by Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority in setting up a group for refugee doctors, which includes people from Afghanistan and Somalia. The group comprises top medical specialists who, because of difficulties with regulations and the English language, cannot use their skills at present.
    When the advisory group is established, will it liaise with Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment and the Home Office? It has been drawn to my attention that refugee doctors are experiencing difficulties with Home Office requirements and jobseeker's allowance conditions which make it impossible for them to practise their medical skills. Refugee doctors are told that they must work as shelf stackers, for example, when they have particular needs and want to help the communities in which they live.
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend is aware, there are immigration and asylum rules, and it is important that doctors who are refugees to this country abide by them. However, the advisory group will consider a range of factors in making recommendations to me. It is also important to understand not only that concerted national action is needed in this area but that we should seek to build on the very good work that has been undertaken in my hon. Friend's area by the North Thames Deanery, the General Medical Council and local health authorities. They are seeking to provide better training for refugee doctors in order to facilitate their entry into the national health service where that is appropriate.
    Mr. John Bercow: How does the Minister intend to meet his targets for the recruitment of qualified doctors for our national health service without being obliged simply to import them, a policy that he will know is vigorously opposed by the British Medical Association?
    Mr. Milburn: In a number of ways. First, as was recommended by Sir Colin Campbell's committee, established by the previous Government, we shall increase the number of doctors in training. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will stop chuntering and start listening, we will make some progress. We are already ahead on the first recommendations of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee.
    Secondly, we shall increase the number of doctors who return to the national health service. Hon. Members will be aware that nowadays many doctors leave the service, for example, to have a family. It is important that we put in place flexible, family-friendly employment policies to recruit those doctors back into the NHS. The Government are taking action on that issue; the previous Government failed to act at all.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Minister aware that doctors in oppressive countries very often end up as refugees because they protect the victims of torture and maiming, or that the refugee experience often destroys people's self-esteem? I have in my constituency an Iraqi doctor who was completely convinced that she could not pass the test, although her English was excellent, because her self-esteem had been destroyed by the torture that she had experienced.
    If the Home Office delivers on its commitment to speed up asylum decisions, those doctors will be available to work more quickly. Does the Minister accept that it is therefore urgent to develop schemes such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), and that we need to get ahead in enabling those doctors to practice while they are in the UK?
    Mr. Milburn: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that refugee doctors who come to this country often face a host of problems. If they are admissible as refugees and if we want them to work in the national health service, it is obviously vital that we provide them with support and training to allow them to provide high-quality services to patients. There is a lot of very good local experience, such as that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, and we seek to build on that.

    Hospital (Swindon)
    Mr. James Gray: What progress is being made on plans for the new hospital in Swindon; and when it will open. [62460]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions is currently considering whether the proposals for the hospital should be subject to a public inquiry on planning grounds, and will announce his decision shortly.
    Mr. Gray: My constituents in North Wiltshire are very happy that the hospital is moving fast towards opening on its new site at Commonhead, which is so easily accessible from the M4, but are concerned that the considerations by the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions will delay that. I hope that the Minister will have a word with him to encourage him to make progress as fast as he can. More importantly, will the Minister advise the House as to how many hospitals which are due to open in the near future under the private finance initiative, which her party so strenuously opposed before 1997, were planned under the Conservative Government?
    Ms Jowell: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, none of the eight hospitals that are under way were planned under the Conservative Government. They promised a private finance initiative for hospital development, but delivered not one hospital.
    Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Ministry of Health has recognised the inadequacies of the Princess Margaret hospital in my constituency and the need to update its buildings for the Swindon population as we look towards the next century?
    758
    Will she do everything in her power to ensure that we get the much improved buildings we need as soon as possible?
    Ms Jowell: Yes.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the new hospital in Swindon provide much-needed neurological beds for the south-west region, especially in light of the experiences of my constituent, Mr. James Payne, who, having suffered a double fracture of the skull, was refused admission to a neurological unit in Taunton or in any of the other regional hospitals purely on the grounds that he was 65 years old, not on the basis of clinical assessment? Can that be right?
    Ms Jowell: I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the distribution of services to the people of Wiltshire.

    Infertility Treatment
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If he will further review the application for infertility treatment by Mrs. X whose name has been provided to him. [62461]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituent. However, Mrs. X's situation has been fully considered and reviewed by the health authority, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on or become involved in an individual case.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The health authority is simply wrong. This is one of the most distressing cases that I have had to handle in the 20 years I have been a Member of the House. It involves a jeopardised marriage and an attempt at suicide by Mrs. X some two months ago, all because North Cumbria health authority refused to show any flexibility about the rules. Is it not about time that we introduced new rules to require health authorities to provide this treatment, given that the only justification for not providing it is that a woman's husband had a child by a previous marriage? Surely it is a matter of civil rights.
    Mr. Hutton: First, I pay a very warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the energy and commitment with which he has represented his constituent in very difficult circumstances. However, I am sure he is aware that, as we have made clear today and on other occasions, the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring greater national consistency of access to services. He will also be aware that we have commissioned advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and are studying that advice carefully.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Alan Simpson: What the current trend rate is in NHS waiting lists; and what it was in the period up to May 1997. [62462]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): We have reversed the rising trend in national health service waiting lists which we inherited from the previous Government. In the six months to March 1997, waiting lists rose by an average of 16,000 a month. In the latest six months for which figures are available, waiting lists have fallen by an average of 20,000 a month.
    Mr. Simpson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. It speaks volumes about the difference between this Government and our predecessors, and my right hon. Friend deserves to be congratulated by the House. Will he in turn join me in congratulating Nottingham health authority not only on continuing to meet the guidelines of no one remaining on the waiting list for more than 18 months, but on having in the past six months secured a 16 per cent. reduction in the number of people waiting between 12 and 18 months? Will he put a cherry on that particular cake by saying whether we have any Christmas suggestions as to how health authorities that meet those targets can be helped to maintain them in the year ahead?
    Mr. Dobson: I certainly join in congratulating the staff of Nottingham health authority, and everyone else in the NHS, on all their hard work. Certainly, the biggest proportionate fall in waiting lists has been in the Trent region, which includes Nottingham. We will shortly be releasing an additional £32 million to tackle waiting list problems in the winter, and that money is intended to go to those health authorities that have had the greatest success. That, of course, will be followed by 10 times that sum—a further £320 million—to be invested in reducing waiting lists next year.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the Prime Minister answered a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) two weeks ago about waiting times for out-patient treatment by saying that the explanation was that referrals were increasing, when in fact they were going down; and given that the number of people waiting was going up, while there was a reduction of 37,000 in the number of people being treated, will the Secretary of State confirm that, although the Government have this year presided over a reduction in waiting times for those who have seen their consultants but not yet been treated, there has also been an increase of nearly 200,000 in the number of people who have seen their doctor but are still waiting to see their consultant?
    Is not the truth, in the last health questions of 1998, that the Government have not reduced waiting times; they have simply given people in the health service different ways of waiting?
    Mr. Dobson: No is the answer to that. Since the Labour Government got in, an additional 300,000 waiting-list cases have been treated compared with the preceding 18 months under the Tories. An additional 300,000 emergency cases have also been treated during that time. The number of out-patients who have been treated has also risen: in the previous quarter, the number was 100,000 more than the number of out-patients treated in the last quarter under the Tories. So work on waiting lists is up by 300,000, work on emergency cases is up by 300,000 and work on out-patients is up by 100,000. How that can be a reduction, God only knows—except he may be a Liberal.

Pensions
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on pensions, changes to which are a part of our modernisation of the welfare state.
All our reforms are driven by the central principle—work for those who can and security for those who cannot. Welfare reform is well under way. We have launched the new deal and announced the single gateway to the benefits system. We are modernising the tax and benefit system to make work pay with a new working families tax credit, underpinned by the national minimum wage.
We have begun to tackle child poverty, with the biggest ever rise in child benefit. We are reforming the Child Support Agency and we have introduced a national child care strategy. We are also reforming the legal aid system and student finance. Over the past few months, I have set out proposals for wide-ranging reforms to disability benefits, along with reforms to modernise bereavement benefits. Today, I set out far-reaching reform to ensure that the pension system meets the needs of the next 50 years.
A pension is the most important asset that people have, more important even than buying a house. That is why we want to put pensions on a sound footing, where every individual is guaranteed a decent income in retirement and where people can rely again on secure and effective private pensions, delivering security for today's pensioners and peace of mind for tomorrow's.
We are already providing security for today's pensioners with value added tax on heating cut to its lowest possible level, a winter fuel bonus, help with bus fares, free eye tests and higher pensions. Under the new Labour Government, Britain's pensioners are £140 a year or more better off, providing real security for today's pensioners. For future pensioners, I am publishing our proposals in a Green Paper, which sets out a new insurance contract between the state and individuals, a new public-private partnership for better pensions. Copies of the Green Paper are available in the Vote Office and a summary of the proposals is being sent to every right hon. and hon. Member this afternoon.
There are three overwhelming reasons to reform pensions. First, if we do nothing, one in three people could, by 2050, retire on income support. Under the current system, people can work hard all their working life and still retire on an income so low that they will depend on benefits for the rest of their life.
Secondly, many middle and higher earners want to save more and should save more, but have lost faith in the pension system because of the scandal of pension, mis-selling. Up to 2.5 million people, including nurses and teachers, may have been sold the wrong pension and have had their peace of mind in retirement shattered. This Government, unlike the previous Government, have not turned a blind eye to their plight. We have already toughened the regulation of personal pensions and taken firm action to ensure that those who lost out receive proper compensation. For those who do not have an occupational scheme, too often there is not a good place for them to put their savings.
762
Thirdly, the current system gives a poor deal to the millions of mothers and carers who have career breaks and find that they are penalised because of that.
The principles driving our reforms are clear. Everyone who can save for their retirement has a responsibility to do so. In turn, the Government have a responsibility to provide security in retirement for those who cannot save enough. Today, I am announcing a radical new pensions policy. It is radical because it guarantees a decent income for all pensioners. For the first time ever, a lifetime's work will not lead to dependency on means-tested benefits in retirement.
Our reforms create a new insurance contract combining the price-linked basic state pension with a minimum income guarantee that we will aim, in the long run, to increase in line with earnings. It will be a contract that rewards thrift and savings instead of penalising them. It is radical because, for the first time, it helps mothers get a decent pension despite career breaks and because it will, for the first time, give carers a right to a decent pension. It is radical because it replaces SERPS with the new support and a new state second pension to help those on low and middle incomes, and because it builds a completely new private funded pension that is simpler to understand and has lower charges. These proposals will put the trust back into pensions.
We are building a new insurance contract between state and individuals. In the past, the basic state pension has been the sole focus of the Government's deal with pensioners. The basic state pension will remain a universal, contributory, non-means-tested benefit, but the basic state pension alone cannot provide, and has never provided, everyone with a decent income in retirement. This Government will do better.
In future, there will be a new contract. The state will guarantee that everyone who retires in poverty will receive a minimum income guarantee well above the current level of income support—beginning at £75 a week for a single pensioner and £116 a week for a pensioner couple.
The complaint I hear more than any other from the pensioners I meet is that, as the country gets wealthier, they do not share in the gains. That is something that the Government want to remedy. Today, I can announce that it is our intention to give poorest pensioners the chance to share in the rising wealth of the country. Consistent with the proper management of the country's finances, our aim is that, over the long term, the minimum income guarantee should rise in line with earnings. We are also consulting on the best ways of changing the rules so that we reward savings even more.
However, after a lifetime of work, people should not have to rely on the guarantee in retirement. We want to ensure that they can do better than that guarantee. We want to ensure that low earners in work on less than £9,000 and people whose work is interrupted to look after children or sick relatives, as well as moderate and higher earners, have a higher income than the guarantee. So we need to do more.
Low earners in work depend on SERPS for a decent pension, but SERPS is income related. If one earns little, one gets little. The state earnings-related pension scheme does not give sufficient help to low earners. So today I can announce that we will replace SERPS with a new scheme—the new state second pension. It will deliver a

763
dramatic increase in the value of pensions. The new state second pension will be worth at least double what SERPS currently pays for people earning less than £9,000. Up to 5 million people stand to benefit. Under the current system, a person earning £6,000 a year would get £13 a week from SERPS, but will get £46 a week from the new scheme—£33 a week extra, providing real security for today's low paid.
We also promised in our manifesto that we would do more for people caring for children, or sick or disabled relatives, and for people who have worked, but cannot work now because of disability. So today I can also announce that we will end that unfairness where someone who gives up work to care does not have the chance to build up a second pension. That means that a mother who takes a couple of years off work to look after her two young children will no longer lose out on her pension.
Our reforms will, for the first time, provide security for 2.5 million carers, by helping them with pension contributions—enabling them to build up a second pension as of right. They will be credited into the new state second pension. Parents of nearly 200,000 disabled children, and some 1.5 million people with a long-term disability and interrupted work record, will also gain from that proposal.
The problems of the current system do not affect only those who earn less than £9,000. Too many people earning more than £9,000 get a raw deal, and our plans will change that. Middle earners will get more help, and they and higher earners will have decent products in which they can invest. That is why it is our long-term ambition that everyone earning more than about £9,000 should be in a secure, funded private pension. Stakeholder pensions will be attractive to them because they will be more secure, with independent trustees ensuring that the rights and interests of scheme members are put first.
Stakeholder pensions will be cheaper. On average, personal pension charges can eat up 25 per cent. of savings, whereas we expect stakeholder pensions, with simpler regulation, to result in a substantial reduction in charges. They will be more flexible. If a member—for example, a mother who is at home bringing up children—does not contribute for a period, no charges, which could eat up savings, will be levied. Similarly, those who change jobs will not lose out.
Stakeholder pensions will be higher quality. We shall protect consumers by building quality into the system. We shall also require all stakeholder pension schemes to meet specified standards. They will also be simpler to understand. Pensions are complicated, and private pensions are often a nightmare to understand. We intend that stakeholder pensions will be simpler and more transparent.
Our proposals for stakeholder pension schemes will give up to 5 million people who today are without a second funded pension the chance to build a secure, decent income for their retirement. Everyone earning between £9000 and £18,500 will receive better pension rights.
The Government expect to spend about £500 million annually on increased payments for those who join funded schemes. For many people, that will make joining a new stakeholder pension scheme more attractive. Someone earning £12,000 a year could increase their stakeholder
764
private pension in retirement by almost £1,000 a year. Moreover, once stakeholder pensions are up and running, we shall reshape the system to make private funded pensions the only sensible option for those earning above £9,000
I strongly believe that those incentives are fairer and more effective than increasing compulsion. I do not think that it is the Government's job to make life harder for people on £12,000, for example, with two children and a mortgage to pay. I want to help middle earners, not penalise them. However, I want them to know exactly where they stand.
I want to provide another type of incentive for people to save. Today, I am able to announce that, for the first time, we shall provide an annual pensions statement for every working person in the United Kingdom. The statements will set out how much private and state pension people are likely to receive on retirement. Everyone will therefore know exactly where they stand. People will also see, in black and white, the consequences of not saving more. We shall work with employers and the pensions industry to make the statement as effective as possible.
Other reform options have been urged on us. Some people have suggested that we introduce compulsion for all now. Some people have suggested privatising the entire system. We closely examined those proposals, and I should like to tell the House why they would not work.
We already compel more than 20 million employees to save. Therefore, the question is whether we should compel them to save even more. The fact is that, for low earners, no amount of extra compulsion will help, because they simply cannot afford the amounts that they would have to save. Therefore, anyone who backs compulsion for all will have to justify such a burden on low earners. I am not willing to do that.
Some groups, such as the self-employed, could afford to save more and are not saving enough, because they are not compelled to do so. We are consulting on letting the self-employed join the new state second pension in return for their contributions. However, we believe that it would not be right to compel them to do so before stakeholder pensions are properly established. Nevertheless, we shall keep under review the case for compulsion once stakeholder schemes have a proven track record, if people fail to save what they need to.
Other people have urged us to privatise the entire system. However, that would be no help for millions of low earners who could not afford to save enough. Privatising the system would cost £150 billion, even after the costs of disruptive changes to the tax system. The previous Government's plans would have meant massive up-front costs, loss of tax relief and abolition of the basic state pension.
Alternatively, some people have urged us to use private schemes that would take money from the private pensions of middle and high earners to give money to the low paid. That is not practical. I also do not believe that it would be acceptable. Our proposals are, by contrast, manageable, affordable and workable.
By extending individual pensions, and by a better combination of the state pension and the minimum income guarantee, we shall provide better pensions and also reduce significantly the share of state spending on pensions in the long run. The overall amount spent on

765
pensions will go up, but private personal pensions will take an increasing share of spending. The current percentages of 60 per cent. state and 40 per cent. personal provision will, over time, become 40 per cent. state and 60 per cent. personal private provision. The reason that is important is that, as people live longer—often for 30 years after they retire—they create new demands on the welfare state, such as long-term care. We will ensure that our plans mean that we can afford to tackle those charges.
Our radical new contract for pensions will ensure security for those who cannot provide for themselves and encourage those who can save for their retirement to do so. It will lift many more working people, mothers and carers off means-tested benefits. Our plans will help low earners to find security in retirement for the first time. They will give a boost to middle earners with a new, secure private pension and money to invest in it. They will help everyone—no matter what one earns—by providing a better regulated and more secure private personal pension system.
That is good news for today's pensioners, and it is peace of mind for tomorrow's. I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The proposals are complex, and it is not possible to go into all of them. However, it is worth dealing with some of the key issues.
The Secretary of State made much of what the Government are doing, but, despite having promised a huge amount over the past 18 months, today he had nothing to say about the myriad and various schemes that already exist—money purchase, final salary, defined contributions, defined benefit, additional voluntary contributions, free-standing AVCs, and so on. That complexity of arrangements continues, but he had nothing to say about it.
I listened to the Secretary of State as he went around the studios over the past four or five days. He was keen to encourage everyone in the belief that occupational pensions were the right thing, if people worked for companies that provided them, but he did not appear to realise the irony of making such a statement when the first thing this Government did on coming to office was to take £5 billion per year out of the schemes through tax.
The Green Paper referred to the state earnings-related pension scheme. There is a great deal that needs some serious explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. In the Green Paper, he refers to a cost of £5 billion, in due course, for his proposals. Perhaps he would clarify that. If he intends to increase the level paid to those on lower incomes, where exactly will he get the money? Will it come from increases in contributions for some, or will it be linked to an increase in tax?
The right hon. Gentleman is vague about the timings. Exactly when will the proposals come through? What does he propose? How does such an increase square with his general pledge, which he has made endlessly—as has the Prime Minister—to reduce the overall cost of welfare?
On the issue of stakeholder pensions, the right hon. Gentleman proposed a new second-tier scheme, latched on to the back of the other schemes. In this particular case, it will carry the stamp of Government approval. Do
766
the Government intend, in return, to guarantee the outturns of the stakeholder pensions? After all, many people on lower incomes will want to join such a scheme because they have been encouraged to do so by the Government. What will the Government say to them if the scheme falls short when they come to retire?
The right hon. Gentleman had nothing to say about that in his speech. Will he guarantee that the scheme will be better, or as good as, existing schemes, which people might otherwise have joined? If he cannot answer that, will he at least say whether he will guarantee that the pension fund will be no less than the contributions made? The right hon. Gentleman must answer those questions if he intends to encourage people to join such schemes.
I come now to the proposals for carers. Over the past 18 months, we have been keen to raise the problems of carers and to deal not just with their pensions, but with their incomes. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he means by those who have taken some time off work? Is it not the case that about 53 per cent. of carers are full-time carers and have no alternative or part-time income? Does he expect the scheme to extend to them if they have no record of earning? Single-earner couples would be affected, so what does he intend to do about them?
If the right hon. Gentleman does not have clear proposals when it comes to paying for the other parts of the scheme, he should remember that one of our criticisms—and one of our proposals for change at the last election—was that single-earner couples bear a much higher proportion of the tax burden than other taxpayers. If the Secretary of State is not going to deal with that, presumably he will make a statement explaining how he intends to reduce the burden. Otherwise, single-earner couples will be hit disproportionately.
The Secretary of State left out an important point about the basic state pension. He now has an opportunity to clarify the position. Why does he not deal directly with the question of uprating the state pension in line with prices? He has an opportunity to tell us at the Dispatch Box and, after the next general election, that Labour will not do other than uprate the pension in line with prices, which is what used to happen. [Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers are making a noise. What they do not realise is that the Secretary of State talked about linking earnings to income support, not the basic state pension. The minimum guarantee concerns income support.
Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to link income support with earnings will mean a massive increase in means-testing at the bottom end? He disguised the fact by pretending otherwise, but that is what will happen.
The Government have asked the public today to trust them on a range of pension issues. They do not, however, bear the public's trust, for a number of reasons. First, they take £5 billion a year from pension funds and pensioners generally, attacking those who have worked and those who have saved. Secondly, they are the Government who, during the last general election and before, allowed Back Benchers to travel around the country raising expectations that they would establish, across the board, a link between earnings and the basic state pension. What they have now done is sneak in a minimum income guarantee that is concerned only with the means-tested system, and will do nothing for existing basic state pensioners.

767
Today, the Government have missed much of the plot. They have spent 18 months fiddling around, and have produced an expensive partial system that does not deal with the issues. I condemn them for that.
Mr. Darling: If anyone has missed the plot, I do not think that it is me. Having listened to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), I am not entirely clear whether he is for or against what we propose.
If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not go on about trust too much. He should remember that 2.5 million people were mis-sold pensions because of what the last Government did. It was the new Labour Government who began to clear up the mess caused by that mis-selling, not only through the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), but through our overhaul of the regulatory system.
The hon. Gentleman referred to means testing. He ought to understand that we are heading for a time when a third of people now working will be on income support, under the policies with which his party left us. It is this Government who, through the proposals that I have set out today, will ensure that people can work for a lifetime, can retire on an income above the level of income support and therefore will not have to rely on means-tested benefits. This Government will ensure that fewer people will have to rely on such benefits. As a result of the last Government's policies, if we did not change the system, many pensioners today and in the future would depend on means-tested benefits—so that was not a very good point, either.
No doubt others will wish to return to the subject of the basic state pension. Let us be clear: in our manifesto, we said that we would increase the basic pension in line with prices. We have kept that promise, and we will keep it. It would, however, cost about £30 billion to increase the pension in line with earnings over the next few years. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green would listen for a moment, he might learn something.
We could raise the basic state pension in line with earnings, but that would not do enough to help the poorest people's incomes to rise above income support levels. At the same time, it would give money to better-off people who do not need it. What I am doing—this brings me to my next point—is using state support to help those on lower earnings to take their incomes above the income support level in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman asked about costs. The amount that the state will spend on pensions over the next 50 years will fall from about 5.4 per cent. of gross domestic product to 4.5 per cent. over that long period. We are using the money available to help those on low earnings far more than in the past because of the changes to the state second pension. The Government have a responsibility to help those who cannot afford to save to have a decent income in retirement without relying on social security benefits. We need to do more to help people get into funded pensions, where, generally speaking, they will be far better off than if they depend on the state alone.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green asked me about SERPS. The cost is about £500 million, not £5 billion. [Interruption.] I can help the hon. Member
768
for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) by telling him that the £5 billion relates to the next 50 years, so there is something of a difference there.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point—which was a not terribly good one about occupational pensions—if he reads the entire Green Paper, he will see that the Government believe that people should have options and choices, including stakeholder pensions, which fill a gap in current provision; occupational pensions, which some 20 million people already have; and personal private pensions.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman repeatedly asked about a guarantee. Let me make one thing clear. Through strengthened regulation, better options and more help to the low-paid, we are doing far more to ensure that future pensioners can have a secure and decent retirement—something that the previous Government did nothing about in all their 18 years.
Mr. Frank Field: I congratulate the Secretary of State on safely delivering the Green Paper, and on the nature of his statement. I extend those congratulations to his colleagues in the Department. His proposals for carers pensions will also be welcomed in the country. I have two questions. Will the state second pension be funded or unfunded? If it is unfunded, does he recall that the previous Labour Government introduced a non-funded scheme which the Conservative butchered not once but twice? Given those circumstances, what guarantee can we give our constituents that, in 40, 50 or 60 years' time, the pension commitment that he has made today will be delivered?
My second point concerns the numbers on means testing. He said that, without his announcement today, in future about a third of pensioners would end their days on means-tested assistance. What reduction in that proportion will occur because of the Government' s announcement?
Mr. Darling: First, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome. I should also like to thank the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) for all his work on pension development, which is much appreciated. I am also grateful for what my right hon. Friend said about carers.
My right hon. Friend asked two questions. First, the state second pension is an unfunded, pay-as-you-go scheme. He raised the general prospect of a future Government dismantling it. As I understand it, the present Conservative policy is to move completely to a funded scheme—that is, if the Tories have not abandoned the basic pension-plus that they announced before the election. The state second pension is sensible and workable as well as affordable, and recognises that a funded scheme is not an appropriate option for people on low earnings, because they can never put in enough to get a decent income in retirement. Therefore, the state has to give them money to put into a funded scheme or, alternatively, as my right hon. Friend proposed, the better-off must subsidise the less well-off within a particular pension fund.
We must recognise that a funded scheme is not appropriate for people on low incomes, and that the state has a role to redistribute wealth to ensure that such people get a decent pension in retirement. That is affordable and

769
workable. If any party proposed as a central manifesto commitment to privatise the system at massive cost—at a time when there will be the most pensioners and the fewest workers to support them—its proposal would be rejected at a general election, just as the Conservative party's proposal was rejected at the previous general election.
My right hon. Friend asked about means-tested benefits. My objective is to ensure that people who work throughout their lives do not retire on means-tested benefits. One can never exclude the possibility that, for one reason or another, people will not hit that target; that is the reason for the minimum income guarantee. However, I believe that lifting as many people as possible off means-tested benefits should be a central objective of Government policy. [Interruption.] I thought that Conservative Members were against means testing, but now they are saying that they are not. I believe that our policies will ensure that we lift people who work throughout their lives off means-tested benefits. That approach should be supported, not criticised.
Mr. Steve Webb: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in making available a copy of the statement to the Opposition earlier this afternoon.
A detailed document such as this Green Paper requires close scrutiny, but Liberal Democrats' initial impression is that it is a small step in the right direction down a very long road. I suppose one could best describe it as the most radical package since the previous one. At the end of the 1970s, we had the state earnings-related pension scheme; at the end of the 1980s, we had personal pensions; and at the end of the 1990s, we have stakeholder pensions. To guarantee that another Secretary of State does not produce another radical package in 10 years, the right hon. Gentleman should secure a cross-party consensus on pensions. Will he work with us and other people of good will to construct such a consensus?
The Secretary of State shied away from making pension contributions compulsory for people on £10,000 to £20,000 a year. He will recall that the Conservatives also tried using incentives, albeit for personal pensions. Of the 5 million people who took out personal pensions, 2 million are no longer putting in a penny of their own money—there is no additional private saving. Why does he think that his proposals will be better? Surely requiring people who can save to save is more effective than crossing one's fingers and hoping that they will.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) put his finger on the problem when he mentioned today's working poor. The Secretary of State has said, "Lots of people will get bigger pensions, but no one will get a smaller pension." If the poor are to have more and the rich are to have the same, the money will have to come from tomorrow's taxpayers.
Successive Governments have ripped up pensions promises. The Conservative Government ripped up SERPS, but they were none the less re-elected, so the Secretary of State's belief that such actions will not be electorally popular does not wash—parties do not announce such plans in their manifestos, but carry them out anyway. Promising today's poor money from
770
tomorrow's taxpayers will not provide a secure basis for pensions policy. I would not want my income in old age to depend on the generosity of tomorrow's taxpayers; I wonder whether the Secretary of State would.
The proposal to link the so-called guarantee to earnings is welcome. The Secretary of State has promised to do that in the long term, but will he do it in the short term? The people who enjoy the guarantee are already 75 or 80, so how long will they have to wait? Will he pledge to implement the proposal immediately? We welcome the guarantee, but he knows that it does not apply to those hundreds of thousands of people who do not claim their entitlement and to those hundreds of thousands of thrifty savers who, with only £8,000 of life savings, are told that they are not entitled to the money. Finally, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he will not rest on his laurels, but will find more money for today's pensioners, particularly the oldest pensioners?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned today's pensioners, but I made it clear that the statement and the Green Paper were about pensions in the future. We have always made it clear that the significant increase in help for today's pensioners, which we announced in the comprehensive spending review, was never meant to be the last word on the matter. Today's statement deals with pensions structure and the options that will be open to people in the future.
Having lectured us on the need to be prudent with our money, the hon. Gentleman demanded that we uprate the minimum income guarantee immediately. He cannot have it both ways. We have made it clear that our long-term objective is—consistent with the prudent management of public finances—to uprate the guarantee in line with earnings.
The hon. Gentleman asked about affordability. Being a professor, he is no doubt a clever man. When he gets to the appropriate part of the Green Paper, he will see that the amount of money that the state will spend over the next 50 years as a proportion of gross domestic product will go from 5.4 to 4.5 per cent. of a larger GDP. The amount that we are proposing to spend is affordable, as he will see from the Green Paper. We are ensuring that more help goes to the lower paid, who need it.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about incentives. I am not sure whether the Liberal Democrats are in favour of compulsion right across the board.
Mr. Webb indicated assent.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman nods, so let us assume that he is. He has thought a lot about those things, and he must face up to the fact that the very poor can be compelled to save every last bean and they will still not have enough for a decent pension. On the other hand, a lot of people are now saving far more than the minimum—especially people at the top end of the income scale—and compelling them to save even more seems perverse.
Mr. David Rendel indicated dissent.
Mr. Darling: The Liberals do not think that that is perverse. I bet they do not say that at by-elections in some parts of the country.

771
We propose to give people an annual statement in which they can see where they stand. Most people have no idea what awaits them when they reach pensionable age, and the statement will help. The incentives and additional rebates that people can take into a funded pension will help also.
I made it clear in my statement that, once stakeholder pensions are established, it is my intention to ensure that we amend the system further, so that, if people stay in the state system, they will lose money, and they would be far better off in a funded scheme. That is very important, because I firmly believe that people who can afford to save should save more, and funded schemes will always be better than unfunded schemes. People will be better off as a result.
I believe that the combination of the minimum income guarantee, the new state second pension, the stakeholder pension and the annual statement will do far more than has been the case for the past 25 years to set pensions on a proper footing for the future.
Lastly, I am delighted to work with anyone to form a cross-party consensus. I very much look forward to working with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and his colleagues. If they have a constructive suggestion to help us to get a better policy, I will be pleased to receive it from him.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I very much welcome that part of my right hon. Friend's statement that dealt with carers. For too long, carers have been patted on the back and then neglected, and it cannot be right that those who provide care for elderly relatives and children with disabilities pay a penalty of poverty in their own old age. Will the Secretary of State say more about the carers pension, which we welcome?
Will the Secretary of State say something about the future of the means test? Am I right in thinking that, if we raise means-tested income support in line with earnings, but the basic pension only in line with prices, the numbers of our elders eligible for the means test will grow in the short term? How will the new SERPS impact on means-testing in future? Does the Secretary of State have a projection of how many people in 20, 30 or 50 years will still be subject to the means test?
I very much welcome the stakeholder pension for those on middle incomes. However, if a funded stakeholder pension is good enough for middle Britain, why is it not good enough for the poor? Should not the taxpayer enable poorer people, through subsidies if necessary, to be included in the new second pension scheme, given that our forefathers and foremothers—Beveridge, Attlee, Castle and Crossman—wanted inclusive and comprehensive pension schemes that helped to integrate society, rather than divisive schemes for special classes of people?
Mr. Darling: I will try to deal with my hon. Friend's complicated questions as quickly as I can. He asked about carers. The carers covered will be those who receive invalid care allowance, those carers of people receiving attendance allowance or disability living allowance who qualify for home responsibilities protection, and child benefit recipients where the youngest child is aged five or under. In addition, there will be help for long-term disabled people with broken work records. Further details are in the Green Paper.
772
My hon. Friend asked about the state second pension and about means testing. The object of the state second pension is to ensure that, if someone has a lifetime's work, they do not rely on means-tested benefits when they retire. My whole objective is to avoid the situation that currently exists, in which a third of people now working—never mind those who are not working—are heading for a life on income support in retirement. That is not right, and I want to lift those people above that.
That is part of the rationale of replacing SERPS with a state second pension, which, let us remember, gives great help to those on low incomes. It doubles the amount that they will get, because it breaks the tie to earnings whereby someone with low earnings gets low benefits. It is of real help to low earners, many of whom looked to us for help when we were elected. We are providing that help.
I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from on means-tested benefits. There has been an academic debate on the subject for the past 50 years or so. At present, we have a combination of contributory and means-tested benefits, as well as benefits on the basis of need, such as disability allowance. If someone, for whatever reason, has not had the opportunity to build up a contributory right to a pension, means-tested benefits are one way of getting money into the hands of a person who needs it. For the life of me, I cannot see what is wrong with that.
I would rather that people did not have to depend on benefits, and I am taking steps to try to make that less likely, but, if there are poor people, we ought to help them. I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea that it is somehow bad to increase the threshold. If we are helping more poor people—I was under the impression that that was one of the things that we were elected to do—that is no bad thing; but I believe that we should do our best to avoid a situation in which we know that people will end up on means-tested benefits. For that reason, I believe that our proposals are absolutely right and justifiable.
Mr. John Butterfill: It would be churlish not to welcome much of what the Secretary of State announced today—there is considerable consensus on what needs to be done, as is clear in the all-party group on occupational pensions, which I chair—but I am afraid that the scheme is something of a mouse, whereas we were expecting a lion. We thought that he would produce a radical reform, encompassing the whole range of pensions provision, whereas in fact he has only tinkered at the edges once again.
It is clear that not very much thought has gone into how the changes affect the whole population. The Secretary of State said that he would hold consultations about including the self-employed. He has had an awfully long time to consider the matter, so why does he need to consult further? Why cannot he produce a scheme that encompasses the self-employed?
Does the Secretary of State propose to do anything about the problem of annuities? That is the biggest problem confronting people who are retiring now. The value of annuities has dropped by about 30 per cent. in the past 12 months, partly—even considerably—due to the Government's action on advance corporation tax. We can allow people to defer, and some are permitted—
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are now making speeches and explaining their own policies.

773
We must have questions to the Minister. I have the next business to safeguard, and that finishes at 7 o'clock, so, unless hon. Members put questions briskly, there will be very few asked, because I shall close down this period in a couple of minutes. Now, Mr. Butterfill, let us have a question, so that the Minister can answer.
Mr. Butterfill: Does the Secretary of State propose to consult further on allowing people to defer the purchase of annuities or to purchase an alternative investment, when annuity yields are low, and will he reconsider the position of section 226 policyholders?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will read our detailed proposals in the Green Paper. I accept that he has not yet had a chance to look at it. Annuities are low because we are entering a new era of a stable economic environment. We now have low inflation—which is the best news that pensioners could ever have—rather than the rising inflation of the past.
The hon. Gentleman criticises us for holding consultations on whether the self-employed should be allowed to have a state second pension. I believe that people should have the opportunity to be consulted, and I cannot see what is wrong with that. Indeed, I made my position abundantly clear on the matter.
On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I was anxious to build on what we have at present. It is perfectly possible to have a convention of pension rocket scientists and come up with all sorts of exciting and exotic schemes, but I ask myself whether a scheme will work and be manageable and deliver good pensions to people in the future. My proposals will do that; I do not know about his.
Mr. Chris Pond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the commitment that he has just underlined to seek to provide security in retirement for a majority of future pensioners, without the indignity and stigma of a means test, will be welcomed in my constituency of Gravesham and throughout the country? The policies of the Conservative party would have left millions of people subject to that stigma in retirement. Is he also aware, however, that many pensioners feel that the current system contains a certain unfairness and that, if they have saved a little for their retirement, over time, they are somehow penalised? Will he consider ways in which that unfairness might be addressed in the future?
Mr. Darling: Yes. I have made it clear in my statement and in the Green Paper that the Government want to consider that. It is one of the main, justifiable grouses from pensioners, and we are all aware of it.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What is the Secretary of State's working assumption of the number of new stakeholder pensions that will be taken out after the scheme is implemented? In 2050, what proportion of people will still be on means-tested support?
Mr. Darling: Some 5 million people could potentially benefit from stakeholder schemes. They are people who can save and do not have the option at the present time. We have made a conservative estimate that, in the first
774
two or three years, 1 million to 2 million people will join the scheme, but we want to build it up as quickly as possible.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a simpler method? It is a bit old-fashioned, but it would mean that people such as Members of Parliament and those paid more would pay more in taxation so that pensioners could get increases in line with earnings. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is trying to prevent casualties in the future. Will he remember the casualties of the past? Several hundred sacked miners were prevented from getting their pension entitlements as a result of the 1984–85 strike. We now have a recommendation in a Government report by the coalfield task force. Will my right hon. Friend work with others from the Treasury Bench to try to get the matter resolved as soon as possible?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who highlights an appalling case in which many former miners were the victims of mis-selling as a direct result of the previous Government's actions in the late 1980s. On the subject of the basic state pension—I repeat the point, because it is important—we had a choice. We could have uprated the basic state pension for future pensioners and that would have cost about £30 billion over the period in question. That would not help the poorest pensioners, but would give money to the better off who do not need it.
Instead, we decided that it would be better to use the money that we have at our disposal to benefit low earners to ensure that they retire on a decent income above income support. As a result of the new state second pension, someone earning about £6,000 a year will get £46 a week, instead of £13. That is a big increase. The proposals are a radical departure from what was done in the past, but they are right for the future.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Is not the main problem with the present system that, if one is on a low income, it is not worth one's while to take out a pension, because one loses income support? How will the situation be eased by linking the minimum earnings guarantee to earnings but not the pension? Are not the questions posed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) unanswerable? Because the Secretary of State has ducked compulsion for political reasons, the numbers of people on means-tested benefits will increase, not decline, in the years to come.
Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the Conservatives are in favour of blanket compulsion.
Mr. Duncan Smith: No, we are not.
Mr. Darling: Oh, they are not. Is that another split in the Tory ranks? The argument against compulsion is a practical one. If people are on low earnings, it does not matter how much of their disposable income one takes away from them, because they can never earn enough to get a proper pension. Most of those at the other end of the income scale are already saving enough. The self-employed are another matter, but the compulsion argument falls when we consider who would be asked to

775
pay more. The main problem that low earners face is that they cannot earn enough now to get a pension that would lift them above means testing. The reforms that I am making to the second state pension will enable people to work for their whole lives and get pensions above the minimum income guarantee.
I still believe that, despite those changes, having a minimum income guarantee is wholly justifiable. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's position is that there should be no safety net at all, on the grounds that that would compel people to do more. What I am proposing is practical and workable, and I am more than happy to rest my case on both those assertions.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the argument that compulsion must be necessary for young people, as it is impossible to convince 20-year-olds that they will ever grow old and need a pension? Although the Government deserve credit for giving £140 a year to people on a basic pension, that amount goes only a small way towards compensating them for the £1,040 that they have lost—that they were cheated out of—when the link between pensions and earnings was broken in 1980.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's targeting of poor pensioners is wide of the mark, and that 1 million pensioners will miss out on the guaranteed minimum pension because they regard income support as a handout, or charity? They would accept it if it were added to the basic pension as a right, as for 50 working years they have paid contributions that have increased at the rate of inflation. Why should we continue to cheat them by increasing the basic pension at a rate that is below that of inflation?
Many Labour Members are surprised by the faith that my right hon. Friend has shown in the private pension market after years of mis-selling. He said that the charges on the private stakeholder scheme would be below 25 per cent. Will they fall to the level of the national insurance charges on the basic pension, which at present is 2 per cent?
Mr. Darling: I shall deal with the various points raised by my hon. Friend. I think that I am right in saying that he has a hostility towards private funded schemes, which, frankly, I do not share. Over the next 25 years, pensioners as a whole—although not the poorest—are likely to retire on higher incomes, in part because of the growth in occupational pensions, which essentially are private pensions.
It is true that there have been problems with mis-selling, but the industry as a whole sells products that are very good for very many people. However, I believe that people are far better off if they can save through a funded pension than they ever would be if they relied on the state.
My hon. Friend returned to the question of the basic state pension. I shall not labour the point, other than to say yet again that I and my colleagues took the decision that it is far better to use the money at our disposal to help those on lower incomes—some might think disproportionately—to ensure that they have a proper pension on retirement.
My hon. Friend asked what can be done about the 19-year-olds who would rather go out and enjoy themselves than pay money into a pension. If those
776
19-year-olds earn less than £9,000 a year, compelling them to save quite a lot of money from that income will not make much difference. By the age of 25, those young people may be earning more money and therefore be more amenable to facing up to the future.
However, for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that hon. Members who believe in blanket compulsion should think about what would happen if such compulsion were applied. It would not help the lowest paid, but would penalise those very well-off people who do not need to save more. It would increase the burden on people who already have enough pressure from children, mortgages and so on and who are not in a position to meet the requirement for extra compulsory help. What I am proposing is workable, affordable and acceptable, and therefore I believe that it will be durable.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the Government's recognition of the circumstances of carers and of the contribution that they make to society, but is not the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) right to say that people must begin to contribute to pensions virtually as they start work? If that is not to be achieved through compulsion—I sympathise with both sides of the debate on that matter—could not the Secretary of State offer people more flagrant, blatant and obvious fiscal encouragement to save for pensions rather than for, say, a car?
Mr. Darling: I appreciate that hon. Members suffer from a disadvantage in responding to Government statements, and that they are not always able read 100 pages of the relevant Green Paper beforehand. However, if the hon. Gentleman does get the chance to look at it, he will find that it contains incentives to encourage those earning moderate and higher incomes to go into funded pensions. I think that he will welcome the quite substantial rebates that are available.
I shall certainly not hold out the hope of more handouts of money, and it is unusual for Conservatives—or, at least, it used to be—to call for that. It cannot be justified, but increased incentives are available. People who say, "Let's compel 19-year-olds," should first ask themselves how much a 19-year-old has got, how much we could compel them and what difference it would make. A combination of all the measures that we are proposing, not least the annual pension statement, will concentrate minds as has not happened before.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at present, about 1 million people are in work and have access to an occupational pension scheme but do not join it. He will also be aware that, in 1988, the Tory Government changed the rules, which was a disaster for occupational pension schemes, as employees were allowed to move away from salary-based to money-purchase schemes, which do not provide a minimum pension. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, such schemes are linked to an annuity, and go up and down with shares. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consider how he might encourage those 1 million people back into occupational schemes, perhaps by encouraging employees to return to salary-based schemes?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the Green Paper covers it. He is right to say that the

777
previous Government allowed people to opt out of pensions and many people have made no provision. In the Green Paper, we are saying that that situation is clearly unsatisfactory. For some people, an occupational scheme may be a bad deal, especially if they will be with a firm for only two or three years, but we are saying that, if they are not in the occupational scheme, they have to have a good reason—in other words, some other pension provision. We do not agree with the idea that people can simply bail out, enjoy themselves and expect others to pick up the pieces. That was one of the many things that the Conservative party did in the 1980s that is deeply regretted.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Clearly, the Green Paper must be read carefully, scrutinised and responded to—hopefully, constructively. I must pursue one matter with the Secretary of State. One concern that has been brought to my attention is that carers who reach pensionable age find that the state pension impacts on other benefits, such as attendance allowance. Will they be considered as special cases? The plans are long-term, but that group of carers has been cruelly treated under the old system.
Mr. Darling: I understand the hon. Lady's point. For carers who were in receipt of invalid care allowance, or who qualified for home responsibilities protection by caring for people on attendance allowance or disability living allowance, there will be qualifying credits back to 1978.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Would the Secretary of State explain why he has linked not the state pension but the minimum income guarantee with average earnings? Is that why he is proposing a reduction in the public contribution—as opposed to individual contributions—to pensions over a 50-year period? Will he estimate how much more money people on low incomes will be paying towards their pensions compared with the amount that they are paying now through national insurance?
Mr. Darling: If my hon. Friend looks at the Green Paper—I appreciate that he has not yet had the opportunity to do so—he will find that we are spending more on pensions, even though the share of national income declines. We have embarked on that course of action rather than restoring the earnings link because I want to ensure that the most help goes to people on lower incomes, rather than spreading the money thinly among everyone, as some people do not need it. I am ready to defend, for as long as it takes, the idea that the Government ought to be in the business of helping those at the lower end of the income scale. That ought to be, and will be, our priority.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the proposals outlined by the Secretary of State, in that they will encourage those who can help themselves to help themselves further and that help is offered to those who cannot help themselves. I particularly welcome the
778
support that will be provided for mothers and carers. However, will the Secretary of State comment on what the future holds for widows?
Mr. Darling: We set out our proposal on widows benefits and widows pensions two or three weeks ago, and I am sure that the Vote Office still has a copy. It would take me rather longer than you would allow, Madam Speaker, to run through that matter again. However, I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, almost alone among Opposition Members, has grasped what the Government are doing.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I welcome the announcement that annual statements will be issued; it is a significant way of preventing the kind of robbery of SERPS that went on for 18 years under the previous Government and that reduced the value of SERPS without any particular outcry. I have two questions, the first of which relates to women and carers. How will my right hon. Friend's announcement affect the group of people who currently claim home care responsibility years? Secondly, are there are any provisions for people who do not have taxable incomes in current years to contribute towards their pensions?
Mr. Darling: The stakeholder pension gives greater flexibility: people will be able to contribute up to £3,600 to a stakeholder pension, and will be able to do so up to five years after stopping work, thus allowing for people who move occupations. For the first time, women carers will have access to a second pension, and I think that many people will welcome that.
My hon. Friend made a point about the annual statement that has not been mentioned this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who unfortunately has left the Chamber, spoke of his concerns that a future Government might take away the benefits that we are discussing. One advantage of giving everyone an annual statement is that, if the Conservatives were ever to be re-elected and were to pinch people's pensions, the statements would show a debit. There would be an entry "What the Tories took away", and people would notice that the money had gone. That is another reason for welcoming the statement.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will not the Secretary of State's decision to focus his resources on those at the bottom end of the spectrum have exactly the same effect on incentives as the mistaken changes made by the Conservative Government in 1988? Specifically, what would he say to those people on small, modest occupational pensions whose funds were raided by the taxman last year and who now find that those just a little below them in terms of income have the prospect of increased pensions?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. If he examines the proposals, he will see that the help that we are giving is not only to those on low incomes, but to those on moderate incomes. They will all get help in different ways, because of the way in which we are reforming SERPS and replacing it with the second state pension. He is quite wrong to say that help will go only to the poorest pensioners; that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman does have a point, if I understand him

779
correctly, when he says that people with modest savings or modest occupational pensions could find that they start to lose benefit. In the Green Paper, we stated that we wanted to address that problem.
On corporation tax, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government have cut corporation tax by 2p in the pound, which will increase company profitability. Companies will actually gain from us; therefore, pensions will gain from what we have done.
Mr. John McAllion: My right hon. Friend will know that the guaranteed minimum income is set at a level that will require a pensioner couple to survive on a joint annual income that is significantly less than that of a single person earning the national minimum wage. It is set at an absolutely minimal level. Does he recall the Commission on Social Justice set up by the late John Smith, which recommended that the guaranteed minimum income should be set at a level above income support and that it should be linked to average earnings? Will he tell us why the guaranteed minimum income has not been set at that level; why the link with earnings has been postponed until the longer term; and exactly what he means by the longer term?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend should be aware that the increase given to the poorest pensioners through the minimum income guarantee is the largest that there has been. Furthermore, I think that he would accept that we inherited a situation in which, after 18 years, pensions, especially those of the poorest, had been fairly run down. Consistent with our overall responsibility to ensure that the public finances are properly run, we put the available money towards increasing the minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners. We took a deliberate decision to do that.
What I am saying—I choose my words carefully, as I do not want to hold out false promises—is that our objective in the long term, consistent with prudent economic management, is to increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, so that we raise the benchmark. We want to beat that benchmark, but it will be raised in such a way that pensioners benefit.
I fully accept that, for today's pensioners, that will take time, but my announcement this afternoon is designed not to deal with the situation for the next five to 10 years, but
780
for the next 50 years. However, I hope that, by the end of this Parliament, my hon. Friend and everyone else will agree that the Labour Government have done a great deal to help today's pensioners, as well as providing security for tomorrow's pensioners.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Why does the right hon. Gentleman keep evading the means-testing issue? Does he not realise that the great savings tragedy in this country today is that those on average earnings or lower—£15,000 or £18,000 a year—would be completely barmy to save, as they would deprive themselves of thousands of pounds a year in means-tested benefits upon their retirement? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, by increasing income support for pensioners at a faster rate than the state retirement pension, he will make the problem worse? He will increase the potential loss for anybody on a modest income who saves, and the income threshold below which it makes no sense to save will continue to increase to higher and higher income levels.
Mr. Darling: I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman thought up his question several hours ago—certainly before he read our proposals. I make it abundantly clear—the hon. Gentleman seemed to grasp this point earlier—that people who earn as much as £15,000 a year are heading for retirement on income support because of the policies left us by the Tories. For the hon. Gentleman to complain—
Mr. Duncan Smith: You are changing that.
Mr. Darling: Of course we are, because we do not want that to happen. We are reforming the pensions system to ensure that people who have worked all their lives do not have to face retirement on means-tested benefits. That is abundantly clear to everyone. I am sorry that the Conservative party is now committed to abolishing not only the state pension but mean-tested benefits as well. It is only the Conservative party that has absolutely nothing to say about this matter. The Conservatives had 18 years in which to sort out the pensions problem, but they did nothing about it. They simply presided over massive mis-selling and gross irresponsibility. In contrast, our system is affordable, workable, deliverable—and, I believe, durable as well.

Orders of the Day

  Greater London Authority Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [14 December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Which amendment was, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, while welcoming the proposal for a directly elected mayor for Greater London, declines to give a Second Reading to the Greater London Authority Bill because, instead of creating an Assembly consisting of representatives nominated by each London borough and the Corporation of London, which would best serve London's interests, it provides for the establishment of a directly elected Assembly which would diminish the status of the London boroughs and would be likely to lead to conflict between the boroughs and the Greater London Authority; and because, in failing to provide for the transfer of London Underground to the private sector so as to boost investment and in proposing the imposition of new taxes on motorists in London to pay for cuts in central government spending, the Bill offers an inadequate response to the problems of transport in London."—[Mrs. Shephard.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  4.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Londoners are justly proud of their city. It is our national capital, and one of the foremost cities in the world. It is famed for its diversity and for its financial and business might. It is a cultural magnet for the rest of Europe and well beyond. London's history, museums, monuments and restaurants draw visitors in their millions.
  Yet, in spite of all those strengths, London's governance is a mess. Difficult decisions are not taken and no one is able to provide Londonwide solutions to Londonwide problems such as pollution, poverty and the crumbling transport infrastructure. Uniquely among major cities, London has no leader. How is our capital supposed to continue to compete with New York, Paris and Tokyo when it has no one to speak for it?
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister spelled out the overall case for the creation of a mayor and an assembly for Greater London. Today, I want to concentrate on parts VI and VII of the Bill, which make relatively minor changes to the London fire and emergency planning authority and very significant changes to the accountability of the Metropolitan police.
  I shall deal first with the fire authority. Our proposals in part VII for setting up the London fire and emergency planning authority recognise that the present authority is already a strategic and representative body for the whole of London and that the present arrangements work well, so our changes here are relatively prosaic. The new authority will be a reconstituted form of the present authority and will inherit its staff, functions and powers. However, it will have a smaller membership of 17—just over half the existing number. The majority of members will be assembly representatives appointed by the mayor. The rest will be representatives of the London boroughs. Like all fire authorities, it will remain democratically
  782
  accountable to local people. The proposed arrangements will provide streamlined decision making and will establish a clear relationship between the mayor, the assembly and the authority.
  Part VI is concerned with the Metropolitan police, who are also covered by clauses 80 and 81 on finance and schedules 16 and 17. The Metropolitan police authority will be the first police authority for London to be democratically accountable to Londoners. That step is long overdue. It is right in principle, and it should improve the way in which we tackle crime and disorder in the capital.
  Before justifying those statements, I shall describe some of the key staging posts in the history of the Metropolitan police. Sir Robert Peel was the architect of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 which established the force. That Act made provision for two justices with powers to direct and control the force, under the authority of the Home Secretary. Two justices—or commissioners, as they were soon to be called—were duly appointed: Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, who worked in tandem for the next 21 years. Even today, the offices of Metropolitan Police Commissioner and deputy Commissioner are civilian posts. Only in the force's post-war history has the Commissioner been a police officer.
  I was looking at the portraits in New Scotland Yard and reminding myself that the Commissioner appointed in 1945 had been the permanent under-secretary in the Home Office immediately beforehand. He was wedged into a uniform and put in charge of the Metropolitan police.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Typical Labour fix.
  Mr. Straw: I suspect that it was a Conservative fix, or a coalition fix. The tradition before that had been that Commissioners and deputy Commissioners were appointed from the armed forces, and it is only since the war that police officers have run the force at Commissioner level, but they are still considered to be civilians. That is one of many anomalies that the Bill will sweep away.
  When Peel proposed an organised police force for London, many people objected, as they had done for decades. In 1785, just three years after the post of Home Secretary was established, such was the opposition to a London police force that William Pitt had been obliged to drop a Bill similar to that passed in 1829. Between those dates, some minor advances were made. The Middlesex Justices Act 1792 provided for seven mini police forces, each under a magistrates office, to add to the existing Bow street office. In 1800, the Thames river police brought a further dimension to the capital's policing.
  Those were ad hoc changes. There was still no unified, organised police force. Numerous parliamentary committees, including an 1822 Select Committee, rejected the idea of such a force, despite huge panic across the country about the mob behaviour and disorder that followed the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815. It was argued left and right that any benefits that might accrue from an organised police force would be outweighed by the loss of individual liberty.
  Robert Peel was eventually able to secure his vision of a professional London police force. His determination was quickly rewarded. The doubts of the previous decades

  783
  evaporated as the advantages of the 1829 Act became apparent. David Thomson vividly describes the events in his book on "England in the Nineteenth Century", in which he says:
  "By establishing very early contact with disorder rather than waiting until it had grown too great to be quelled without bloodshed; by preventing mobs from forming rather than trying to disperse them after they had formed; by creating a spirit of civilian co-operation with the public in the common cause of good order; above all by making the detection and punishment of offenders more inevitable and certain, Peel's police conferred an immense boon on the whole country."
  London's model was soon being exported elsewhere.
  Mr. David Wilshire: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am very supportive of the Metropolitan police, but he has twice referred to them as London's police force. Will he confirm that they never have been London's police force; they cover an area that includes my constituency and others that are not in London, have never been in London and whose people do not wish to be in London?
  Mr. Straw: I understand that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will approve of the fact that, following representations from him, his colleagues and Surrey county council, I have accepted that the boundaries of the new Metropolitan police force ought to be coterminous with those of the Greater London area.
  As I was saying, London's model of policing was soon exported elsewhere, first to the boroughs of England by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 and then to the rural areas by the County Police Act 1839. One notable difference was that the authority to which the police forces outside London were responsible was not the Home Secretary. In the case of the boroughs, it was to a watch committee whose members, until the Police Act 1964, were drawn entirely from the elected members of the municipal council, and elsewhere magistrates in the quarter sessions were empowered to set up a police force and to appoint constables.
  Here began a divergence which has persisted to this day. Legislation has modified and updated the police authority structure outside London, while leaving the position of the Home Secretary as the police authority for London untouched. Why should this be so?
  Back in 1829, there was considerable fragmentation in the government of London. I have already mentioned the fragmented policing arrangements, but local administration lay in the hands of 150 separate parishes, which were plainly in no position to oversee the activities of a single police force. It says something for the remarkable foresight of Peel that he was able to draw the boundaries of the Metropolitan police force wider even than those drawn in 1963 for the Greater London area, boundaries that we are now accepting. It was said that he drew the boundaries according to the distance that the Commissioner could travel on a horse in a single day.
  The establishment of the London county council by the Local Government Act 1888 presented an opportunity for change. Some parliamentarians argued that the London county council should become the police authority. Indeed, Mr. Pickersgill, the Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green, S. W., observed:
  "The second point, perhaps, which would attract the attention of the Metropolitan critic was this, that whilst the Metropolitan ratepayers were to provide for the cost of the police they were to have no control over them."—[Official Report, 13 April 1888; Vol. 324, c. 1255.]
  784
  That argument was hard to refute, but it did not win the day. The view was then taken that, because of the unique national and, indeed, imperial functions of the Met, the Home Secretary should remain the police authority. It should also be pointed out that the old LCC covered a much smaller area than the Metropolitan police district—poor alignment of boundaries is not just a modern curse.
  The status quo again prevailed in 1962, when the royal commission on the police reported. It argued successfully that the forthcoming London Government Act 1963, which created the Greater London council, should not be used to change the Home Secretary's position. As a result, the Police Act 1964 left arrangements in London as they were.
  Next came my own modest contribution to the debate about the policing of London. One of my first actions on entering the House in 1979 was to introduce a private Member's Bill—the Police Authorities (Powers) Bill—in which I proposed, among other things, a police authority for London. Once that Bill had died the usual early death suffered by such Bills, I resurrected my proposals early the next year in the 1980 Police Bill. What I said is something to which I still hold:
  "I believe that experience has shown that in the Metropolitan area there is … insufficient accountability … through local representatives. That can be remedied only by having a Greater London police force responsible to a local and democratically elected police authority."—[Official Report, 11 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1156.]
  There is one more chapter to record. On 23 March 1993, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), a former Home Secretary, told the House that the Government's police reform programme would include the creation of a new police authority for the Metropolitan police in line with the new national pattern. However, while the new national pattern duly emerged in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, it was not applied to the Metropolitan police area, because the new Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), had decided against the policy of his predecessor—not for the first or, indeed, the last time, either on police or many other issues.
  I have run through this history because I think that it is important, when making a significant change of the kind now proposed, to understand how things came to be as they are; only then can we be sure whether the change is justified. On this occasion, I believe that the case for change is overwhelming. Moreover, I believe that, once the Metropolitan police authority is established, it will gain acceptance as rapidly as the idea of an organised police force did at the beginning of the previous century.
  Let me explain why. First, there are grounds of principle. I quoted earlier a concern about the absence of accountability for the policing of London. As Home Secretary, I am an elected Member, but I am not elected by Londoners. I may claim—indeed, I do claim—many things for the outstanding town and borough of Blackburn, but not even I would dare to suggest that being the Member for that constituency is the best qualification for being London's police authority.
  That point does not apply just to me. One has to go back about a quarter of a century to find the last Home Secretary representing a London constituency—Mr. Robert Carr, as he then was, who represented Mitcham and was in my post from 1972 to 1974. Policing

  785
  has its roots in local communities. It follows that the police authority should have representatives from those communities. In London, that is not the case.
  The Metropolitan police authority will address that accountability gap, and so will the provisions to alter the outer boundaries of the Metropolitan police district. For historical reasons that we have already discussed, those boundaries extend beyond the 32 London boroughs to parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and about a third of the administrative county of Surrey. In some parts of Surrey and Essex, the boundaries of the Metropolitan police service go slap bang through the middle of existing districts, which makes any effective partnership between the police and those districts more difficult, whatever the strength of will of police commanders and chief executives.
  Mr. Wilshire: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept my thanks for the way in which he has handled that issue. It is a difficult matter for those of us outside Greater London. I hope that he will allow me to put it on the record that I support what he is suggesting for my constituency.
  Is he aware that there has been close co-operation between the Metropolitan police and Surrey police and that the changes that he seeks to achieve are working well, but that, as I am sure he will understand, because he kindly saw me, his proposals will not work if there is not adequate finance? I am sure that he is aware that it is not his responsibility, but another Department's, but he will have a problem achieving what he seeks to achieve unless adequate money is available.
  The sum of £7 million has been offered to Surrey, but the minimum cost of what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve is £10 million. Will he use his best endeavours, as I seek to do, to get the financing sorted out, so that what he seeks to achieve and what my constituents support will be forthcoming?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks, which I know is full-hearted. I do not wish to be ungrateful, but I was anticipating that there was going to be a "but" in what he said. Indeed there was, and the "but" was about the money; not a great deal changes in terms of the role of Opposition, whoever fill that role.
  There have been detailed discussions with Surrey. Indeed, I have made myself available to any right hon. and hon. Member and to district councillors to talk about the matter, as well as to county councillors. Each authority put forward bids for the transitional costs, and we looked at them. It will come as no surprise—it is also a timeless verity—to learn that our judgment about the amount needed for the transfer was less than the bid, but I still think that £7 million is adequate for the purpose. Of course, if the chief constable or the hon. Gentleman wishes to argue about it, I am happy to see them and to discuss that further.
  Under the new arrangements, we shall at long last have police forces that fit within the administrative areas of county councils or metropolitan areas. That is to general benefit, and it is consistent with our overall approach of aligning criminal justice agency boundaries to improve the working relationships between those agencies and district councils.
  786
  I want to highlight my personal concerns about having to combine the position of Home Secretary with that of the police authority for the metropolitan area. There is, frankly, insufficient time to give the role of police authority the attention that it deserves. That view is shared by some former Home Secretaries of both parties to whom I have spoken.
  Even more importantly, conflicts of interest can arise from having to act with both my Home Secretary and police authority hats on. The carefully designed system of checks and balances provided by the tripartite system for running the police service—the chief constable, the police authority and the Home Secretary—generally works well, and we are not proposing to disturb it. However, I believe that the system is bound to become confused when one person fulfils two roles.
  One change that my immediate predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, did make was to establish a Metropolitan Police Committee, an appointed body, to advise the Home Secretary on his role as police authority. I have been greatly assisted by that committee—for example, in the establishing of priorities for policing and in the approval of an annual performance plan. I should like to place on record my thanks to its members, and particularly to Sir John Quinton, its chairman.
  Earlier this year, I decided to expand the committee by adding 10 new councillor members, nominated by the London Government Association. Despite all that, the essential fact remains that the Home Secretary's role as police authority is an inherently unsatisfactory one.
  Opponents of change may argue that the Met is unique, and that that alone justifies a special degree of central Government oversight. Particular consideration in the past has been given to the national and international functions of the Met. Those national roles remain today, although they are not as widespread as they once were. The creation of separate national bodies, such as the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, is evidence of the changes that have been occurring.
  The Home Secretary has a particular responsibility to Parliament for the exercise of national police functions. I have always accepted that the arrangements for London's policing must be tailored accordingly. The Bill achieves that. It does so, first, by providing for an agreement between the Home Secretary and the new authority through which the latter undertakes to ensure that the Met performs its national functions to an acceptable standard. Secondly, the Bill proposes to allow the Home Secretary to appoint directly one of the seven independent members of the authority with that person having a particular interest in the Met's national functions.
  Those provisions, along with the other powers conferred on the Home Secretary under the Police Act 1996, provide adequate safeguards without the loss of accountability. Hon. Members who have read the Bill will notice that we have preserved the special position of the Commissioner and the deputy Commissioner. Those posts will continue to be royal appointments. The Secretary of State will have to approve a shortlist of candidates, and the mayor will have the chance to offer a view about the list, but the MPA will choose a single candidate for consideration by the Secretary of State and for approval by Her Majesty.

  787
  The size of the Met has also been cited as a reason why it might be too dangerous to loosen the grip of central Government. That, too, is less of an issue today. When the royal commission reported in 1962, there were 156 police forces outside London. Most of them had fewer than 1,000 officers in their force and many had fewer than 500. One Shetland force had just 18 officers, but many of the borough forces had fewer than 200. The largest single force was Lancashire, with just over 3,000. That contrasted with the 20,000-strong force in the Metropolitan area. Today, following the reorganisations that took place in the 1960s, all but one of the 41 forces outside London have over 1,000 police officers; 13 have over 3,000; and two—the West Midlands and Greater Manchester—are over a quarter of the size of the Met.
  The police authority model set up under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 has shown itself able to cope with those larger forces. I do not believe that the size of the Met will present insuperable problems. The new MPA will have 23 members, rather than the normal 17 elsewhere, and this should prove sufficient to discharge its functions.
  Perhaps the final argument against the creation of the MPA is that it may bring no tangible benefits to Londoners. Well, I would certainly accept that, in the great majority of what it does, the Met performs very well. The latest recorded crime statistics bear testimony to that and we all need to remember it. The figures show that crime in the Met continues to fall. Overall crime is down 8 per cent., burglary is down 16 per cent., robbery is down 19 per cent., vehicle crime is down by 11 per cent., and violence against the person is down 5 per cent. Operations such as Bumblebee and Eagle Eye have demonstrated the Met's ability to get to grips with serious crime problems. Home Office research has shown that London continues to enjoy one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe or north America. London's homicide rate is three times lower than that of Amsterdam, and eight times lower than that of New York city.
  I applaud, too, many of the more recent developments in the Met, not least developments on the very important issues of how police deal with racial and violent crime. The House will understand that I cannot comment on the proceedings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. However, I can say how much I welcome both the commitment of the Commissioner and his senior management team to building a truly anti-racist service, and the appointment of assistant Commissioner John Grieve to lead the racial and violent crime task force.
  The Commissioner also has my support for his strategy of moving to borough-based policing and putting the emphasis of policing where it belongs—at the local level. It is important to have effective structures in place also above the borough level, and the Commissioner is considering that point, in consultation with interested parties and his criminal justice parties. He favours reducing the current number of areas from five to three, possibly with an intermediate tier comprising three or four borough command units grouped together under one commander.
  I congratulate the Met on what it has achieved and is attempting to achieve. I believe also that more could be done if the service's accountability to the population it serves was more deeply rooted in the community it serves.
  788
  The Government's overall approach to tackling crime and disorder is based on partnership and community involvement. Giving local people and relevant organisations a say in how the community is policed unquestionably bring results. Loss of community support and involvement is a very difficult obstacle to overcome.
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and our proposals on best value are two examples of our approach of rooting policing in the local community. The 1998 Act places a statutory duty on local authorities and the police service, in conjunction with other bodies, to conduct a thorough audit of local crime and disorder problems by consulting widely in the community, to propose a strategy for dealing with those problems and to audit the strategies' effect. The Metropolitan police authority will be subject to the Act's consultation requirements, and will therefore be able to play its full part in the crime and disorder partnerships—which will be strengthened by coterminosity, at borough level, of police and local government boundaries.
  The authority will be subject also to the best value duty that we are proposing to place on all police authorities under the provisions of the Local Government (Best Value and Capping) Bill.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am, as ever, reluctant to strike any negative or sour note. However, I point out to the Home Secretary that there is a distinct possibility that Chislehurst police station in my constituency will close very soon. I am told by the assistant Commissioner that police may be forced directly by the Home Secretary's budget allocations to close that police station. Against the background of the Home Secretary's comments in this debate—on community involvement, strengthening police effectiveness and so on—will he tell me how I should explain to the people of Chislehurst that closing their police station will make policing in their community more effective?
  Mr. Straw: I should expect nothing else but for the right hon. Gentleman to strike a discordant note—he did so with his own Front Benchers when they were in government, and he does so now. The first thing that I should expect him to say to his electors is that the current year's police budget and last year's, for 1997–98, were based on the budget set by the previous Administration—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members groaning about it; it is true. The only change that I made to the Metropolitan police service was to give it a little more money than it anticipated receiving from my predecessor as Home Secretary. That is the truth of it.
  As for this year's settlement, the precept for London has not yet been set. I therefore have no idea how the police service in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) can be speculating about the effects of budget changes that have been not been established. It is a fair settlement.
  The other thing that the right hon. Gentleman should point out to his constituents is that the police settlement for London, and for all the United Kingdom, is far in excess of anything that would have been provided by a Government whom he would have supported. Of that there is absolutely no doubt. We know it to be the case, because the shadow Chancellor has damned our spending plans, including those for the police—not because we are spending too little, but because we are spending too much.

  789
  The right hon. Gentleman should tell the people of Chislehurst that his shadow Chancellor said that our spending plans are reckless. Had the right hon. Gentleman's party been in power, it would not just have been the closure of Chislehurst police station, but the police service generally would have been denuded across London and throughout the country. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; it has made me feel a lot better.
  Sir Paul Beresford: A calming question. The Home Secretary mentioned the precept. As I understand it, the inner-London magistrates courts probation services are covered by the precept, so there are numerous questions about what will happen under the Bill, as it makes no mention of them.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman need not worry; we intend to deal with that—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah."] This Bill is about changing the way that the police service is funded and controlled. We have other proposals for the future of the probation service—as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) will know, because he pays assiduous attention to these matters—which were included in a consultative document that I published in the summer, on 8 August. We are proposing changes in the way that that service operates in London. I made it clear that we are minded to move from five separate probation services to a single service to cover the Greater London area. It would therefore be coterminous with a court service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the MPA.
  Other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate—
  Sir Paul Beresford rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I want to say something about the relationship between the GLA and the MPA. The existence of a mayor and an assembly adds a dimension to the policing of London which is not present elsewhere. We have modelled the MPA's membership and functions on those of police authorities outside London, and have remained faithful to the tripartite structure. However, it is also right that the MPA should reflect the existence of this pan-London structure of assembly. After all, it was the absence of a Londonwide local government body in 1829 that contributed to the otherwise anomalous policing arrangements we see in London today.
  The mayor will be involved through his or her appointment of 12 assembly members, including the deputy mayor, to the police authority. He or she will also be able to make representations on the list of candidates put forward for the office of the Metropolitan Commissioner. Equally importantly, as two high-profile London figures, the mayor and Commissioner will want to establish an effective working relationship. As for the assembly, it will provide a majority of the MPA membership. It will also be required to hold meetings at which it can put questions to the MPA about the discharge of its functions.
  790
  Jointly, the mayor and the assembly will set the budget of the MPA as part of the single financial structure created by the Bill. However, to ensure that the policing of London is not put at risk, the Home Secretary will have the explicit power—a wider power than that which exists in the Police Acts—to set a minimum budget, sufficient to provide an efficient and effective police force.
  In summary, there will be two bodies—the GLA and the MPA—working together. The two bodies will be accountable to the people of London, and will deliver benefits on their behalf. The new arrangements should mean improved policing on the streets. By harnessing the views and ideas of local people, and working with Londoners to reduce crime, they should contribute to creating a safer and more secure environment for the people of London. I commend the Bill.
  5.9 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: One of the interesting sub-plots of this debate so far has been the parade of potential candidates for mayor of London—a parade in which the Home Secretary and I are non-marchers.
  In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said:
  "I also hope that I can look forward to seeing the Deputy Prime Minister campaign at my side in my struggle to become the Labour party candidate."
  I am not very good at judging body language, but the way that the Deputy Prime Minister went a dangerous colour of beetroot red and muttered audibly, "I'll campaign for the Labour party candidate," did not automatically lead us to the conclusion that the prospect filled him with enormous enthusiasm.
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I do not have the same recollection of what happened last night. The Deputy Prime Minister's response was that he would campaign for the Labour candidate who would be the next mayor of London.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman ought to concentrate. That is exactly what I said.
  Next, we had the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said:
  "I make it clear that I have a further interest in that I intend in the new year to put my name forward for selection, and possibly therefore election, to the Greater London authority."
  Asked in what capacity, the hon. Gentleman replied:
  "That is not a matter for today."—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322 c.647, 651.]
  I did not see the Deputy Prime Minister's reaction, but, as he winces every time the question of closer links between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats is raised, I would guess that he is not greatly in favour of that solution either.
  The third potential candidate is still to come. According to Michael White in The Guardian, the Minister for London and Construction, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), has emerged as a "late runner for mayor". Mr. White also comments—quite unfairly—
  "critics say the balding and bespectacled 53 year old lacks the charisma to be Mr. London".

  791
  We all agree that that is unfair. Mr. White concedes, however, that the hon. Gentleman is
  "very voter friendly on the doorstep".
  We look forward to the hon. Gentleman's campaign speech.
  There is a serious point to be made about the selection of candidates for mayor, and, indeed, for the assembly. In October 1997, the Government Office for London—that is, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—asked Professor Dunleavy and Dr. Margetts to examine some of the issues involved in the election of the London mayor. One of their recommendations was central to this debate. They said:
  "The responses of political parties to the new voting systems will greatly affect the legitimacy of the systems with the public. There is a case for Government intervention to guarantee the use of one member one vote procedures in the selection of party candidates".
  Conservative Members would have no difficulty with that proposal; nor, I think, would the Liberal Democrats. The system proposed by the Government, however, seems so designed to prevent the candidacy of the hon. Member for Brent, East that he has warned the Prime Minister that he will organise an American-style write-in campaign if the party hierarchy in the capital keeps his name off the short list. As for the system that I think the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was defending, the hon. Member for Brent, East has said—this did not strike me as a complete endorsement of his policy, although he may think differently—
  "They have ignored the mandate of their own membership. I hope no one is going to need hospitalisation. One was aware at the weekend of bone-crunching pressures being applied to people".
  I feel that, to put it at its mildest, the Labour party still has some way to go to meet the spirit of the report that the Government themselves commissioned. Doubtless, when he sums up the debate, the Minister will wish to emphasise his determination that a "one member, one vote" system should obtain, so that obvious candidates are not excluded from the selection. [Interruption.] I am an enthusiastic friend of my noble Friend Lord Archer, and it would be quite improper to say that he is here.
  Two important points arise from the Home Secretary's speech. One relates to the policing of London. The right hon. Gentleman went into the history of the Metropolitan police in some detail, and he was right to do so. The force was first organised in 1829, which is a tribute to Robert Peel. The Home Secretary should also have told us:
  "At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the very word 'police' was virtually unknown in England; a position which led one French visitor to complain: 'How can one expect order among these people who have not such a word as police in their language?'"
  All that is set out in an excellent book that I wrote on the history of the police.
  The Home Secretary proposes that he should cease to be the police authority for the Metropolitan police and that he should be replaced by a new police authority that would include 12 assembly members. So about half the assembly members will sit on the police authority.
  As the Home Secretary said, in 1993 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) expressed some reservations about that proposal when he said:
  "It is not proposed that there should be a police authority in the same way as for other forces because of the special national interest in the work of the Metropolitan police."
  792
  I shall not repeat the arguments, as the Home Secretary knows them well.
  We shall consider the proposal in depth in Committee, so I shall concentrate on one or two fundamental issues that surround the change. The first question should be: what do the public want of their police? Of course they want a force that is close to them and good relations to exist between police and public—that is, with all groups in the population. Good community relations always have been an integral part of policing.
  In terms of international comparisons, no one can seriously accuse the Metropolitan police of falling down on that duty. Of course there are exceptions where cases have been handled badly and individuals have been unfairly treated, but in my view they are very much the exception. In other police forces around the world and certainly in Europe, the Metropolitan police is held up as an example of a force with good public relations.
  The Home Secretary is always rather churlish about my books—
  Mr. Straw: I have not read that one.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Then there is a treat in store for him. In one, I compared the British police—particularly the Metropolitan police—with police forces in other European countries.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: Let me finish citing the example.
  The result was that the London police were seen as the model of how a police force should be organised. That is not by any means a case for being complacent, but it serves to put the issue in some context.
  As well as good relations, the public want effective policing. They want crimes investigated, crime prevention undertaken and burglars, robbers and muggers detected and convicted. The Home Secretary is the police authority for just one force—the Metropolitan police—but what happens in that force has a pervasive effect on every police force in the country. The advantage of having the Home Secretary as police authority is that there is no one else to blame when the objectives of tackling crime are not achieved. The buck stops with him.
  Irrespective of whether or not we have a new police authority, the financial levers of power remain with the Home Secretary. Of course they are crucial in achieving an effective police service. That is not the case in other countries.
  In New York, which has roughly the same population as London, a proactive policing policy has reduced crime dramatically—in the past four years, it has fallen by 40 per cent. A few weeks ago, I visited the New York police, and, while I was in the city, the New York Times carried a survey showing that 60 per cent. of the public believed that life in the city had improved thanks almost exclusively to more effective policing.
  In the past five years, the incidence of crime in London has also fallen. The Metropolitan police and, indeed, the Home Secretary's predecessor deserve credit for that. What is fundamentally different between the two cities is that, as a prelude to New York's attack on crime, the

  793
  mayor ordered the recruitment of 7,000 more police officers. Without that, it would have been impossible to implement the so-called zero tolerance policy.
  In London, the contrast could not have been greater. The strength of the Metropolitan police has increased since 1979, when the force numbered 22,000; when the Conservative Government left office, it numbered 26,700. However, numbers are now falling. Indeed, many people predict that, over the next three years, the numbers in the Metropolitan police could fall to 24,000, 23,000 or even 22,000, which was the number in 1979.
  We listened with some care to what the Home Secretary said about finances. In fact, between 1979 and 1997, resources for the police service increased by more than 70 per cent. in real terms; as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, that was what made the growth of the police service possible. Now, however, although there is an increase in cash terms, there is no real increase whatever.
  Despite the fact that there will be a new police authority, responsibility for what happens in London will continue to rest heavily with the Home Office and the Home Secretary. In Committee, we shall have to consider carefully what improvement the change will make. The acid test will be what best serves the public interest. We are prepared to suspend judgment on that, but we reserve the right to reconsider the matter.
  On constitutional change—
  Mr. Wilshire: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the police, will he assure me that, when he seeks the support of Conservative Members for the changes that he wants to make to the Bill, he will not ask us to oppose the proposals to make the Metropolitan police boundary the same as that for Greater London?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I give my hon. Friend a categorical undertaking on that.
  On constitutional change, the position is much clearer. Neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary seems to have examined the subject in much detail. One of the main themes in the debate about London has been the make-up of the new assembly, and the role of the new mayor. Labour Members have suggested that our proposal for an assembly made up of borough leaders is unworkable. It is odd that, when we consider the make-up of a new second Chamber—the Chamber to replace the House of Lords—one of the favourite proposals is that a substantial number of its members should come from the regional assemblies. On 12 December, The Herald of Glasgow reported that the Lord Chancellor had said:
  "The Scottish Parliament could be given the task of electing Scottish members of the reformed House of Lords".
  The argument is that such a system would provide a form of unity and avoid the creation of unconnected layer after unconnected layer of government. It is the same argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) advanced yesterday.
  Mr. Straw: I had the experience—I make this point in the most non-partisan way I can—of serving on the old
  794
  Inner London education authority, which was partly made up in the way that the right hon. Gentleman proposes: it comprised the Greater London members for the inner London boroughs, plus one borough representative from each of the 12 boroughs.
  ILEA was set up by the London Government Act 1963, and both major parties tried to make it work. However, as a borough representative, I thought that the system was inherently unsatisfactory; we were not clear to whom we were accountable. The same would be true even if borough leaders were put on a Greater London authority. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals would not create a sense of unity; the experiences of people of both parties who served on ILEA suggest that the new body should be directly elected.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I hear what the Home Secretary says, but I do not agree. The Government's approach illustrates one of the difficulties inherent in the debate; their plans for constitutional change are not joined up. Different electoral systems and different kinds of constituencies are proposed—party lists are taking the place of named-candidate lists in some elections, and there are enormous gaps in the constitutional plan. For example, no one knows how the second Chamber will be constituted—for the very good reason that the Government do not know. We heard vague words yesterday about regional assemblies but, in practice, we know that the only change outside London will be the introduction of unelected regional development agencies. On the basis of the Bill, our proposals for London seem to be looking stronger and stronger by the minute.
  For the assembly, according to the White Paper, the Government are working on the premise that
  "assembly members will be required to think and act strategically, looking at London-wide issues in the round and at the long-term interests of the capital. They do not nor should they duplicate the local representational roles of borough councillors, MPs and MEPs."
  Let us be clear—we can now eliminate Members of the European Parliament from that list. No one pretends that the party list system that the Government have chosen for the European elections will provide truly local representation at that level. The loyalty of the Member of the European Parliament will be to the party, not to the local public. That is the basic argument that we have made, and will continue to make.
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Before the right hon. Gentleman digs himself further into a hole, will he reflect on the views of the London boroughs? Is he aware that the Association of London Government has stated clearly that it does not share the Opposition's view that the assembly should be made up of London borough leaders? The chairman of the ALG has said that the role of the assembly should not be confused with the local role of London borough councillors. Is not that a clear example of what London boroughs think? Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is wrong?
  Sir Norman Fowler: No, I will not. The Minister is always guided by such representational views. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In an Evening Standard survey of the boroughs to which he referred, only five of the 19 Labour council leaders gave their enthusiastic backing to the Prime Minister's idea. Four refused to comment, or said

  795
  that they had not made up their minds. Ten were against the proposals. That was in 1997. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) will deal with parts of the letter to which the Minister referred.
  I wish that the Minister would deal with the argument, and not for ever seek to quote people as if that settled the matter. It does not. The argument is flawed in the first place. Duplication takes place only if functions are duplicated; that must be the case, surely. The Government, however, say that that is not the case, and that functions are different. Why have the Government adopted different systems in Scotland and Wales? In Scotland and Wales, those who represent assembly constituencies will be the same as those representing parliamentary constituencies. Why are not the Government adopting that system for the elected assembly for London?
  Mr. Raynsford: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have adopted exactly the same electoral system in London as in Scotland and Wales—the additional member system, with some members elected for constituencies and some from a party list. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is not terribly well versed in those constitutional matters, which are all completely consistent.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister has a great future as an estate agent, having given such an answer. He knows perfectly well that I was talking about the constituencies—the coterminosity of Members to constituencies.
  I am delighted to respond to the other point, about the electoral system. My basic fear is that, when the Government talk about thinking and acting strategically, that means that the assembly will be remote from the public whom it intends to serve. That danger would be averted if our proposal were adopted.
  The Government propose 25 assembly members, 14 of whom will be elected by first past the post. They will represent not areas that are coterminous with parliamentary constituencies, but massive constituencies with between 300,000 and 400,000 voters. That makes the assembly far more remote than Parliament or a local council.
  The second eleven will be elected on a Londonwide basis, not by first past the post but through a form of proportional representation. They will be elected from a party list. Just when we thought it was safe to come out of the shelter, the Government are set for a new battle on the open and closed lists. The proposed system is precisely the same as the system for the European elections. That is why the Home Secretary did not refer to it.
  Generally, the public will vote not for a named candidate but for a party. They can vote for named independent candidates but not named party candidates. The party will choose the order in which candidates will be elected, and the public will have no choice. For example, the Labour party organisation might put the name Raynsford at No. 1 and, with luck, the name Livingstone at No. 11; and party members might put the name Livingstone at No. 1 and, with luck, the name Raynsford at No. 11; but what is certain under the proposals is that the one group that will have no say in the order will be the electors themselves. They will not be able to re-order the party candidates.
  796
  Once again, we have all the other drawbacks of the party list. If a candidate fails in his constituency bid because of his unpopularity with the public, he can always get on the party list. Under the list system, there will be nothing as inconvenient as by-elections to replace someone who resigns or dies: the next man or woman on the list will simply be appointed. That is what the Government propose.
  Again, we are witnessing a transfer of power from the public to the party organisation. The only change is that the arrangement has now been condemned by at least two reports. It was certainly condemned by the Jenkins commission on electoral reform, which has published its report since the White Paper was issued. The report said:
  "The Commission recommends that the second vote determining the allocation of Top-up members should allow the voter the choice of either a vote for the party or for an individual candidate from the lists put forward by parties. They should therefore be what are commonly called open rather than closed lists."
  Mr. Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman defending Jenkins?
  Sir Norman Fowler: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to destroy Jenkins, I would certainly join him.
  Mr. Straw: I was merely asking whether the Conservative party was now moving from outright opposition to Jenkins to Jenkins a la carte.
  Sir Norman Fowler: We have made our proposals. I was seeking to demonstrate—I did so conclusively, I believe—how inconsistent the Government are. They set up the Jenkins commission, and when it reports they propose a different system.
  I know that the Home Secretary has a hang-up about Roy Jenkins and all that, but Jenkins was not the only one to oppose the closed list. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee, in its report only a few weeks ago on what it descriptively calls
  "the operation of multi-layer democracy",
  said:
  "We feel that an open list would be more in keeping with the principle of trusting the people and giving them the maximum choice."
  It seems to me that the practical effect of what is happening is that, step by step, the Government are giving more and more power to the political organisations and less and less to the public. By one measure after another, the whole focus is beginning to change. Elected representatives will be answerable to the party bosses much more directly than they will be to the local public.
  We do not support closed lists. The case against them has been stated thus:
  "Where PR is based on the list system, with votes effectively cast for a party, and the winning candidates taken, pro rata, from each party's list, power passes from the individual constituency party to those who draw up the list."
  Those are not my words, but those of the current Home Secretary in an article in The Times in September 1985. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary does not listen, he will miss the quotations.
  The analogy with Northern Ireland has always been a bogus one, because the Government know that that system was introduced to meet the special needs of Northern

  797
  Ireland, as specifically explained by the then Prime Minister. The debate on the European parliamentary elections showed that there is little support in the House for closed lists, and I can tell the Government that we will oppose that proposal with all our strength.
  Who will benefit from the new system? The answer was given by the Home Secretary in his 1985 article. It is a marvellous article and includes the following comment on Hitler:
  "He rose to power in the Weimar Republic, which used a very respectable system of PR. I do not suggest that any other system would have prevented his rise. I do assert that PR did not prevent it—yet moderation and stability is the large, and wild, claim made for this system by our own centre parties."
  On the subject of the beneficiaries of PR, he said:
  "PR is not a matter of morality, but crude party advantage—which is why the Liberals only adopted the idea in 1922, when their decline really began."
  For once, we can all—well, perhaps not all—agree with the Home Secretary.
  To be fair, it is not only the Liberal Democrats who stand to benefit. On the basis of the 1998 London borough election results, it is estimated that the system proposed by the prospective candidate for mayor, the Minister for London and Construction, would give the Labour party 11 seats, the Conservatives nine seats and the Liberal Democrats five seats, although they would have won no constituency seats. That underlines the crucial importance of the Lib-Lab pact in local government.
  We do not believe that the Government have made their case for their approach to the elected assembly for London. The structure is different from the model used in Scotland and Wales. It will remove powers from the boroughs and create a body that is remote from the public it serves. Above all, by using the closed-list system, the Government will transfer power from the public to the party organisation. We oppose that, and we believe that many Labour Members oppose it. It is one of the reasons why we will vote for our reasoned amendment tonight.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am conscious of the limited time available for Back Benchers to contribute to the debate, and I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. I wish to raise several issues, including three on which I would like the Minister to comment when he responds to the debate. The first is on the London development partnership and the business case for London; the second is on the Metropolitan police service; and the third is on the London fire brigade.
  The London development partnership is the shadow organisation for the development agency. There is a solid business case for additional river crossings in east London. Given that a decision on any such crossings will be delayed until the mayor and the assembly are in place, will my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction say whether the LDP will undertake the appropriate background, assessment and research work necessary before a decision is taken? If so, it will mean that the time between now and May 2000 is not wasted. In recent years, there have been extensive consultations about river crossings, and the package put together by the Government office for London over the past couple of years seemed to receive overwhelming support.
  798
  In addition, does my hon. Friend believe that the LDP in its present form is adequately resourced to undertake that background research in the period before the mayor and the assembly are in place? The chief executive, Eric Sorenson, is highly respected and leads a prestigious board. Its members would be more than able to get on with the job, but I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether they would require additional resources.
  I turn now to the Metropolitan police service. Does the formula for funding that service take adequate account of the non-metropolitan or non-London tasks that the service performs, such as guarding embassies and providing diplomatic protection? Is the funding formula due for review? Will my hon. Friend say whether it is possible that the mayor might believe that additional resources would be appropriate in due course?
  I am a member of the police parliamentary scheme, and over the past seven or eight months I have heard consistent resentment from police officers about the way in which the press have portrayed the statement from Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Asked to estimate the number of corrupt officers in the Metropolitan police, the commissioner said that there were certainly fewer than 1 per cent. The tabloid press did some arithmetical calculations and said that that meant that there were about 300 corrupt police officers in the Metropolitan police.
  No doubt there is some corruption in the force: no police service can avoid that. However, I agree with other hon. Members that the vast majority of officers in the Metropolitan police are committed and dedicated professionals. They go about their duties selflessly, sometimes sacrificing their lives to protect the capital and its residents. No police service is without flaws, and the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence has raised some serious questions. However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the Commissioner and his senior officers are committed to tackling the problem.
  I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the Commissioner's plans to move to borough-wide policing from next year. I commiserate with those chief superintendents who failed to win appointment as police supremos for their boroughs, and congratulate those who were successful, especially Chief Superintendents McPherson and Boylan, who in due course will be the officers in charge of Tower Hamlets and Newham respectively. Both officers are very professional, and will give great leadership to the police service in east London, which area will be better protected as a result.
  My concern about the funding of the Metropolitan police is genuine and shared by many, and in the same way the funding of the fire service is causing consternation across London. This year's possible reduction in the number of appliances is the result of a national problem and has to do with the structure of the fire service pension fund. I know that the Home Office is studying the matter to work out a solution for firefighters' pensions in the medium and long term, but the immediate pressure on fire service budgets exerted by the requirement to pay pensions will not go away.
  Contrary to what the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has said, pressure on the fire service pension budget is so extreme simply because of life expectancy. For 30 years, firefighters expected to die soon

  799
  after retirement. As a result of the shorter working week—now 42 hours—health and safety legislation and, most critically, the arrival of breathing apparatus, they now have a normal life expectancy. Whether they have retired after 30 or 55 years, or on a medical pension because of ill health, retired firefighters in the capital outnumber the firefighters who are employed and contributing to the pension scheme. That pressure on the fire service budget will intensify in the years to come.
  Recently, the hon. Member for Billericay wrote to Graham Noakes, chairman of the Essex fire brigade committee, saying:
  "All Britain's fire services are far too overstaffed. It is one of the last dinosaur industries clinging to feather bedding, using shroud waving and blackmail to prevent the modernisation of the service.
  The Algarve is stuffed with healthy young British males, living comfortably, their incomes supplemented by disablement pensions from the fire service."
  That is a not uncharacteristically inflammatory comment—if hon. Members will excuse the pun—from the hon. Lady. I have a brother who lives in the Algarve and, were it "stuffed" with medically retired firefighters, I am sure that he might have mentioned it to me in the past 15 years.
  As I have explained, the pensions bill is so great because firefighters are living longer, although that is not to say that there is not some abuse and that some people do not receive pensions fraudulently. However, the checks and balances in pension legislation are such that the chances of doing so are remote.
  In conclusion, as we heard last night and again today, Londoners overwhelmingly welcome the arrival, and the return, of strategic government for London. Most right hon. and hon. Members recognise that east London will be the engine room for this world-class capital, taking it into the next millennium with the channel tunnel rail link, Canary wharf, the Jubilee line extension, the dome, the City airport and developments in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking and Havering. East London will be the engine that will ensure that the capital makes progress. The return of strategic government for London will only assist that progress, and Labour Members overwhelmingly welcome the Bill that the Government have produced.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), which is one of the Tower Hamlets seats. One of my Liberal ancestors, my great-uncle, was the Liberal Member for a Tower Hamlets seat before the Liberals entered the decline to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred—before proportional representation. I therefore feel a sense of vicarious association with the hon. Member, and will seek to match him for brevity.
  As we enjoy the second day of debate on what the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) accurately described yesterday as the greatest city in the world, I am conscious that the powers that be which look after us in this Chamber have given the debate a law and order slant. I hope that the House will forgive me if I defer my remarks on that subject until a later stage of the Bill.
  The Home Secretary is unconsciously in my debt and, being absent, will continue to be unconscious, for had I risen to speak at 11.50 pm last night, when the Minister
  800
  for Transport in London sat down, I would still have been speaking at midnight, and hence would have continued to speak today, perhaps even until 7 pm; so the right hon. Gentleman would have been delayed.
  The police changes have long been foreshadowed, which certainly increases their acceptability. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield on his admirable dissection of the proposals in the Bill. It was one of the paradoxes of yesterday that almost every Labour Member ritually mourned the passing of the Greater London council in 1986, but went on to imply that they mourned the fact of its death, not the substance or condition of the GLC when it died, and thus would not want to restore it to life. It occurs to a bystander that my noble friend Baroness Thatcher may have done the Labour party a favour not merely by giving it a grudge that it could nurse for a dozen years, but by wiping the slate clean so that it could start again with London government.
  I mentioned almost every speech made by a Labour Member, but one exception was that of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), in whose welfare I take a keen personal interest. Were he to be taken from us to be mayor, the Northern Ireland Select Committee would lose a valuable and relevant colleague. Perhaps not unexpectedly, he found plenty of good things to say about the GLC. As one element in the GLC's disappearance was the local government challenge to central Government that he set up, I was less surprised than some by the rich list of examples in the Bill in which the Secretary of State is given powers to override the mayor, even if that turns devolution into a Lewis Carroll concept.
  However, in Brent, East, whatever other Labour Members think, the leopard has clearly not lost his spots, and tax raising, health authority and higher education powers in the Bill were all required or requested by the hon. Member for Brent, East. He also wanted the mayor to take over the appeal role from the Secretary of State on borough planning decisions. Far from the replication of the GLC, the hon. Gentleman seeks its massive expansion.
  This is not the moment to stir the dying embers of old controversies, but beyond the pride in the Inner London education authority expressed by the hon. Member for Brent, East, I think that London students today would thank him more if polytechnics had been allowed to borrow to create student hostels in the capital, and had not been prevented from doing so because rents could not be a penny higher than the existing rents. Any parent who has had to fund students in private accommodation would have settled for the half loaf of a new ILEA hostel, even if the rents had been marginally higher. Moreover, I doubt that the London Institute would have been able to recreate itself so smoothly, on a much more compact campus, in the way that King's college has done during the past decade, if ILEA rules and regulations had still applied. There are dividends that can come from freedom.
  At the higher and more elevated level of constitutional reform, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield implied, the Bill sadly joins the queue of piecemeal and inconsistent ventures that the Government have promoted. I read somewhere that the Prime Minister is not interested in the detail, but for that the rest of us will have to pay.
  There was an illuminating exchange yesterday, during the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—whom I,

  801
  perhaps uniquely, can see in the Chamber—between my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who leads for the Liberal Democrats on the Bill. They spoke about legislating for London first, before issues such as English regional government, let alone a parliament for England, have been sorted out.
  Mutatis mutandis: as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, it is the House of Lords all over again. If the Government go further with such legislation for England, what happens now in London will be a rock in the road around which we shall have to navigate. Labour Members take pleasure in the concept of joined-up government, but on the constitution they are more into painting by numbers.
  Just as the events on Clapham common caught the Government by surprise, despite the fact that the Clapham omnibus passes the common as a matter of course, and caused them practical embarrassment in the run-up to the Welsh Assembly, so a tremendous punt, in these arrangements, is being taken on the quality of the first mayor. Those whom the Government would like to undertake the role are proving remarkably reluctant. It reminds me of the election for the mayor of New York, when John Lindsay stood as the liberal candidate and Bill Buckley stood as a Republican in protest. When, on the eve of poll, Buckley was asked what his first reaction would be if he were elected, he said that he would immediately ask for a recount.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said yesterday that the mayor of London would clearly be a very special woman or man. However, given the powers that she or he will be given by the Bill, I have to ask, what if, by accident, she or he is not? It might be left to my party to solve the Government's dilemma by winning the election.
  The Standing Committee on the Bill will get down to discussion of the list system. Yesterday, it was a joy to hear the Liberal Democrats eulogise lists: closed lists, open lists, laundry lists, civil lists, uncivil lists, Beachcomber's list of the Huntingdonshire cabmen. All those lists have their merits and Liberal Democrats can find arguments for any of them, but patently, any list will do. Incidentally, I have not investigated what happens if someone on the list, who is elected, wishes to cross the floor. I assume that he or she has to surrender his or her seat. It sounds like a Whips' paradise.
  The functions of the Greater London assembly will also be discussed in Committee. I acknowledge that transport is genuinely a strategic issue, although, as the Government go on and on about integrated transport, I cannot help recalling the old Department of Transport joke that an integrated transport strategy is any transport policy other than the one that the Government have been pursuing up to that moment. However, I have noticed that the Bill would make the Greater London authority both the traffic and the highway authority for the new strategic London road network, and that Transport for London might well become the traffic authority for all roads with signals, which would massively remove traffic control from the boroughs. All that sounds much more executive than a strategic authority was expected to be.
  I genuinely salute the proposals for a London air quality strategy. Acid rain does not stop at national boundaries, nor does pollution stop at borough ones.
  802
  However, on waste, when the Minister winds up I shall be interested to hear how cost control, practicability and environmental benefit will be required, given the mayor's unfettered powers over recycling. At first blush, the Bill seems like an opportunity for environmental postures without responsibility for the practical consequences.
  I am also curious about what the culture, media and sports strategy will make of broadcasting. Overall, that strategic initiative seems to be a makeweight thrown into the Bill to enlarge its strategic compass.
  While on the subject of curiosity, I did not detect in the winding-up remarks of the Minister for Transport in London yesterday an answer to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) about why the calculations made at the London School of Economics of the costs that would fall on Londoners from the Bill were much higher than those made by the Government, and why the Government believed that my constituents at the LSE were wrong.
  Finally, as we are on short commons today, I want to raise in brief outline some issues on the planning powers in the Bill, which are less naturally strategic than the transport issues. I shall not argue a detailed case, because a whole speech could be devoted to them, but I want to illustrate the problem statistically. The Government office for London's consultation document on planning applications of strategic importance was published in August. Four categories of development were outlined and criteria recommended for identification as strategic. Fulfilling any of those criteria triggers the consultation of the mayor.
  The Government office for London states that, by the criterion of floor space, between 100 and 300 planning applications per year would be considered strategic—that is 0.5 per cent. of all the planning applications in the capital. That percentage sounds a little precise against the numerical bracket of 100 to 300 for strategic applications, but that is less important than the fact that those applications tend to be concentrated in central London, which would elevate the percentage arithmetically. Of the 100 to 300 applications, 59 were awarded planning permission in the City of London in 1997; of those, more than a quarter exceeded the Government office for London floor space criterion, and four of them were more than twice the criterion; but on analysis, none of the 59 schemes raised any strategic issues by virtue of their size alone.
  Similarly, on height, where the criterion threshold is 50 m, the London planning advisory committee's draft advice on high buildings and strategic views in London recognised that the established scale of development in the City meant that additional buildings exceeding 50 m would not always raise issues of strategic importance. The City of London already contains more than 50 buildings that are more than 50 m above ground level, 17 exceeding 80 m and eight that are more than 100 m tall. The International Financial Centre, otherwise known as the NatWest tower, stands 185 m above ground level. The height threshold in the City appears to be worthy of further consideration.
  The City's competitiveness depends on decision making not being unduly bogged down. The City corporation organised a consultation meeting with the business community to consider the Government office for London's proposals. The overwhelming view of the meeting was that the proposals were unsatisfactory.

  803
  Much was made in yesterday's debate of the unanimity of opinion throughout London about the attractiveness of what the Bill envisages, including for the business community. Such unanimity always makes me apprehensive that the world is missing something. Therefore, I am, by instinct, reassured from the City business community's reactions that all is not wholly well.
  6 pm
  Ms Joan Ryan: As the Member of Parliament representing London's most northerly constituency, I obviously have an interest in the Greater London Authority Bill. However, I am conscious that the legislation is not just about London and Londoners. Perhaps that is because I was not born and brought up in London. I am in London through no accident of birth: I choose to live here. I chose to come to London 18 years ago and I have stayed. I think it is a magnificent city.
  However, I am conscious that London is a capital city, and therefore belongs to all the citizens of the United Kingdom. We have a responsibility to them: they want to visit a clean, well run city of which they can feel proud. Tourism is very important to London and its economy. In turn, the London economy has an important effect on the whole United Kingdom economy. So we must also view our responsibility for London in terms of its role as a capital city and its significance to the whole country.
  My constituents, like many others in London constituencies, have suffered from the lack of co-ordination of key London services and functions, and will benefit greatly from the reforms that the Bill proposes. I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and his colleagues on many aspects of the Bill. I shall concentrate briefly on three major areas of responsibility for the Greater London assembly and its directly elected mayor: economic development, the environment and the policing of London.
  I think it important to consider the reality of London's economy. It is one of the dominant capital cities of the world and, historically, has depended on its ability to trade and create wealth. As we have heard, however, 13 of Britain's most deprived local authorities are located in London. We have extremes in London. Unemployment in the capital is greater than the totals for Scotland and Wales combined. London businesses are crying out for skilled workers who cannot be found. Effective measures to address those problems should have been taken over the past decade, and probably before then, too. Those issues should have been dealt with years ago, but we had to wait until 1 May 1997 to see any solutions advanced.
  Enfield, North is perhaps a good example—if "good" is the right word—of how London has suffered from the lack of any co-ordinated strategy. The responses to the consultation exercise illustrate what most Londoners, and certainly most London businesses, already know: there is a desperate need for a body with a strategic role in economic development, regeneration and tourism.
  In a sense, London has become many cities. Each borough competes with its neighbours to provide often isolated facilities in order to attract enterprise and employment, or works with its immediate neighbours while competing with other bits of London. I do not single out those boroughs and their efforts for criticism—what else can they do? They cannot ignore the needs of their populations. However, I point a finger at the Conservative party for its negligence in government.
  804
  In yesterday's debate, we heard nothing but carping from Conservative Members as the Government strive to overcome their legacy and their neglect. Each borough needs—and plainly requests—a strategic body to maximise the benefits of investment in London, its facilities, opportunities and its work force. The Greater London authority will deliver that body. The mayor will draw up London's economic development strategy with the London development agency, which will be responsible for implementing that strategy. That is a clear and straightforward process, which will free London's businesses and allow them to devote their energies to ensuring that their businesses succeed. It will help to attract sustainable long-term investment projects, which I believe are frequently deterred by the frustrations of the current system.
  In my constituency—an area that once thrived, with household-name manufacturing industries—there are earnest efforts to create new business opportunities. They are necessary because of the collapse of the industries that made Enfield the place it is today. However, those efforts are undermined because Enfield is competing for investment not only with other European cities, the far east or America but with other London boroughs. Enfield is part of London, and Enfield and London will benefit from the focus and coherence that the Greater London authority and the mayor will bring to London's economic development.
  While economic development is certainly a major concern, there is more to London than that. The Bill recognises that fact and sets out wide-ranging proposals to improve quality of life in the capital. London's environment must be considered positively. My constituency, which borders the northern fringes of the capital, is home to sights of great beauty and interest. It was good enough to serve as a retreat for royal persons in centuries past, and now provides a haven of recreation for the people of Enfield and from across north London. The protection and promotion of London's natural habitats, assessment of the state of London's environment, the management and recycling of waste generated in greater London and air quality management strategies will bring to London the benefits of improved health and a better quality of life. Our nation's capital deserves those improvements.
  The policing of London is an issue raised constantly by constituents, and is a major concern. Through the Bill, our Metropolitan police force will become more accountable and much more in touch with the population that it serves. I understand that tourism in the capital creates unique problems, but the basis of an efficient and respected police service is a relationship of trust between the police and the communities in which they operate. I believe that the Bill will strengthen that relationship.
  I was surprised to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler): one would think that the Bill was an attack upon the Metropolitan police. They do not view it as such. It is not an attack, but a step forward in the relationship between London's police force and the people of London. That can only be a good thing. Such a move is long overdue and much needed, and I think it will be very welcome.
  It is remarkable to hear Opposition Members—particularly Conservative Members for London constituencies—attacking the Bill's proposals. Londoners have told them at every opportunity, "This is what we

  805
  want." They voted for it in the Government's manifesto at the general election and in the London referendum—an overwhelming result, with more than 70 per cent. of Londoners voting for the Bill.
  I am delighted that my Government have listened to Londoners, and have set about delivering for them with vigour, enthusiasm and commitment. Whatever the Conservatives might think, the Bill has achieved something very important: it has united Londoners in a positive proposal for the city's future. It is important to note that the interest that we have witnessed in the mayor for London and the GLA will help to reconnect Londoners to the democratic process and perhaps assist in reversing the worrying trend of low turnouts in local elections.
  I welcome the Bill and look forward to seeing it become a reality that will improve life for all Londoners; it will certainly have a very beneficial impact beyond the boundaries of London.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: I thank the Home Secretary, who is no longer in his place, for giving me such an interesting history lesson about the Metropolitan police.
  I shall concentrate on two aspects of the Bill—policing and transport. I welcome the establishment of the Metropolitan police authority and the fact that a majority of its members will be assembly members. I hope that the authority's democratic oversight of, and input to, the Metropolitan police will reduce the occurrence of serious miscarriages of justice such as the case of my constituent, former Police Constable Gordon Warren, who was thrown out of the Met on bogus medical grounds and offered a paltry sum to compensate him for his pain and suffering. He received no protection from senior Met officers.
  Although I welcome the establishment of the authority, I regret the absence of tax-varying powers for Londoners, which means that they will not be able to decide whether they want more or fewer police officers patrolling the streets. London streets have a small police presence compared to cities in other European countries.
  I am reluctant to bore the House with statistics, but I am sure that hon. Members will find figures for London more relevant than the rather misleading national figures quoted by the Minister for Transport in London in last night's debate. The need for further funding is more apparent than ever. Despite an increase in the special grant to the Met, the overall increase in its allocation for 1999–2000 was only 1.7 per cent., which is below inflation and below the national average increase of 2.7 per cent.
  The position is even worse if one considers the 4 per cent. pay rise for the Met, because staff costs account for 80 per cent. of expenditure. The police estimate that an increase of 6 per cent. per annum is required if they are to stand still in real terms. All that is taking place in the context of a drop of 1,500 in the number of police officers since 1992. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) did not refer to that fact in his contribution, in which he gave figures from 1979.
  Although Liberal Democrat Members welcome the birth of the Metropolitan police authority, we believe that the mayor should be given the power to raise more funds, if that is what Londoners want, to improve London's policing.
  806
  All hon. Members would, I am sure, agree that Londoners will judge the success of the mayor, the Greater London authority and the new citywide government on their ability to deliver a radically improved transport system. That has been severely hampered in a number of respects. In yesterday's debate, much was said about the proportion that the Secretary of State and the Consolidated Fund will take from the proceeds of congestion charging or parking levies.
  I shall not dwell on schedules 13 and 14, because I am sure that, by now, most hon. Members know them by heart, but it is worth quoting from "Breaking the Logjam". Page 13 of the document refers to powers
  "to require a proportion of the revenue to be paid to central government",
  and page 16 says that local authorities that introduce charging schemes
  "should be able to retain 100 per cent. of the net revenue generated for at least 10 years".
  We have been told that London will have a citywide government, so perhaps it is outside the scope of a measure that applies to local authorities.
  The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Let me set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. As I said in yesterday's debate, the mayor and the assembly will be required to spend every penny raised on the mayor's integrated transport strategy.
  Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She has made that point several times. It is a pity that so much confusion has arisen between documents issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Bill. Why are the Government committed to using 100 per cent. of that revenue for the transport strategy for only 10 years, and not longer? They could clear up the confusion by amending schedules 13 and 14. The project of the mayor and the GLA will not survive if, as I said yesterday, revenue from congestion charging that is raised in London boroughs—for example, in Chelsea or Cheam—is spent elsewhere in the country.
  The Government must also reassure Londoners on the question of the public-private partnership. Yesterday, some hon. Members had difficulty describing PPP. The Minister must answer key questions. First, a figure of £7 billion is being quoted ad nauseam, but what is the cost of the PPP over the duration of the contracts? It is not £7 billion. Will the Minister confirm that, over the 20 or 30 years of the contracts, the cost may be about £500 million per annum, so Londoners will have to pay back much more than £7 billion?
  What percentage of that amount will be paid by Londoners? That question was asked yesterday, but it needs to be considered again. Liberal Democrat Members are still uncertain about the funds that the new transport authority for London will receive from the Government towards its investment costs in years to come and what it will be expected to pay for from the revenue on congestion charging and parking levies. I hope that the Minister will answer that today or in writing at a later date. We need to know whether the Government, as the AA has said, are simply substituting new money for old.
  What powers will the mayor have to amend the contracts? We accept that the final details of the PPP contracts need to be agreed, but will the Minister consider

  807
  having a review two years after they have been signed, so that the mayor and the GLA can negotiate, on the fringes or perhaps more radically, with the infrastructure provider about what the company will provide? They could then have some influence over the running of the tube.
  Londoners are expecting the mayor and the GLA to get rid of cattle truck conditions on the tube. If simple answers can be given to those simple questions, that will go a long way to reassuring Londoners that the PPP is on track, that they will not have to pay through the nose for it, and that the GLA will be able to fine-tune or enhance the deal in years to come.
  Ms Jackson: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made abundantly clear yesterday, the public-private partnership will be completed by the Government. It entails a process of competitive bidding by those who want to win the contracts. My right hon. Friend also said that, if completion of the PPP was later than the introduction of the mayor and the assembly, the mayor would be consulted. The contracts will be long-term, and will clearly have to contain checks and balances to ensure that they are being delivered at the price agreed. As my right hon. Friend made clear, decisions will be based on best value. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her answer. I welcome the fact that the mayor will be consulted, but we are asking for more than consultation; we are asking for a clause to be written into the contracts to allow the mayor and the GLA an opportunity to review them in a couple of years once the PPP has bedded down. The Minister will say that the contracts have been drawn up, but I am well aware, from my previous employment, that flexibility can be built into contracts to provide more or less service. That could be negotiated in the current deal.
  Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him a third time. In essence, he was saying that the contract would agree to intervention. As we have already made clear, the Government are committed to completing the PPP process. A contract that contains within it the possibility of the various issues that he mentioned being reconsidered will be a completed contract. Surely he is not suggesting that someone would enter into a binding contract with the proviso that, perhaps two years down the line, all involved could ignore the signatures on the paper. That would be a curious way of conducting business.
  Mr. Brake: I do not feel that we should debate this any further, but that was not the point that I was making. I think that the Minister understands perfectly that we are saying that, two years into a contract, there should be a review point at which the contractors, the mayor and the GLA would negotiate some flexibility, perhaps enhancing certain services and reducing others. I assure the Minister that it can be done if the will is there to do it.
  Londoners expect road traffic reduction to be tackled. The Government have already missed the opportunity to deal with road traffic reduction at a national level, so let us not miss the opportunity in London. A slowdown in the increase in the number of cars in London is not an option. Surely London, of all the areas in the country, is the one where the Government, the mayor and the GLA
  808
  should be committed to reducing traffic. I see no reason why that could not be written into the mayor's transport strategy at this point, so that there is a firm commitment to deliver significant road traffic reduction in London.
  On a related matter, scope should be given to Transport for London to anticipate congestion charges and parking levies in order to raise revenue now. That will ensure that the carrots are provided now—the sticks can come in future, once a viable alternative is in place.
  We need greater integration of the rail services. The Bill is not as tough as it could be. Yes, the mayor is able to give advice to the franchising director, but the franchising director is not required to take it.
  I fail to understand why all boards except one will have assembly members or borough representatives on them. The board of Transport for London will be the sole board on which no assembly member or borough councillor will be present. I should like the Minister to explain the logic behind that. I understand the need to have experts on boards, but why not have one elected representative who can put the views of London commuters? I look forward to the Minister's explanation.
  The introduction of the new Metropolitan police authority is to be welcomed. It will help to restore confidence in the Metropolitan police and give the whole community a stake in its police. That is vital, given that confidence in the Met is low following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
  If London is to maintain and strengthen its position as the world's premier city, the GLA must be given the wherewithal to integrate all modes of transport, including rail. The mayor must be given the power to enhance not only buses but tube and train services, funded by congestion charges and parking levies. Londoners must know that their money will be spent on London transport, the whole of London transport and nothing but London transport, in its entirety and for eternity. I am sure that we shall return to those issues in Committee.
  6.24 pm
  Siobhain McDonagh: Like many hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill, my views have been formed by experience in London local government. Having been a London councillor for 16 years, during the time of the Greater London council and after its demise, I am glad that the Bill does not mark a return to the GLC, but establishes a genuinely new strategic body that will focus on certain core responsibilities.
  The GLC performed some things well, but its remit was too vast and the things that it tried to do too numerous for the services that it provided to be of consistently high or responsive quality. The Greater London authority, by virtue of being much more narrowly defined and having its role very carefully specified, stands a much better chance of beginning to tackle some of the endemic problems that have beset London for too long.
  It has long been my belief that the main division in London today is not between north and south of the river, as was traditionally the case—although, having been born and bred in south London, I recognise that divide—but between inner and outer-London. As my constituency is at the very southern tip of the Northern line, I qualify as an outer-London Member of Parliament. The problems of

  809
  outer London boroughs such as my own are, of course, very different in many respects from those of inner London.
  In terms of housing and education, for example, many inner London boroughs have vast social problems that we in outer London, thankfully do not face. That is why it is good that the government have left responsibility for those issues firmly where they belong—with local councils, which are best placed to devise local solutions to their own problems.
  Although much divides inner and outer London, we have some extremely important common problems, and they will require effective policies from the mayor and the assembly. The Bill identifies transport, planning, development and the police as major areas for the mayor and the assembly. Many hon. Members have made their comments on specific matters contained in the Bill. I shall add a few words, not so much on the substance of the GLA's responsibilities as on the manner in which they are to be carried out.
  I hope that the GLA will become a model for a new type of strategic authority, one which genuinely listens and responds to those who will be directly affected by its decisions. Ironically, by the way in which she abolished it, Baroness Thatcher succeeded in making the GLC wildly popular. During that time, the people of London felt genuinely close to an organisation from which they had felt distanced for years.
  It is crucial that the GLA establishes a similar rapport with Londoners. It can do that only if it seeks out relevant views and opinions and by genuinely listening to people with experience of the issues within its remit. That is why I am slightly concerned to note the responses to the Bill from the London Voluntary Service Council and the London Chamber of Commerce. Both organisations warmly welcome the establishment of the authority, but question its commitment to meaningful consultation.
  Both the voluntary sector and the business community contain an enormous wealth of experience and expertise that must be listened to by any strategic authority concerned with planning, development and transport. Just as the Government are calling on authorities throughout the country to change the culture of local government and to commit themselves to modernisation and openness, the GLA must lead the way in demonstrating a willingness to engage in meaningful consultation. I am sure that a commitment to full, open and regular consultation with business, borough councils and the voluntary sector is implicit in the Bill, but it does no harm to emphasise it and to assure those important partners that their views will be heard.
  There is no shortage of Londoners with a view on the future of our city—ask any cab driver. There exists an anonymous web of quangos, panels, bodies, councils and boards of all kinds, all of which are churning out reports and recommendations on a vast range of subjects directly relevant to the work of the GLA. There can be no doubt that the absence of a strategic government for the capital has meant that so much of this work remains fragmented and ineffective. The GLA must pull this together and harness the energy in building a better future for London.
  810
  The referendum last year showed that Londoners want the new mayor and the assembly and will welcome the Bill. If the mayor and the assembly demonstrate a willingness to hear the views of Londoners and to take those views seriously, they can build on this good will to benefit all of London.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Time does not permit me to dwell on the speeches that have been made, other than to pour praise on my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who showed that he can always enhance any debate, and to say to the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), as someone who represents the most southerly constituency in London, that she should bear in mind the fact that London's economic recovery started after we abolished the GLC.
  Our fundamental concern about the Bill is that clash and conflict between the new authority and the boroughs will be inevitable. It is for that reason that we urged the Government to have two questions in last May's referendum. If we had been successful, as many thought we should be, we would have said yes to the mayor, but no to the Government's current proposals for the assembly.
  We believe that an assembly made up of representatives from the 32 London boroughs and the corporation of London would avoid conflict within the authority and build a bridge between the man in the street and the mayor. That is the basis of our reasoned amendment.
  It has been argued that that proposal is flawed. The case against it put forward yesterday by hon. Members was that, perish the thought, borough representatives would stand up for their boroughs; but that is the essence of democracy. We put our constituency point of view and the mayor is going to stand up for London, so what is wrong with an assembly comprised of borough representatives standing up for their boroughs?
  Indeed, the weakness of the proposed closed-list proportional representation structure is that the mayor will be detached from what the man in the street is thinking. Borough representatives would tell him. That is better than focus groups, consultants and unelected officials. We in the Conservative party believe in the borough link. We believe that it is the cornerstone of democracy and have no hesitation in fighting for it tonight.
  The House should be in no doubt about the threat that the Bill poses to the boroughs of London. Clash and conflict are inevitable. The impact of the Greater London authority is just dawning on London authorities. The latest edition of the Local Government Chronicle quotes the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea:
  "I think the immediate things that make everybody's hair begin to rise are the road network, transportation and planning, where the potential for conflict is substantial."
  Lest anyone thinks that that quote is politically biased, I quote the chief executive of Islington:
  "It's now about to dawn on everyone that the GLA is going to have a massive impact on the way the boroughs operate."

  811
  The Minister for London and Construction yesterday waved a letter, as he did this afternoon, from someone calling himself the chair of the Association of London Government.
  Mr. Raynsford: He is a council leader himself.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Minister makes my very point. That spontaneous letter turned up, just by coincidence, on the day of Second Reading. I am sure that the Minister will let us know in his winding-up speech whether he requested that letter, but, having made inquiries into the its origin, I find that that opinion was reached without any consultation within the ALG and, as was effectively drawn out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the shadow Home Secretary, it flies in the face of the real opinion of ALG leaders.
  Mr. Raynsford: That was 12 months ago.
  Mr. Ottaway: I know that the Labour party is good at shifting its views, but to have a complete U-turn on its policy within 12 months takes the biscuit.
  If ever there was a Jekyll and Hyde piece of legislation, this is it. It sets up a new authority with a powerful mayor, with his own mandate. However, it contains as many measures giving powers to the Secretary of State as references to the mayor. We have only to look at clause 18 to get a feel for the legislation. It refers to the Secretary of State eight times, to the Treasury twice and to the mayor not at all.
  The briefest examination of clauses 70 and 71 reveals that the Secretary of State can either increase, decrease or change the budget in any way he wants. As for clause 73, where the council tax is calculated by the formula R minus P1 minus A divided by T, all I can say is that any Bill with a formula in it is on the road to ruin.
  Mr. Keith Hill: Why?
  Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman will soon find out.
  The true picture is emerging. The Prime Minister wanted a presidential-style mayor with glamour, and the Deputy Prime Minister then spent 18 months constructing a straitjacket for him. It is almost as if they knew that their efforts to prevent the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) from becoming mayor were doomed. It is legislation designed to keep him in check in the event of his success. We hereby name those the Livingstone clauses.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ottaway: I am sorry. Time does not permit me. I will give way in a minute if I get ahead of the clock.
  What is becoming clear is that, such are the Secretary of State's powers that, whoever is nominally elected as the first mayor of London, the real first mayor of London will be the right hon. Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He will make the decisions; he has the power. If that is freedom for London, it is freedom in a straitjacket. The Government are saying, "Do anything
  812
  you like as long as it is what we tell you to do." If anything epitomises the Blair Government and their control-freak tendencies, it is the Bill.
  If anything illustrates the Government's muddled thinking, it is their proposals for congestion charging. Eighty per cent. of commuters into London already travel by public transport, but the Deputy Prime Minister wants to hit the other 20 per cent. His excuse for clobbering the private commuter is that the roads are congested; that is his story and he is sticking it.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sticking it?"]—sticking to it—but what is causing the congestion? Is it the volume of traffic or could it be the actions of the Traffic Director for London, who published his revisions to the network plan some two months ago? In it, he said:
  "Red route success will now be judged against tough new targets set by the Secretary of State for Transport. Targets include providing at least 500 new signalled pedestrian crossings, traffic calming at 1,200 side road junctions, 200 cycle crossings".
  That is fair enough—it is a clear statement of policy—but the point is that the congestion is being caused not by the motorist, but by the Government.
  I have to hand it to the Deputy Prime Minister. He creates the congestion, taxes it and then uses it to replace the subsidy to London Underground, but is he going to apply the money to London Underground? I hope that the Minister will use his winding-up speech to clear up the muddled picture over London Underground's finances.
  We know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government subsidy for London Underground ends in 2000, presumably at the end of the financial year in March. We also know from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech yesterday that his plans for public-private partnership may not be ready by then. That is fair enough, so, first, can the Minister confirm that he will seek further subsidy from the Government to cover the interim period until the plans are in place?
  Secondly, we had until now assumed that the proceeds of congestion charging would be used to replace the subsidy. The Minister makes it clear that that is not the case, but, when questioned about the on-going costs of the public-private partnership, the Deputy Prime Minister said that that was a matter not for him, but for the mayor, so the picture is becoming clearer.
  The Deputy Prime Minister is inviting investment in an inherently loss-making organisation. He talks of £7 billion investment from the private sector. He will then turn to the mayor and say, "You pay it back." That means two things. First, removing the subsidy from London Underground is, effectively, a tax by the back door on Londoners. Secondly, it is a £7 billion invoice sitting on the mayor's desk on the day that he starts work.
  If there is one concern that rises above all others, it is the expectations that have been raised by Labour's legendary spin doctors: those men of the Millbank tendency, who sit in that rather fuddy-duddy tower along the Embankment, take any proposal and inject adjectives such as radical, modern, world-class, strong, integrated, improving, building, tackling, better—all words raising the temperature in judging the success or failure of a given policy.
  It is the approach of those who have never had to stand up and face the electorate. They were at it yesterday when they stuck in the Deputy Prime Minister's speech the fact that the mayor would be able to eliminate poverty and social exclusion in London. The serious point is that the

  813
  inherent danger in letting those people loose through that most powerful of media, the British media, is that expectations are raised among the people of London and the country generally that things can be achieved when, in fact, they can never be achieved.
  Never could there be a bigger clash or conflict between new Labour's ideas and the expectations raised for London than when there is a confrontation with the biggest gimmick of them all. Twice a year, the mayor and the assembly will attend a meeting which will be open to all members of the public and which will be known as a people's question time. That takes the biscuit. We have the people's Parliament, the people's Government and now the people's question time.
  Who can attend? Who will be the lucky people to put a question to mayor Ken? It does not say in the Bill, and, as far as I can see, the 52 million people in the United Kingdom are allowed to attend, and probably 300 million people from the European Union as well. Perhaps that could explain the secret, hidden after-use for the Dome. Is that where Mayor Ken will hold his people's question time?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about question time and that is a relatively small part of the Bill. However, does he not accept that it is far better for people elected by Londoners to be held to account by Londoners? At the moment, the people who represent and speak for London, including the Minister and the Minister for Transport in London, are appointed rather than elected, and are under no obligation to speak to a single Londoner.
  Mr. Ottaway: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I object to the gimmicky nature of the people's question time. Let us have a proper question time, but let us not have it in this new Labour gimmicky style that does nothing but try to appeal to the British media.
  I was talking about people's question time being conducted by mayor Ken. I am for ever grateful to whoever is continuing to send me copies of the minutes of the meetings of the London Labour party. The latest report says:
  "'Control freakery' is not just a bad habit of over-zealous Party apparatchiks. It is an intrinsic part of the Blairite strategy for managing a democratic society in conditions of economic instability."
  Do they know something that we do not know? It goes on:
  "Tony Blair has made clear his intention to exclude Ken Livingstone from Labour's one member one vote ballot for London Mayor. At … AGM Ken declared he would fight this battle 'to the wire'. His determination was warmly welcomed, as it will be among tens of thousands of Labour activists and millions of London's voters."
  It does not stop there. It goes on:
  "The current crisis over the selection of candidates consequently raises the issue of keeping the Party Labour. The most hardline position is summarised by Fraser Kemp MP, quoted as saying about the vetting system: 'If we are to be consistent, it has to apply to Westminster MPs'. If the Millbank Tendency pursues this line it will lead to further clashes with the membership."
  That is what it will be about. When London needs a clear and cohesive voice, a voice of quiet reason to pull together and harness the energy that is this great city,
  814
  the Government blow it. They argue among themselves, then hype it to a level that raises people's expectations and on which they cannot deliver.
  It will be a battle from the outset with every pressure group in London and beyond looking for instant salvation. Those people will be doing that because the Government have told them that the Bill will be the be-all and end-all of their problems. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister and the House know that that is not the case. The sooner the expectations are tempered, the better it will be for London and Londoners.
  This is a complex piece of legislation and we will do our best to make positive suggestions for improvements, as would be expected from a constructive Opposition. Whoever wins the election and becomes the mayor, and whoever ends up in the assembly will have a tough time. The Bill makes their job harder, not easier, and I urge the House to reject it.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Opening the debate yesterday, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) referred to the Bill's proposals as an "experiment". She is wrong. The Bill puts an end to an experiment on which the Conservative party embarked in 1986. It was an experiment to see whether it was possible to run one of the world's great cities without any strategic direction, with no citywide representation, with no leadership, with no responsibility and with no accountability.
  It was clear from the start that the experiment would not work. It was clear that one could not run a city the size of London through quangos, joint boards, ad hoc committees and obscure advisory panels. Any Londoner could have told the Conservative Government that. Londoners could see that, with no one in charge, there was no one able to take effective action to tackle strategic issues affecting the city. No one was able to take real steps to reduce poverty and social exclusion across the capital. There was no one to take responsibility for London's transport infrastructure and traffic congestion, which the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) appears to believe only arrived in the capital 18 months ago with the election of this Government. That is an extraordinary proposition. There was no one taking on the problem of air pollution and congestion.
  Of course, 12 years ago, nobody bothered to ask the people of London. What a contrast with the approach that has characterised the development of the proposals before the House tonight. The proposals formed a key part of our manifesto and have been subject to extensive consultation, arising from the Green Paper we published last July and then confirmed in the White Paper published in March. Those proposals were then put to the people of London and approved in a referendum in May. In that referendum, people in every borough across the capital voted yes to a mayor and assembly for London. Their verdict was clear; the great experiment of 1986 had failed. All it proved, in the end, was that where no one is in charge, nothing will get done.
  All over London—except, perhaps, on part of the Opposition Benches—there is now an acceptance of the principles underlying our proposals: that London needs a

  815
  strategic level of governance; that it must deliver a proper balance of leadership and democratic accountability; and that it must work in close partnership with the rest of London—with business, the boroughs and London's voluntary sector—in fulfilling its role.
  It shows just how far we have come. We have a Bill and we have general support for the principle from the public and, I believe, from most parts of the House. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in between announcing his candidacy for the mayoralty, confirmed yesterday that the Liberal Democrats would support the Bill. We welcome that. However, The Official Opposition are all over the place. They tell us now that they support the idea of a mayor, conveniently forgetting to mention that they strenuously opposed the proposition until last year's general election. Obviously, we welcome the change of heart, as, no doubt, does Lord Archer. He has been assiduous in listening to the debates, and he must have been astonished that his own party referred frequently to mayoral candidates without once mentioning the possibility of him being elected. What an interesting indication of the Conservative party's lack of confidence in its leading candidate.
  The Conservative party appears to be oblivious to the obvious truth that, if there is to be a mayor responsible for a city the size of London, that mayor must be accountable. There must be an elected assembly able to keep watch on the mayor's actions, to scrutinise and agree the mayor's budgets and to take up issues of concern to Londoners and matters of Londonwide importance.
  Sir Paul Beresford: In reality, the assembly will be a toothless organisation—excuse the pun, given my other profession. The mayor will present what he wishes to the assembly and it will forward reports to him, which he can reject overnight. The assembly will be able to vary the budget only if it gets a two-thirds majority in a hung council, with the influence of the patronage of the mayor who is responsible for the jobs of about a third of the assembly members. That is not realistic.
  Mr. Raynsford: The only toothless people I feel sorry for are the victims of the hon. Gentleman in his other walk of life. This is a carefully structured system to ensure accountability. The assembly will be able to override the mayor where it believes firmly that the mayor is wrong and it can command a two-thirds majority. It makes sense.
  The idea of an assembly composed solely of current borough council leaders is, quite simply, inadequate. The borough leaders already have sufficient responsibilities in their own areas, and will rightly continue to pursue their own local interests rather than taking the wider perspective essential for a wider city assembly. Regardless, the boroughs themselves—whom the Tories claim to be supporting—have made it manifestly clear that they want nothing to do with the Tories' propositions.
  The Opposition are proposing an arrangement that is patently unsatisfactory, and that does not command the support of the London boroughs or even of all their own Back Benchers—some of whom argued yesterday for an elected assembly. What a mess, and what a party! It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition has issued a Christmas card depicting a rather small flock of
  816
  miserable-looking sheep being herded by a demented shepherd into oblivion. I can think of no more appropriate metaphor for the Opposition's stance on this legislation. The Government are adopting a very different approach.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not dissenting from the Minister's analysis; I have heard about the Christmas card. Will he confirm that, if the general view of the Committee and others is that the mayor's powers need to be reined in—particularly on the recall issue, which we debated yesterday—and that the assembly's powers have to be increased, the Government will favourably consider readjusting the powers of the two parts of the Greater London authority?
  Mr. Raynsford: I confirm that we have constructed proposals that are designed to ensure a proper balance between the powers of the assembly and those of the mayor. We shall happily debate that balance, and whether any adjustment to it is necessary. However, we believe that we have created the right structure of a democratically elected mayor and a democratically elected assembly, who will be able to work together in the interests of London.
  The mayor and assembly will be able to work also with the boroughs to pursue London's interests. That is what we want—a framework to serve the people of London. The framework will also involve radical new voting systems, giving the mayor a strong mandate and creating an inclusive assembly.
  Sir Norman Fowler: As for that radical new voting system, why is the hon. Gentleman proposing the closed-party-list system?
  Mr. Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman should know by now, we are proposing exactly the same system as applies in Scotland and Wales—where people will have a direct choice of their own constituency candidate, for whom they will personally be able to vote. There will be a top-up vote for parties to ensure that there is a proper, proportionate election which is representative of those parties. It is a fair system. It is the system that will apply in Scotland and Wales, and it will apply also in London. Only the right hon. Gentleman—who is obsessed with the issue—seems to see any disadvantage in it.
  Londoners will have a new role in ensuring direct, face-to-face accountability by participating with the mayor in the people's question time—which the hon. Member for Croydon, South had the gall to condemn and to try to ridicule. I hope that the people of London will take note of the contempt for democracy and for the people of London that he demonstrated.
  Many hon. Members from both sides have spoken and intervened in this debate. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) not only made his rather curious foray into the issue of voting arrangements, but indicated the Conservative party's failure to reach a decision on the creation of the Metropolitan police authority. In his words, he had "suspended judgment"—I think that that means that he is sitting on the fence—on creation of the authority.
  It is extraordinary that Conservative Members have taken so long to reach a view on the Metropolitan police authority. After all, it has been five years since the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), stated:

  817
  "I have also re-examined the role of the Home Secretary in relation to the Metropolitan police. I propose to establish for the first time a police authority for the Metropolitan police on the new national model separate from the Home Office and with essentially the same tasks as police authorities elsewhere."—[Official Report, 23 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 766.]
  He was right. Why on earth has the Conservative party taken so long to catch up with him? Perhaps it is uncomfortable for Conservative Members to be associated with the right hon. and learned Gentleman because of his views on Europe.
  Sir Norman Fowler: In helping us, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that, at the end of three years, there will be more or fewer police in the Metropolitan police?
  Mr. Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in the arrangements that we are making, the Home Secretary will retain a reserve power to ensure that there will be an adequate budget to maintain an adequate and satisfactory level of policing.
  Sir Norman Fowler: How many?
  Mr. Raynsford: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that—no one in my position can do so—as I am not responsible for that budget. However, I can give him the very clear indication—as the Home Secretary gave it earlier in the debate—that the Home Secretary is determined to ensure that the Metropolitan police force has the resources necessary to discharge its functions. That is what we shall ensure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) asked a number of questions, the first of which was on east London river crossings. The Government have said that decisions on new crossings must wait for the new mayor. However, the Government will safeguard the alignments and ensure that preparatory work continues so that the mayor will be able quickly to reach a view. Meanwhile, English Partnerships is performing development work on the crossings.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town asked questions also about the Metropolitan police budget for their work in national functions. I assure him that, for 1999–2000, the police were allocated a special payment in recognition of their special capital city, national and international functions. The payment will be made as part of the central Government funding formula and will not be affected by creation of the new Greater London authority.
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), with his usual humour, expressed some distaste for the constitutional reform that the Government have begun. I hope that, in the years ahead, he will look back and regale his grandchildren and others in his usual humorous way with stories of the role that he played in the establishment of Britain's new constitutional arrangements, which secured a far better and more democratic society than the one that he knew initially.
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked also about planning powers. His rather relaxed view of whether tall buildings or very large office
  818
  blocks should be subject to the mayor's scrutiny is not entirely in keeping with the views of many people in London, including some of his own constituents—to whom I was speaking at a meeting of the Knightsbridge Association—who have expressed concern about the scale of development. It is right that we have to strike a balance in the matter—which we are attempting to do—between legitimate concern for environmental protection and arrangements to enable business not only to prosper, but to thrive. We have consulted on the matter, and are considering the conclusions to be drawn from the consultation. We shall soon make announcements on it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), in a very effective speech, highlighted the importance of the economy and action by the new authority to improve London's economy. She stressed that the Bill was a step forward in the relationship between the Metropolitan police and the people of London.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) gave a welcome to the Metropolitan police authority. He asked questions about police funding to which I have already responded. He asked a series of questions on transport, not all of which I shall be able to answer now because of the shortage of time. Nevertheless, I shall stress to him two points.
  First, the Government are quite determined to ensure that there is in place a satisfactory public-private partnership to guarantee adequate funding for the underground for the years ahead. It is the Government's responsibility to make those arrangements. The mayor, when elected, will be consulted on them, but it would be crazy to amend a bidding process and contractual arrangements when we are halfway through them. That would simply not be practical politics.
  Secondly—as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about the composition of Transport for London—I stress that the body will be an executive that executes the strategy determined by the mayor, who will be the democratically accountable person.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)—in a commendably brief speech, which was not necessarily her choice, but due to time constraints—gave warm support to the restoration of citywide government.
  We have lived through a period in which London has lacked strategic government. We are bringing that period to an end. We are restoring a democratically elected citywide government to London—a new form of strategic citywide government—with the power to make a difference. We promised to put right the civic vandalism of 1986, and to restore democratic and accountable government to the capital. The Bill delivers on that promise. I warmly commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 396.

  Division No. 23]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Amess, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Beggs, Roy

  Brady, Graham

  Bercow, John

  Brazier, Julian

  819

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Luff, Peter

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Burns, Simon

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clappison, James

  Maples, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Colvin, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Page, Richard

  Cran, James

  Paice, James

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Paterson, Owen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Prior, David

  Day, Stephen

  Randall, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Faber, David

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Fallon, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ruffley, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fraser, Christopher

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gibb Nick

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spring, Richard

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Steen, Anthony

  Gray, James

  Streeter, Gary

  Green, Damian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Greenway, John

  Syms, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian(Esher & Walton)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Thompson, William

  Hammond Philip

  Townend, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tredinnick, David

  Hayes, John

  Trend, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Viggers, Peter

  Horam, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Whittingdale, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Wilshire, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Yeo, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lidington, David

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Lillley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sir David Madel.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Alexander, Douglas

  Austin, John

  Baker, Norman

  Allan, Richard

  Ballard, Jackie

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Banks, Tony

  820

  Barnes, Harry

  Cox, Tom

  Barron, Kevin

  Cranston, Ross

  Battle, John

  Crausby, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Darvill, Keith

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Betts, Clive

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blackman, Liz

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Denham, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Borrow, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Doran, Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Drew, David

  Brake, Tom

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Breed, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Edwards, Huw

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burgon, Colin

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Burnett, John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Burstow, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cann, Jamie

  Galloway, George

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gapes, Mike

  Casale, Roger

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Chidgey, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Coaker, Vernon

  Grogan, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gunnell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hain, Peter

  Coleman, Iain

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Colman, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hancock, Mike

  Cooper, Yvette

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Harvey, Nick

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cotter, Brian

  Healey, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  821

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Heppell, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hoey, Kate

  McNulty, Tony

  Home Robertson, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  McWilliam, John

  Hope, Phil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Marek, Dr John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hurst, Alan

  Martlew, Eric

  Hutton, John

  Maxton, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Merron, Gillian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Michael, Alun

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Jamieson, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Milburn, Alan

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Miller, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moore, Michael

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Morley, Elliot

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Mudie, George

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Mullin, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Norris, Dan

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Oaten, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kidney, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Olner, Bill

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  O'Neill, Martin

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pearson, Ian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pendry, Tom

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Laxton, Bob

  Ptekthall, Colin

  Lepper, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Leslie, Christopher

  Plaskitt, James

  Levitt, Tom

  Pond, Chris

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Linton, Martin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Livsey, Richard

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lock, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Love, Andrew

  Purchase, Ken

  McAllion, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McCabe, Steve

  Radice, Giles

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rammell, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rapson, Syd

  McDonnell, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  McFall, John

  822

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Stringer, Graham

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rendel, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rooney, Terry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Todd, Mark

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Salmond, Alex

  Touhig, Don

  Salter, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Sanders, Adrian

  Truswell, Paul

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tyler, Paul

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wallace, James

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Webb, Steve

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Willis, Phil

  Snape, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Wise, Audrey

  Spellar, John

  Wood, Mike

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Woolas, Phil

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wray, James

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That Clauses 1 to 4 and Schedules 1 and 2 be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee.
  That when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the charging on, and payment out of, the Consolidated Fund of expenditure incurred by returning officers in relation to the holding of the first ordinary election of the Greater London Authority; and

  (2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under or by virtue of the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  Question agreed to.

  GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the making of provision for and in connection with—

  (a) the levying of charges on persons using or keeping motor vehicles on roads in Greater London;

  (b) the levying of charges on persons providing parking places for motor vehicles in Greater London; and

  (c) charges to tax in connection with transfers of property, rights and liabilities; and

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  Question agreed to.

  Fisheries
  [Relevant document: Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 7th December 1998 relating to the laying down, for 1999, of certain measures for the conservation and management of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of Norway and allocating, for 1999, catch quotas between member states for vessels fishing in the Norwegian exclusive economic zone and the fishing zone around Jan Mayen.]
  7.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM(98)680, relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1999 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen based on sustainable fisheries management, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that regional differences of fisheries are fully recognized.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and also that Madam Speaker has decided that the 10-minutes rule should apply to all Back-Bench speeches.
  Mr. Morley: It has become traditional for the House to hold a debate on fisheries in advance of the December meeting of the Fisheries Council, which sets total allowable catches and quotas for the following year.
  I know that this is an important occasion for hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies, and, indeed, for all hon. Members who take an active interest in fisheries policy generally. In accordance with that custom and practice, I shall not just focus on the decisions that will be made at the Fisheries Council meeting later this week, important though they are. This is also an opportunity for me to review the key developments in fisheries policy that have occurred over the last year, and to consider the issues that we are likely to face.
  It is worth recalling the hazards that fishermen experience, and the tragic loss of life that results all too frequently. This year has been no exception, with 24 lives lost to date. Let me express my condolences to the families of the four men who were lost in the Iona tragedy, and also to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). I understand that the men involved in that tragic accident were from fishing families on the island, and I well understand how a small community such as that on Bute must have been affected. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in that regard.
  Although I do not have direct responsibility for safety at sea—that falls to my colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—it greatly concerns all of us who are involved with the industry in any way that, all too often, such a high price is paid for the harvesting of one of nature's most generous resources. We have a duty both to improve safety standards and to ensure that we make the best possible use of the fish

  825
  stocks that the industry puts such resources into harvesting. We need to achieve safe and sustainable fisheries for the benefit of all.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I certainly concur with what the Minister said about the debt that we owe the fishing communities.
  Having compared notes with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I have established that this is the 16th year in which our debate has taken place. One thing has not changed, and I should like to hear the Minister's view. I do not see how any Government can expect the industry to respond to such short-term decision making. How can it plan a coherent future when, year after year, we give it so little notice to enable it to make arrangements for its work in the forthcoming year?
  Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and intend to touch on it later. The industry does need as much time as possible.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Let me offer the Minister a more precise illustration of the difficulties involved. A new quota system for non-sector vessels comes in on 1 January, and track records of their previous fishing must be submitted by 31 December. That is short enough notice, but the Ministry appears to be unable to make available the track records for relevant years until February. Can the Minister suggest a way out of the Catch 22?
  Mr. Morley: Yes. I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions. As he knows, we are moving to a new system of quota allocation from 1 January next year. The quantity of fish that producer organisations in non-sector and other groups will be able to catch will be based on a proportion of the catches made by the vessels in each group during the reference period 1994 to 1996.
  However, we are making special arrangements for the non-sector vessels joining producer organisations from 1 January 1999 and in subsequent years. Vessel owners will have the choice of taking into producer organisation membership quota units based on either the track record for 1994 to 1996 or the proportion of non-sector catch that the vessel took in the past three years. If the right hon. Gentleman would like the details, which are considerable, I would be only too pleased to write to him and address his concerns.
  This year, there have been many new initiatives and I shall to touch on the more significant developments. However, they all contribute to pursuing our objective of improving the operation of fisheries policy.
  There are four main themes to our approach. First, we wish to achieve more effective and consistent enforcement of fisheries rules across the Community. Secondly, we want environmental considerations to be integrated more fully in the common fisheries policy, to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks and the wider marine environment. Thirdly, we want structural and conservation measures to be applied in a way that achieves a sustainable future for the fishing industry and enhances economic opportunity in coastal communities.
  826
  Fourthly, we would like increased participation by fishermen in the development of fisheries policy. In parallel, we wish to improve the regional dimension of the CFP so that it is more sensitive to local differences.
  Those themes provide the broad framework within which the Government pursue fisheries policy. This year, we have taken important strides forward on all fronts. Of course, 1998 began in an untypical way, in that we assumed the presidency of the Fisheries Council for the first six months. Our primary function, as presidency, was to progress the general business of the Council efficiently and expeditiously. I believe that we did so successfully, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who was an outstanding chairman. Under his chairmanship, we made significant progress in a number of our priority areas.
  For example, we secured the introduction of new total allowable catches and quotas for North sea stocks, so assisting their conservation as well as safeguarding large shares for UK fishermen. Agreement was reached to phase out the use of high seas tuna drift nets, which will end the unacceptable level of dolphin deaths attributed to those nets. We launched moves to improve enforcement measures which will culminate in the adoption of a new regulation at the December Council later this week. It is very important to the fishing industry to have a common standard and consistency of approach across all member states.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Does the Minister not recognise that, by imposing designated ports on the industry, he will force fishermen to dump more of their catch dead back into the sea? I know that the object of the exercise is to prevent the landing of black fish, but does he concede that those black fish, instead of being landed and possibly consumed, will now add to the huge quantity of fish that is already dumped back dead into the sea?
  Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that quota management results in discards. I do not like the idea of discarding marketable fish any more than the hon. Gentleman does, but it is necessary to have some measure to control over-quota landings. It is difficult to distinguish between a fisherman who may have a small quantity of fish that he has caught by accident and one who is deliberately targeting fish knowing that he has exceeded his quota. I have made it clear to the fishing industry that I am always willing to discuss and consider alternative ways of managing quotas and effort, but at present quota management is applied by all countries, whether or not they are in the CFP. Although there are disadvantages, there are also advantages in terms of fisheries management.
  Mr. John Townend: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he accept that, although Norway operates quotas, it is illegal there to discard fish and pollute the sea? Is that not a more sensible approach?
  Mr. Morley: That is an issue for discussion with the fishing industry. Again, there are advantages and disadvantages. If we insist on landing all species, there are enforcement problems, which the Norwegians are facing. If someone's quota is used up by unmarketable fish, it is difficult to know whether it is being dumped

  827
  over the side to make way for marketable fish. There are problems. I acknowledge that there is a genuine debate about the best and most efficient way of managing fisheries and quota, and I am always ready to have discussions with the industry and listen to new ideas.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister accept that there is a danger of the reverse effect occurring? If we set a precautionary total which is a sharp downswing—for example, the North sea haddock quota this year—and stock is more abundant than is assumed or suggested by scientific advice, there is an automatic increase in discards and, instead of being a conservation device, the system wastes good fish.
  Mr. Morley: I accept that that is a potential consequence of major reductions in TAC and quota, and I shall say a few words about that and my meeting with the fishing industry today.
  Also in the past year, an agreement was reached to develop and extend the use of regional meetings that increase the involvement of fishermen in CFP discussions. We certainly want to develop that in the coming year.
  This year also saw the Commission initiate preparatory work in connection with the review of the CFP which is due to take place before the end of 2002. I know that that is of considerable interest to many right hon. and hon. Members. In the spring, a questionnaire was distributed widely throughout the Community to allow fishing and other interests to provide initial views on the main issues to be addressed and the Commission received a weighty response from UK organisations and individuals. The autumn saw the beginning of a follow-up series of regional meetings to allow the Commission to hear at first hand the views of fishermen and other interests. Four such meetings were held in the UK in October and, as usual, our industry was not backward in putting forward its views and ideas in relation to 2002.
  While we are on the subject of the 2002 review, I should like to dispel once and for all the misconceptions held by some about 31 December 2002. Many wild and somewhat reckless claims have been made about what will happen after that date. Let me make it clear to the House that I want to take on some of the most oft-repeated myths and, I hope, lay them to rest. I was tempted to say, "Read my lips," but as that is the expression of an American President it might not be appropriate. I was referring to President Bush, of course.
  First, there are claims that the current CFP expires lock, stock and barrel at the end of 2002. Those making such assertions usually go on to raise the spectre that we will be held to ransom by southern member states who will block the adoption of a new regulation so that there is free access to all fish stocks in all Community waters. On that analysis, relative stability, access restrictions and all the other factors that we and the industry value in the present CFP will disappear.
  Let me present the facts. The CFP does not lapse at the end of 2002. Under Council regulation 3760/92, member states are required to decide by 31 December 2002, by qualified majority voting, whether any changes are needed to the present arrangements. If no such changes are agreed, with one exception, all the existing provisions of the regulation will be rolled over automatically beyond 2002.
  828
  The one exception is the restriction on access by foreign vessels within national six and 12-mile limits. A further derogation will be needed to maintain those provisions beyond 2002. I know that there is concern among UK fishing and coastal interests that the arrangements will not be renewed. Indeed, it is the single most commented-on issue in my postbag concerning the 2002 review. It was raised in the questionnaires and at the consultative meetings.
  Let me therefore make it clear that the Government are totally committed to maintaining those important provisions and are convinced that that will be achieved. The fact is that other member states are as interested in protecting their inshore fleets as we are. The restrictions were agreed unanimously when they last came up for renewal in 1992, and I see no reason why there should be any difficulty about their renewal in 2002.
  Mr. Gill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. The six-mile and 12-mile limits that we currently enjoy are part of the derogation to which he has referred. Why does he say that relative stability, in the form of the national allocation of quota that is part of that derogation, will continue in the future? There is no evidence that it will.
  Mr. Morley: I made it clear that, in the interpretation of the regulations, the relative stability is not a derogation. That is the view not only of the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, but of the Commission, its legal advisers and other countries. There is no argument about that in the European Union. I repeat that, unless there is a majority vote to end relative stability, it will continue automatically after 2002.
  Mr. Andrew George: We should not listen to the prophets of doom; the review of the common fisheries policy after 2002 gives us an opportunity to give a more regional dimension to fishing policy. Will the Minister elaborate on that and say whether his discussions with his European counterparts are likely to lead to an increased decentralisation of policy to management at regional or zonal level?
  Mr. Morley: Other member states are interested in regional management in the CFP; I shall say a few words about it later.
  I am talking about those key elements of the CFP that the fishing industry wants retained after 2002. I hope that minority elements in the UK industry—and some hon. Members who should know better—will stop perpetuating myths that do the fishermen no favours, cultivate unnecessary fears, and distract attention from more meaningful issues. I want in this debate to lay those myths to rest once and for all.
  Effort control has been one of the main developments in fisheries policy over the past year. Last December, I explained that, largely as a result of the progress made during negotiations with the European Commission on the UK's detailed plans for implementing multi-annual guidance programme IV, we were able to limit immediate further action in 1998 to the introduction of effort controls in the pelagic and beam trawl segments. The main demersal fleets were spared the imposition of limits.
  I also said that our preference was for such controls to be managed by the industry itself, and that there would be detailed discussions with the fishermen on how that

  829
  should be done. On 24 February, I announced that, as a result of those meetings, we were allocating fishing effort among the various producer organisations or groups of fishermen and inviting them to manage their own uptake within the allocations on whatever basis they and their members wanted.
  I acknowledged that the introduction of those arrangements was a new departure in fisheries policy and promised that we would keep the position under close review. I am happy to say that, despite some initial delays and uncertainties, the arrangements have generally worked well—the UK fleet remains on course to meet its MAGP IV obligations.
  We have today embarked on a further round of discussions with the industry on possible modifications to the arrangements for 1999. We are ready to listen to any reasonable suggestions that are consistent with MAGP requirements and the progress that we are making.
  Mr. Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Because of unplanned lay-ups in the beam trawl fleet, the days-at-sea target has been undershot. In his negotiations with the industry and the producer organisations, will he allow the unused days to be carried over, as the industry wants?
  Mr. Morley: We can consider that in the 1999 arrangements, although the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the idea behind the restrictions is to reduce effort. The industry will have an opportunity to put its point of view about how the next phase should operate.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: When all the days at sea have been used, there may still be spare quota because of bad weather or illness, for example. Will my hon. Friend say whether the number of days can be extended to take up that quota, as my local producers organisation believes is the case in Holland?
  Mr. Morley: I have heard the assertions about Holland, but they have not been not confirmed. All member states are legally obliged to operate effort controls in line with their MAGP obligations. If any member state does not abide by that legal obligation, the Commission can penalise it, and even refer it to the European Court of Justice. I assure my hon. Friend that we will not hesitate to draw to the Commission's attention any evidence that member states are not complying with their obligations.
  I know that many in the industry are now asking whether the progress that we have made on MAGP III and IV is sufficient to make the UK eligible for vessel construction grants under the EU's financial instrument for fisheries guidance. I take this opportunity to make the Government's position clear on the issues involved. First, we would need to clarify with the Commission the progress that we have made on MAGP III and IV and how current performance on effort is to be measured against past performance in capacity terms.
  There are much more fundamental issues to do with the justification for such aid and its affordability. I do not want to duck this point, so I shall make clear to the House the Government's feelings about the matter. On the justification of using public money to modernise the
  830
  fishing fleet, we must assess our priorities in terms of the way in which the Department applies available resources.
  We have made resources available within our budget for further decommissioning in relation to some of the overhang from MAGP III and IV. We have also ensured that there is funding for vessel safety grants, for harbour improvements and for marketing and processing grants. That has directed money to adding value, to marketing and to ensuring that fishermen maximise the value of their catch and secure the best returns from it. Directing available resources in the best interests of the industry is one of our priorities.
  On the justification of scrap and build, we do not believe that subsidising capital investment in new fishing vessels is necessarily a sensible use of taxpayers' money, especially while effort controls are in force and stocks remain under severe pressure, and we are continuing to decommission capacity in other parts of the fleet. It would simply not be sustainable, either biologically or economically, to encourage the industry to invest at levels which it could not finance from its own resources.
  Hon. Members may remember what happened in the 1980s, when grants were last given to improve vessels. As a result of the modernisation of the UK fleet, effort was increased, which meant that unsustainable pressure was put on fish stocks. Having spent large sums of public money on modernisation to increase the capacity of the fishing fleet in the 1980s, we found ourselves in the ludicrous situation of spending large sums of money in the 1990s on decommissioning vessels because of overcapacity. Unless the policy is carefully thought through, that is one of the problems that may arise if public funds are used for modernization.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I noticed that, although most of my hon. Friend's speech has been characterised by fluent discourse—he has been looking his audience straight in the eye—when he came to the language of priorities, he turned to the prepared text in front of him. That suggests to me Treasury talk: "There ain't going to be any money because we won't put up the necessary supplement." Does he accept that our basic problem is that we have an aging fleet—it is 25 or 30 years old—whereas other countries have modernised their fleets, using European money to which we have not had access?
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend, who is experienced in relation to the industry, has raised an important point. It is true that other countries have modernised their fleets because they have met their full MAGP targets. We have not, but we are making progress to meet those targets—in a way that the previous Administration failed to do. I recognise my hon. Friend's point, and I do not want to duck the issue of the aging fleet. It is for that reason that, in my negotiations with the fishing industry today, I invited it to meet me and departmental officials to look at ways in which we can work together to address the need for investment and modernisation.
  In relation to the changes in terms of fixed-quota allocation, fishing licences have acquired a significant value. That could be collateral for investment loans from banks, in the way that any business plans for investment. I have suggested that we explore this potential capital

  831
  asset, and see how we can use it to underpin loans that the industry may wish to negotiate with banks to help finance the kind of modernisation and investment that any industry would carry out. That is what I am prepared to do with the industry to address those problems.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has made an interesting statement, which will merit careful consideration. Has he discussed with the banks whether they will accept fishing licences as collateral for substantial loans? What guarantees would the Government and the EU have to give as to the longevity and value of licences over time?
  Mr. Morley: We need to resolve those matters in discussion with the industry. I have had discussions with one bank about that very point, and, although I did not raise the matter formally, the indication that I received was that banks would be prepared to consider such an approach. There are issues to resolve, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and that is why it is worth looking at what is achievable, what is not achievable and how we can utilise what has become an asset within the industry. Anyone who knows the industry will know that that can work to the advantage of the industry.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: What is the point of modernising the fleet if the Minister continues to cut the traditional fisheries of the beam trawlers, so that the amount of fish that can be landed is less and less?
  Mr. Morley: I know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking for his constituents, and I respect that. However, he knows as well as I do that over-capacity must be addressed. That involves making difficult decisions, but those decisions must be made. Managing fishing stocks involves decisions about sustainability—some of which are difficult, too. However, our approach means that the investment decisions of individual fishermen would be linked to how they were fishing and the kind of effort that they were making. That would be a more sustainable and logical way of determining investment, rather than giving public money for such investment without any thought for the consequences.
  Mr. John Hayes: Modernisation and support with marketing must be in the context of a business plan. Our fishermen feel that our competitors have a long-term vision and a sense of how much production and how many producers they want, but that we do not. What is the Government's long-term vision? How many producers will we have? What is the modernisation aiming towards? Where is the marketing taking us?
  Mr. Morley: We must match the available capacity to the available fish stocks. Fish stocks vary from year to year, but it is possible for fishermen to make investment plans. I must emphasise that many fishermen in this country—from all sectors of the fleet—are already making that investment, and are identifying market opportunities and seeking returns on their investment. That is happening now—it is nothing new. I want to see how we can extend that.
  Mr. Salmond: Twenty years ago, we had one of the most modern fleets in Europe. Now, we have an aging
  832
  fleet—its average age is more than a quarter of a century. The Minister was accused by his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of reading from a Treasury brief. The Minister said that his hon. Friend was an experienced Member, which meant that he agreed with his hon. Friend, but had to go back to the Treasury brief.
  The Minister is departing from one of his clear principles in opposition—that of parity for the fleet in this country with others. Our major competitors have had access to European funding. How will the Minister establish parity for the fleet in this country with what fleets in other countries have received?
  Mr. Morley: I cannot go back to what has happened in the past. In terms of the debate about the future structure of fisheries funds, negotiations and priorities, I have already made it clear in the Council of Ministers that I do not believe that subsidising the modernisation of fishing boats is necessarily the best way forward. That should not apply to any member state. There is a role for public finance, on which I will touch in a moment, but there are far more productive ways of using that money than modernising the fishing fleet.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: First, may I thank the Minister for his kind words about the tragedy in my constituency, which I will convey to the folk on Iona?,lb/>
  In talking about modernising the fleet, the Minister presumably means that we can go for new build and repairs. Does he agree that that would make a huge difference to the shipyards that we have lost, particularly in Scotland—including the Campbeltown shipyard in my constituency? We need to be building our own fishing boats.
  Mr. Morley: I accept that, and I hope that those fishermen who have placed orders for new build and repairs—not necessarily within the UK—have taken note of what the hon. Lady has said.
  Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am sensitive about taking up too much of the House's time when many hon. Members wish to speak. I have been generous in taking interventions, and I hope that he will forgive me if I try to make progress.
  I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made about the Treasury brief and Treasury priorities, but there is no point in denying that there are priorities, and that there is not a limitless pot of public money. Nor is there a magic bank account in Brussels waiting for us to use. Many of the EU funds are, in reality, money contributed by member states. As a net contributor to the EU budget—and despite the rebate arrangements—we pay, in effect, about 71p in every pound for any EU money spent in this country.
  The comprehensive spending review, completed this summer, looked in great detail at all aspects of Government expenditure, and concluded that the priorities in the fisheries sector should be continuation of the existing infrastructure and vessel safety grants, together with a further £10.5 million for decommissioning in the fixed-gear segments over the next three years. Our priority is to add value.

  833
  In the year 1997–98, about £38 million was put into the fishing industry and fisheries-dependent areas from EU, central Government and regional government grants. These priorities extend to the period beyond the expiry of the current FIFG and PESCA schemes at the end of 1999. Future EU arrangement are under discussion in the context of the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals, and we do not know what form they will finally take. We will consult the industry once detailed implementing proposals emerge. It would be wrong for me to allow a false expectation of grants for fleet renewal against the position that I have just set out. As I said in August, following the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, there are limits to what the taxpayer should be asked to support in the absence of a financial contribution from the industry itself.
  I have referred to our priorities for fisheries policy and the future structure of the UK fleet. Effective enforcement has an essential role to play. The Government are committed to raising the standard of enforcement both at home and throughout the Community. As a result of the initiatives that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took at Amsterdam and the action taken during our presidency, the December Fisheries Council will adopt important measures to strengthen monitoring, inspection and surveillance arrangements throughout the Community, leading to much greater co-operation and transparency, which I warmly welcome as a key objective.
  Action at Community level is being reinforced by action at home, where we shall continue to devote considerable resources—about £24 million a year—to policing fishing activity in our waters and in our ports. Last month, I confirmed that robust action would be taken to deal with the problem of under-declared landings through the introduction of new controls, including designated ports, for vessels over 20 m.
  Our monitoring of fishing activity will be further assisted once satellite monitoring comes into full effect from 1 January 2000. We recently awarded a contract for the development of the UK's monitoring system, which should be fully operational by the middle of next year.
  I know that many are concerned that the industry is over-regulated, and the industry certainly made that point in our discussions today, but fishing is a highly complex activity, and some regulation is inescapable. I can assure the House that we will make every effort to restrict additional controls and costs to those that are essential for conserving fish stocks and safeguarding the best interests of fishermen. Let us be clear: honest fishermen have nothing to fear from the controls that we are introducing.
  Many of the measures are long overdue, and I regret that many changes have to be introduced in a short period: the industry must think that they are coming thick and fast. Some of the measures should have been introduced many years ago, and we made it clear that we would take action on black fish, enforcement and other problems, some of which the industry has asked us to tackle.
  In talks with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and Northern Ireland organisations, I offered to set up a working party, on which the industry will be able to join officials to consider how to minimise the impact and
  834
  bureaucracy of the measures that we will have to introduce. We will work with the industry to ensure that the changes cause the minimum of inconvenience.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the working party have access to the Commissioner?
  Mr. Morley: We are introducing national measures as a member state, so access to the Commissioner is not relevant. We will discuss how to apply the measures, and we have some flexibility on the detail of how that is done. We want to hear the industry's point of view so that we can minimise the impact.
  We will not shrink from taking difficult decisions. At the beginning of this month, I announced a phased programme of action to link the future registration and licensing of fishing vessels to the declaration of maximum continuous or permanently derated engine power. We must tackle the deliberate under-declaration of engine power if measures to restrict fishing activity and conserve fish stocks are to succeed.
  I have heard forceful arguments from those who consider that the measures go too far and from those who consider that they do not go far enough, but I believe that we now have a balanced and proportionate package of measures which should put an end to the under-declaration of engine power without causing long-term hardship for the industry.
  We have also acted decisively to resolve the legacy of unresolved problems of quota hopping, which I know to be of concern to many hon. Members. With the agreement of the Commission, we announced in July a package of measures designed to ensure that UK fishing vessels maintain a real economic link with this country. The measures will bring greater benefits to our coastal communities without threatening inward investment in our industry. That is a good deal for the fishing industry, and will achieve much more than the pursuit of unachievable goals such as the removal of quota hoppers from the register.
  The measures, combined with designated ports and satellite monitoring, are having an effect on quota hopping and on black fish landings, which have declined. I warmly welcome that. A further area of progress has been the introduction of fixed quota allocations that will take effect from 1 January next year. The new arrangements will create much greater certainty in the industry, and will eliminate the incentive to catch fish simply to maintain quota shares.
  That initiative came from the industry itself, and I welcome that involvement, which is an example of how we can take ideas from and hold consultations with the industry and, if there is majority agreement, implement them. The next high-level meeting with the industry, which will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, will take place on 3 March. We look forward to discussing an agenda proposed by the industry itself.
  A great deal of work is still to be done. I am aware of the difficult problems facing our inshore fleet, whose operations are often restricted by factors such as weather conditions and the availability of fish on our inshore grounds. The vessels are hard hit when action has to be taken to close fisheries because quota allocations have been exhausted.

  835
  Following discussions with inshore fishermen, we are considering a range of options for improving the current quota management and licensing arrangements for the inshore fleet and I hope to be able to issue a consultative paper early in the new year, seeking views on the way forward. That initiative came up at a very constructive meeting in Hastings, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster).
  I can assure my hon. Friend that we are pursuing all the points that were raised about ways of helping the inshore fleet with its quota management without imposing stops, which I accept cause real problems. The problem that I face as a Minister is that, once the fish stocks are exhausted, we have no option but to close the fishery; but we are looking for alternative methods that the inshore fleet may find helpful.
  My hon. Friend may be interested to know that we are also investigating complaints about fishermen who have shortened their boats to get below the 10 m designation and then, allegedly, have lengthened them again. Action is in hand to identify the number of boats that fall into that category and to ensure that they comply. Let me make it clear that the owners of such boats face losing their licence and their livelihood.
  It is unfortunate that, as in previous years, the Commission's proposals for total allowable catches and quotas to apply in 1999 have emerged very late in the day. I accept that criticism; we have drawn it to the attention of the Commission, and will do so again. Such lateness does not make it easy for any of us to prepare for the important decisions to be taken at the December Council; but to allow the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny, we made available as much detail as possible before the formal proposals were published.
  Mr. Wallace: Whatever became of multi-annual and multi-species TACs, which I think were agreed in 1992 but were never implemented? They may be a way of avoiding the huge swings that often happen.
  Mr. Morley: I believe that there is a role for extending the number of stocks that are managed multi-annually. Of course, the stocks have to be sufficient to apply a multi-annual TAC. Some stocks are so low that it would be very difficult to do that at present. I accept the point, and we want to pursue it with the Commission. The multi-annual TAC on herring, for example, has been a great success, and we want to extend the system where appropriate.
  There is no denying that, this year, deeper than usual cuts have been proposed in a number of TACs. To some extent, that reflects the more explicit application of a precautionary approach by the scientists of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which has in some cases led to more cautious advice. But the blame cannot be laid at the door of scientists: the fact is that many of our fish stocks have deteriorated over recent years, and are now in a poor state.
  There have been some welcome reductions in fishing mortality over the past couple of years, but too many stocks remain dependent on the strength of incoming year classes, so, when there is below-average recruitment, the stock size declines and TACs reduce. Irrespective of the application of the precautionary approach, substantial cuts in some TACs are, unfortunately, necessary to help to
  836
  rebuild and secure stocks for the future. The fishing industry recognises that action has to be taken if there is evidence that stocks are in decline.
  Let me make it clear that the Government are committed to the precautionary approach as the basis for managing fish stocks. Indeed, we have advanced that argument on issues such as increased controls on industrial fishing. A more cautious approach in the shorter term will lead to significant benefits in the longer term as fish stocks grow in response to more sustainable fishing levels. The North sea herring stock, which has just been mentioned, provides a vivid example of how short-term restraint can lead to long-term gain. Severe reductions in catches and fishing effort were imposed on that fishery in 1996 to prevent the stock's collapse. The restrictive regime has been maintained, with the result that the stock size will soon be above safe levels, and is predicted to continue to increase substantially over the next couple of years.
  We need further dialogue among fishermen, managers and scientists to refine and develop the application of the precautionary approach. If cuts are violent and too changeable, fishermen cannot plan, and find it hard to adapt. However, it is difficult to fault the concept in principle, and the fishing industry accepted at the meeting today that it had a role to play. Sensibly applied, the precautionary principle offers a sound way forward for fisheries management.
  I know that fishermen are concerned about the extent of cuts in TACs proposed by the Commission, and I share their concern for a number of stocks. I am mindful of the need to take into account the social and economic effects on the industry of excessive year-on-year fluctuations in TACs. I met the leaders of the UK industry this afternoon and we had a full discussion about their concerns and priorities. I was able to assure them that, at the Fisheries Council this week, we will argue for the TACs proposed to be increased if that is compatible with the scientific advice and the conservation of stocks.
  However, I emphasised the need for our approach to be realistic and responsible if we are not to undermine the recovery of stocks from some of the low levels that now exist. The fishermen at the meeting made several helpful and constructive points in relation to the negotiations on TACs, and I will do my best to address those points at the Fisheries Council.
  Mr. Blizzard: Although it is proposed that the TACs for many species should be reduced, an increase is recommended for some species. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, in the negotiations in Brussels, he will resist any attempt to try to trade off one species against another, so that, for example, an increase in plaice, which is caught readily by Lowestoft fishermen, will not be traded off for an increase in another species? Will he assure me that he will stick to TACs based on scientific evidence?
  Mr. Morley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is good news on plaice for the fishing industry, in that the scientific advice has recommended an increase in the plaice TAC. I welcome that.
  The Government's overall objective is to achieve sustainable management of fisheries so that stocks recover, fishermen's livelihoods are safeguarded and the

  837
  wider marine environment is conserved. A good start has been made in the 18 months or so since we came to office. We are committed to providing the conditions for a prosperous, stable and sustainable fishing industry.
  We have tackled our priorities in a way that the previous Government could not. I do not blame my predecessors as Fisheries Minister, because they tried to do their best for the industry, but they found it impossible to advance the case for the British fishing industry against the background of a party and Government riven by splits on Europe. They were paralysed when taking decisions and dealing with the outstanding problems with which we have had to deal in the short time we have been in office. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that the splits that so disabled the previous Government have improved in the present Conservative party.
  I have made it clear that, when tough decisions have to be taken on fisheries management, the Government will take them, but we will ensure that the long-term future of the fishing industry is maintained, that we have sustainable fisheries and that our actions—after consulting the fishing industry at every opportunity—are taken for the long-term benefit of the industry. We have seen some progress. This year, the black fish problem has declined, prices have improved for most of the fishing industry, and it has been a good year for many sections of the fleet. We want to ensure that that prosperity continues next year and for the future.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Minister was right to remind us that, although this debate is taking place before the meeting of the Fisheries Council, it has traditionally been an opportunity to discuss the fishing industry in its entirety. I commend him for touching on a number of points that are clearly of great interest to Members on both sides of the House. However, I did not think much of his penultimate paragraph, and I can understand why he kept his worst point to almost the end. I shall deal with it in a moment.
  The Minister was also right to remind the House what a dangerous industry fishermen work in. In some ways, it is almost an anachronism, with fatalities every year. In 1997, the report of the marine accidents investigation branch shows that 29 fishermen died. Because I represent a west country seat, I remember incidents that affected the west country, including, for example, the loss of the Margaretha Maria. Only last week, a fisherman died in Brixham and, in June, five Scottish fishermen died off the coast of Denmark when their ship was cut in half by a German freight vessel. Fishing is a dangerous industry and the Minister was right to preface his remarks by drawing our attention to that fact.
  The Minister was reported in the press as having described the proposed cuts as "ferocious". After examination of the proposals, it appears that they will not be quite as ferocious as we feared, but the Minister was honest enough to admit that the cuts suggested under the precautionary principle will be deep. I shall deal with that point at some length.
  This is the first time that I have spoken in a fisheries debate from the Front Bench, but I have spoken from the Back Benches on several occasions. Since holding this
  838
  portfolio, I have made it my business to go round and see the fishing industry and find out what fishermen's concerns are. Sometimes, their concerns are precisely what I would have expected, and sometimes other issues come up.
  The industry has raised several matters of deep concern to it. The first is the matter of the working time directive, which is a wholly inappropriate mechanism to be applied to the United Kingdom fishing industry. Originally, the directive allowed for an exemption, which was clearly right, but that exemption is now under threat because, when the Government adopted the principle of the social chapter, they sold the pass on their ability to argue that some industries cannot function under such a directive. Jim Porters, the widely respected member of the South West Fish Producers Organisation, said:
  "The implications of this Directive will have far reaching effects. Owners of larger vessels will have difficulty finding crews prepared to work strict patterns of working hours. Smaller vessels will be unable to operate and comply with the requirements. Where there are 2 men working, compulsory rest periods would be impossible."
  I think that it is quite clear that, if the working time directive goes ahead in anything approaching its present shape, share fishing as we currently understand it in the United Kingdom will simply cease.
  Mr. Morley: I wish to update the hon. Gentleman on the progress that we are making on the working time directive. We accept that it does not reflect the patterns of work of share fishermen. The hon. Gentleman will know that the negotiations on the working time directive are not a matter for my Department, but I understand that the Commission has accepted the arguments and will, for example, exempt share fishermen from the four days compulsory holiday. The Commission is beginning to appreciate the argument that the share fishermen's working patterns are not compatible with the working time directive.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. For a moment, I thought that he was going to avail himself of the well-known "not me guy" defence. However, as far it went, what he had to say made interesting hearing, and clearly we shall want to study the detail in due course.
  Another major concern, which the Minister touched on, is the rising cost of licences and track records. Prices that are already sky-high are given a further twist with the introduction of new rules to combat under-declaration of engine power. That will force many fishermen to buy extra licence units to match their real engine power. The prices for such units are spiralling far out of reach of ordinary fishermen, and fears are mounting that the fleet will rapidly fall into the hands of big companies.
  There are also fears that the fleet will stagnate because so few fishermen will be able to afford the licences and no one will be able to build new boats or modernise existing stock. Clearly, a slump in building and modernisation affects the industry as a whole. Time will not allow me to deal in detail with the question of safety, but problems often arise with older fishing boats. Such factors must be taken into account when we consider the lack of modernisation of the fleet. In addition, fishermen have expressed to me their grave anxiety that speculators will move in and buy up quotas before renting them back to fishermen at inflated prices.

  839
  The Minister was fair enough to mention the real concern about policing and enforcement in the United Kingdom, and about the lack of overall uniformity and transparency among our European partners. We are aware that a European Union inspection force will be established to try and achieve that uniformity, but, although I do not for a moment doubt the Minister's good faith in relying on that, I do not share what I took to be his optimism. The cultural differences between the UK on the one hand and France and—especially—Spain on the other mean that it is difficult to have any great hope that greater uniformity and transparency will be achieved. Frankly, I doubt it.
  The crushing weight of bureaucracy on the industry at times leaves individual fishermen feeling deeply depressed. The effects of that bureaucracy and regulation—and we all accept that there has to be some regulation—are so oppressive and burdensome that for some fishermen the problem has been the last straw and they have left the industry as a result. No hon. Member could regard that with anything other than extreme concern.
  Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of new rules and regulations come in from Europe every year? I am a member of the Select Committee on Deregulation, which has not managed to deregulate one new regulation. Is that because the Minister has not fed into the system opportunities to reduce the regulatory mechanism on our hard-pressed fishermen?
  Mr. Nicholls: I shall answer for many things, but not for the Minister. There is clearly something in what my hon. Friend says. The industry is consumed by regulation. For reasons that I shall explain, the common fisheries policy is not a suitable vehicle for the protection of fish. It is not acceptable in terms of conservation and, as far as fishermen are concerned, it does not do the job.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister address an idea that sounds almost comically bizarre but which I know to be true. Certain boats are reduced to less than 20 m in length by having bits cut off, then those bits are bolted on again afterwards. Interestingly, I received a letter from John Gale of Folkestone Trawlers Ltd. He said that, in September, the Minister told a meeting of fishermen in Hastings that
  "he would address the serious problem of over 10 metre vessels fishing with under 10 metre licences."
  I am sure that Mr. Gale will be as pleased as we to hear that that problem will be dealt with.
  Mr. Morley: It is under way.
  Mr. Nicholls: The Minister says that the matter is under way. We look forward, in due course, to hearing more detail about that also.
  I want to ask the Minister about fixed quota allowances and their legality. The Government now admit that vessels have been fishing during the reference period whose horsepower and vessel capacity units were under-declared with respect to their licences. The licence states categorically that it is invalidated if such details differ from those entered on the licence itself. It has been put to me on a number of occasions that, as the vessels involved were fishing illegally during the reference period, the
  840
  validity of the FQAs must be brought into question. That strikes me as a fair point. If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) is unable to deal with it when he winds up the debate, I should be grateful if he could write to me about it.
  I am anxious that other hon. Members should be able to contribute to the debate, but the matters that I have raised are among the most important and salient points that people right across the industry have brought to my attention.
  Initially, the Minister was quoted as describing the tax and quota proposals as "ferocious", and that has not been denied. However, I am afraid that there is a ritual element to debates such as this. The Minister of the day, whoever it is, allows it to bruited abroad that the quotas will be dreadful and ferocious. In due course, the Minister goes to Europe and battles away valiantly, with the result that he returns with a deal that, rather than being awfully dreadful, is merely dreadful. A great triumph is then proclaimed. I have been in politics long enough that, in opposition, I recognise that ritual as clearly as I did when I was a Minister.
  The quota system is wholly unsatisfactory. We cannot begin to get to grips with what to do about it unless we acknowledge where it started. The problems are endemic to the origins of the common fisheries policy, and stem directly from the arrangements announced to the House as long ago as 13 December 1971. On that morning, a principle was agreed in Europe to ensure that the six original members of the European Community were able to have access to our waters. The principle was conceded that there should be equal access to a common resource.
  I wish to make it absolutely clear that not for one moment do I impugn the motives of those Ministers at the time who came back with that deal and thought that it was right and proper, but if politicians cannot review matters with the benefit of hindsight, they are not making use of the tools available to them. However the solution may have looked all those years ago in 1971, it looks different now. Any deal based on the principle of equal access to a common resource lies at the root of the problems that bedevil the industry to this day, as—apart from a few derogations here and there—it meant that what used to be our well conserved waters could be fished out by our partners.
  We have to be honest about that, and I accept that that honesty must come more from Conservative Members than others. Unless we are prepared to point out what happened, we cannot get to grips with the circumstance in which we find ourselves. The effect of that deal means today that, although Britain owns four fifths of what is now the European Union common fisheries stocks, it is left with just two fifths by volume and only one sixth by value. That is the measure of what has happened to our fishing industry since 1971.
  What was represented at the time as a policy designed in the interests of conservation has proved to be a conservation disaster. The policy was based on the ludicrous proposition that fish stocks can be conserved by throwing dead fish back into the sea. That proposition is implicit in the quota system and no quota system that resembles in any way what operates under the common fisheries policy can be devised without it.

  841
  The situation is appalling. If time allowed, I could give the House a great many figures to show how bad it is, but I emphasise that the figures that I am about to give are not the fault of fishermen. When I talk about discards and the monstrosity that is involved when millions of dead fish are thrown back into the sea, I am talking about a failure of the political process, not of the fishing industry.
  It has been estimated that, this year, about 45 million saithe will be caught wrongly because the quota will have been exceeded. What will happen to them? There are two possibilities. They will either be subject to an illegal landing and dealt with as black fish— we can all condemn breaches of the law, but fishermen consider that the moral point is that the fish are already dead—or the fish will simply be thrown back into the sea.
  It has already been noted that it is all very well to speak of designated ports and about extra efforts to ensure that illegal landings are stopped. However, the consequence is that more dead fish are thrown back into the sea. If that were not bad enough, the common fisheries policy institutionalises the legal catching of fish that have not even reached the age of reproductive maturity. Indeed, the Ministry has stated:
  "The large majority of fish discarded by fishermen are small and of low or no commercial value."
  Yet, at a meeting of the Fisheries Council on 30 October, the United Kingdom voted with all the member states except Denmark to reduce the minimum landing size of three species—hake, plaice and megrim—to well below breeding size. On that occasion, it appears that the Government's reasoning for the reduction was that they recognised that it was wasteful to require the discarding of fish that were marketable and which, in practice, were caught as part of a mixed species.
  Anyone who wonders whether there is any validation for the idea—or any other way to go about it—that one can legally catch fish stocks that have not reached the age of reproductive capacity, could do no better than read the 1995–96 report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, No. 25. The Committee was discussing European Union minimum landing sizes and fish maturity and said:
  "For many species of fish the minimum permitted landing size is set at or about the length at which 50 per cent. or more of the stock is likely to be mature. For some, however, the minimum landing size is such that well over half of the fish caught will be immature. This is a particular problem with species including cod, saithe and pollack."
  That is the position. Under our system, under-age fish can be legally caught and, if the quota has been exceeded, simply discarded and thrown back into the sea. One only has to consider the effects of throwing millions upon millions of dead fish back into the sea every year to realise what we are dealing with.
  Mr. Morley: No one disputes the wastefulness of throwing marketable fish back into the sea, but that is a result of quota management and fisheries conservation. If the hon. Gentleman does not like quota management, what is his alternative? For example, is it days at sea?
  Mr. Nicholls: That is a fair question, and I will deal with it in my speech. In the space of a few seconds the
  842
  hon. Gentleman just talked of conservation, but noted that it is based on dead fish. Frankly, that approach is endemic in the policy. The common fisheries policy cannot be run as if dead fish were a regrettable necessity, as has been said in an intervention—on that occasion, the Minister agreed. The harder that one bears down on quotas, the greater the rate of discard, leaving fishermen with the alternative of black landing or tossing the fish back into the sea.
  We can examine the effect of the proposals on the fishing industry, area by area, and other hon. Members may well do so. As I come from the west country, I shall deal purely with the situation in area VII, the western waters, to allow other hon. Members time to speak. In areas VIIb-k there would be a reduction of 22 per cent. for cod; in area VIId, a reduction of 20 per cent. for sole; and in areas Vhf and g a reduction of 18 per cent. for plaice. In the Bristol channel, that will mean a reduction in catches from 1,100 to 900 tonnes. The industry has suggested to me that the reductions in the Bristol channel catches do not seem to be driven by any particular principle, but are merely a macho gesture towards the precautionary approach.
  The problem is that the situation is not all bad. An increase is proposed for area VIId. However, increasing the plaice catch automatically affects sole, as both will be caught at the same time, so more sole will be brought up and, once again, fishermen will be in the business of returning them dead to the sea or trying a black landing. I can do no better to illustrate how appalling the cuts would be for the west country, if they go ahead in anything approaching their present form, than to give the following example.
  A French and an English boat could be fishing side by side in the English channel. The English boat brings up plaice that is in excess of its quota, so they are thrown back, dead. The French boat beside it can catch and land the plaice legally.
  Mr. Morley: If it is within the quota.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman says that the French would be within their quota, and that is so. I am coming to the quota figures. The fact is that the west country has a dreadful deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) knows even better than I.
  Mr. Morley: Who negotiated it?
  Mr. Nicholls: The Minister is bleating from a sedentary position, but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, to some extent Fisheries Ministers from both sides of the House have found themselves in a not dissimilar position. The point is not merely to bleat from a sedentary position, "Who did it? It's not my fault, guy," but to face up to what is happening honestly and come up with a proposal that may offer some way forward.
  I was revealing the fact that those two boats could be sailing side by side, but in area VIIb-k, the French would have a cod allocation of 76 per cent. and the English, an allocation of 8 per cent; for plaice, it would be 54 per cent. for the French and 29 per cent. for the English. In area VIId and e, there would be a 52 per cent. quota for the French for sole, but 23 per cent. for the English. In areas VIIb-k, there would be a 60 per cent. allocation for

  843
  the French for whiting and 11 per cent. for the English. For hake, it would be 45 per cent. for the French and 18 per cent. for the English; and, for megrim, the allocation would be 36 per cent. for the French and 14 per cent. for the English. That is the effect that the cuts and the policy would have on fishing in the west country. It is a dire prospect.
  The effect of effort limitation on the west country has been mentioned and other hon. Members may take it up. The United Kingdom fleet has a small hangover from MAGP III, which is added to the cuts of MAGP IV. That beam trawl segment is split between the North sea and area VII for the purposes of MAGP IV cuts. The combination of those cuts will amount to about 11 per cent. in western waters. The south-west fish producer fleet spends 13 per cent. of its time in the North sea. That effort must be cut by 21 per cent. The remaining 87 per cent. has to be cut by 11 per cent. Although the south-west fleet effort must be cut by 12.3 per cent., over four years that amounts to about 3 per cent. a year. That fleet has great economic significance for the south-west and catches about half the English white fish catch, but it is expected to absorb the effects of another cut in its prime source of income, Dover sole. That position is unsustainable.
  The Parliamentary Secretary referred somewhat speedily—I can well understand why—to the fact that fishermen and scientists sometimes do not agree on the science of the matter. Over and again, if one really talks to the fishermen who are out there catching fish and whose livelihoods depend on it, they say that their experience is different from that of the scientists. One only has to look at some of the comments of scientists who have been putting their views to Ministers, which have been reported in recent days.
  To understand that, one only has to look at some of the recently reported comments of scientists who obviously have something to say and have been putting their views to Ministers. Dr. Euan Dunn, a marine policy officer at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said:
  "We regard this as a watershed in fisheries management, a real sea-change. It may change the boom and bust cycle."
  You bet it will change the boom and bust cycle. I do not know where Dr. Dunn has been in recent times, but there will be no boom, and bust will be the order of the day. He goes on to conclude:
  "Fishermen are certainly going to have to tighten their belts."
  I should like to meet a fisherman who has any belt-tightening left to do. After telling fishermen to tighten their belts, Dr. Dunn adds:
  "But they should see better catches and bigger fish in possibly as little as five years."
  I do not mean to use parliamentary privilege to pick on a humble scientist, but if I or Dr. Dunn were to be told, "We might be able pay your salary in five years' time, with a bit of luck," we might conclude that we would not be around to draw it.
  Considering the basis on which the science has accumulated, remarks such as Dr. Dunn's certainly make one think. What confidence can one have in figures that do not contain an accurate estimate of the amount of fish brought up from the deep? I can do no better than to quote from Michael Wigan, who is a well-respected writer on fisheries matters. He says:
  "A scientifically led fishery, to which the CFP aspires, requires solid data. In the CRP the data is not in the least bit solid."
  844
  He continues:
  "Illegal landings are a bane of the CFP, or any fishery which aspires to scientific management. They were reckoned in 1996 to be around 40 per cent. of all North Sea catches."
  He concludes by asking:
  "If the take is relative guesswork, how can the forecasts be accurate?"
  The fishermen to whom I talk have no confidence whatsoever in the science of supply. Time does not allow me to go into the subject, but hon. Members need only consider the gadoid outburst in the North sea during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when the fishermen's estimate of what was going on was proved right and the scientists' estimates were wildly out. It is asking too much of fishermen to ask them to accept that the scientists are always right. Fishermen tell me, and I agree, that if the scientific community took a little more regard of their experience at sea, we might be in a better position to make progress.
  If we are to have any fish left in British waters, or any British fishermen left to fish those fish in British waters, we need an approach that is radically different from simply trying to operate the common fisheries policy, which has been fundamentally flawed from its inception.
  Mr. David Drew: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am intrigued by the fact that he and his hon. Friends have not tabled an amendment to the motion. Why is that?
  Mr. Nicholls: The motion is a take-note motion; that is what the Government are asking the House to do. I wanted to listen to what the Minister had to say and so discover not only what his negotiating tactics were, but whether he could offer any real ideas about how to make progress in future. I did the Minister the courtesy of listening to his speech, but all I heard was a defence of the indefensible, as he said that he would do the best he could with a thoroughly unsatisfactory system, but that he would not make any attempt to analyse the root causes of why the system is so bad, or propose anything that would address the problems.
  We need a radically different approach. We need to bring back under national control our own fishing grounds, with sensible bilateral agreements and recognition of the historic rights of other countries—[Interruption.] Now we see the true face of the Minister and the depth of his commitment: the moment it is suggested that he should adopt a tough negotiating stance in Europe, he has not got the will to stand up. Until we bring our waters back under national control, be that achieved through zonal management, coastal management, or some other way, we shall be faced year after year with cuts that wreck what is left of the British fishing industry and do absolutely nothing to foster conservation.
  Mr. Morley: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. His solution to quota management is to repatriate the fisheries policy. That policy is subject to a veto by other member states, so that is hardly realistic. Norway has control of its fisheries management, but still applies quota management measures. That brings me back to the point I made earlier: in any form of fishery, there has to be some management, so what is his alternative to quota

  845
  management? An exclusive fisheries policy is not achievable in the way that he suggests, so to raise it as a possibility misleads fisherman. In addition, it offers no solutions to the real problems of fisheries policy. What is his alternative?
  Mr. Nicholls: There we have it—the authentic voice of the Labour party. The part of that intervention that matters was the part when the Minister said, "We can't do anything about it, because we do not have a veto." What he was actually saying is, "We can't do anything about it, because Europe won't let us." We saw no determination on the part of the Minister to tell Europe, courteously and carefully, "We shall not allow this situation to continue." That is why I say to him that, far from scaring the fishing industry, a policy of bringing back under national state control our fishing policy and our fishing stocks—[Interruption.] The Minister can barrack and heckle as much as he wants, but he will have to listen to what I say, even if he does not like it.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: I shall deal with the organ grinder first.
  My suggestion does not scare fishermen; it offers them some hope that a truly dreadful situation can be dealt with. We have to bring fisheries policy back under national control, so that we are responsible for conserving our own fishing stocks and making our own decisions.
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  Mr. Nicholls: I see that there is another federalist in the Chamber. I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment so that he can say how Britain cannot possibly stand up to Europe or make progress in this area.
  The Minister asked, in effect, whether that right will be ceded voluntarily. Of course the answer is no. If we turn to the Europeans and say, "Do you mind if we take back the management of our fishing grounds?", they will say, "No, that is not on". The Government must have the political will to tell our European partners that we cannot go on like this.
  Mr. Blizzard: When the Conservatives were in government they tried exactly the same tactics with beef. The beef ban got them nowhere. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that any Government would be able to adopt the same approach successfully with fish?
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has not noticed that we are dealing with fish, not beef.
  I do not think for one moment that a Labour Government would be successful in making such an approach to Europe. They are not prepared to stand up to Europe and say that certain demands and conditions must be met.
  Mr. Gill: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on saying some things that have wanted saying for a long time. Is my hon. Friend aware that he is not alone in those views? Last year,
  846
  the shadow Foreign Secretary, our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said:
  "There are several areas where the EU is exercising powers which could be devolved to the member states."
  He continued:
  "Another candidate for repatriation is fisheries policy … Fishing grounds out to 200 miles or the median line could be brought back under national control, with sensible bilateral agreements and recognition of the historic rights of other countries."
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right: it can be done. However, it requires an effort of will to bring it about.
  The Minister put his finger on the problem without realising it when he pointed out that his Government will not make that effort of will. That is not my prediction: I am not being unkind to the Labour party when I say that it will not make that effort of will, because it has shown that it will not do so.
  The Minister referred, rather unwisely, to quota hopping. The history of quota hopping in recent times is instructive. When the previous Government were in office, they stressed that they would not sign the Amsterdam treaty until that practice was reformed. They made it clear that no progress would be made at Amsterdam until quota hopping was dealt with. The previous Government said:
  "The IGC won't come to a successful conclusion until we are satisfied that among our other objectives the problem of quota hopping is resolved satisfactorily."
  What was the hon. Gentleman's response at that time?
  Did he say, "No, that is completely impossible; we cannot possibly talk about quota hopping in that way to our partners?" No, he did not. The hon. Gentleman was not the only one commenting on the situation. The then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, was asked whether he would adopt a similar position at Amsterdam if he were in office. He said:
  "We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest … Where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are."—[Official Report, 9 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 969–970.]
  The point is not that the Government went to Amsterdam and failed, but that they did not even try. Instead of doing what he had said he would do only weeks before in opposition, the Prime Minister and the Government gave in.
  Instead of making it clear to Europe that the Government would stand by the interests of British fishermen, the Prime Minister entered into an exchange of correspondence with Jacques Santer. It was a case of "Dear Tony" and "Dear Jacques". An argument was constructed off the back of that correspondence that quota hopping had been dealt with. When the Prime Minister tried to address the issue domestically and exploit it, Jacques Santer issued a reprimand by saying that nothing in the exchange of correspondence would prevent a challenge to the European Court if quota hopping were dealt with on the basis of economic effort, which it is not.
  A number of criteria must be taken into account if quota hopping is dealt with in accordance with that exchange of correspondence. The Spanish are on record as saying that they reserve the right to challenge that, but it is possible to stand up for our position; we said what we would do, and they agreed that it could be done.
  Mr. Wallace: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he has not yet answered the critical

  847
  question. If we had a national fisheries conservation policy, what would be his management tool, given that he has ruled out quota management? How would he manage conservation in our waters even with a national policy?
  Mr. Nicholls: I am not ruling out quota management at all. If we are responsible for managing our policy and conserving our stocks and if decisions are made by Parliament, there is a far better chance of achieving conservation. It would be incredible if we tried to work for ever on the principle that there should be equal access to fish in British waters.
  Mr. Townend: If our partners in Europe, who have pillaged our fish, refused to agree to our proposals and vetoed them, as hon. Members have suggested they very well might, should not the House amend the European Communities Act 1972 to regain control of fishing in our national waters so that we can have a strong fishing industry, such as those in Norway or Iceland?
  Mr. Nicholls: It is sometimes suggested that the House has lost the ability to amend the 1972 Act. As a lawyer, I say that that is wrong, and lawyers who are a great deal more eminent than me have reached the same conclusion. My hon. Friend asked a straightforward question and I shall give him a straightforward answer—yes, it would be possible to amend the Act. However, there is no reason why it should come to that.
  When we come back into office and are in a position to find out what is the precise state of the common fisheries policy, we shall make it clear that we have a number of irreducible demands that we expect to be met. We shall be as resolute in demanding and obtaining those requirements as Baroness Thatcher was many years ago when she insisted on the initial rebate. The Labour party told us at the time that it was simply impossible to go to Europe and insist on that rebate. When the Europeans believed that they were faced with a Government who were prepared to stand by their principles, they conceded the rebate. It would be the same in this case.
  Mr. Salmond: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman mocked an RSPB scientist for telling fishermen to wait four or five years before there was a change. How many years does he estimate fishermen will have to wait before the Conservative party forms an Administration?
  Mr. Nicholls: For once, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. It would be in the interests of the country and the fishing community if the Government admitted that they were wrong, went away and let us take over. I cannot envisage that happening, but I agree this far with the hon. Gentleman—there is not the slightest chance of the fishing community getting the deal that it needs on the basis of what we have heard tonight. That will not happen until a Conservative Government are returned, therefore—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much background noise in the Chamber, which is unfair to the hon. Member who is addressing the House.
  Mr. Nicholls: Therefore, as I was about to say, the sooner a Conservative Government are returned, the better.
  848
  The Minister sought almost to explain away the question of territorial waters and the 12-mile limit and said that, as far as relative stability is concerned, that limit did not automatically lapse. We could have an argument about that, but I accept that we need not have it this evening. He admitted that the effect of article 14(2) of document 3760/92 was that, without a fresh derogation, the protection of the 12-mile limit will lapse at one minute past midnight in 2003. There is no doubt about that, and I see that the Minister is nodding. The line that he takes, in a very bright and breezy way, is, "There's no problem. We're bound to get a unanimous decision; everyone is in favour of it." However, everyone is not in favour.
  If the Minister studies the record and stops talking so glibly, he will find that, when the Spaniards are fighting for what they want, they drive a very hard bargain. One only has to remember the way they behaved in 1994 when their consent was being sought to the enlargement of the Community—they insisted on being given extra fishing rights then as a condition of their co-operation.
  There is not the slightest doubt that, if there is to be unanimity on giving us a new derogation, the Minister is going to have to pay a heavy price for it. It would have been a great deal better if, instead of pretending that a unanimous vote was a mere formality, he had told us what price he expects to pay, or, indeed, what price he may already have had to pay.
  Of course, the reason that the Minister needs unanimous agreement, and that he will pay whatever price is necessary to get it, is that if the derogation is achieved only by a majority—whether a simple or a qualified majority—the countries that disagree will say that it is a discriminatory regulation, and they will challenge it before the European Court of Justice. No one knows what the effect of such an application would be, but it follows as night follows day that, if the derogation is extended without unanimity, it will discriminate against those who have not agreed to it, and a challenge can then be made in the European Court of Justice. It is clear that the Minister is not going to run that risk for one moment.
  It comes down to this: what we needed to hear this evening was not just a statement by the Minister to the effect that he was going to do his level best in Europe, but that he had some understanding of why it is that, year after year, we find ourselves in this position. He had nothing to say about that, but there is a way forward. We need a Government who are prepared to be absolutely resolute in demanding what is necessary in the interests of their countrymen and in the interests of conservation. The Government need the sort of resolution that we showed when we got the original rebate. The Minister would have done the fishing industry some good had he been prepared to tackle that. Instead, when he was offered a way of ensuring that real progress could be made, all he could do was sit and jeer.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: It is always a pleasure to take part in the annual fisheries debate, which seems to have acquired certain traditions—we are getting North sea weather and the traditional approach from the Conservative party, now in opposition. The Conservatives are rewriting history, pretending that they were not in government for 18 years. Judging by what we heard from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), we can

  849
  take some comfort from the fact that it is very unlikely that he will ever be in government. He will have to go and swing his handbag somewhere else.
  It is a matter of concern that this is the one occasion in the year that we have the opportunity to speak about fisheries. Those of us who represent fishing constituencies take the issue seriously. Looking at the clock, I think it likely that we will be lucky to have 45 minutes for Back Benchers' contributions. The rant from the hon. Member for Teignbridge took well over 40 minutes, which does a disservice to the fishing communities that want to be heard.
  I welcome the Minister's important statement. He spelled out the tremendous progress that has been made in the 18 months since our party came to power. We are providing a stable framework for the industry, and real advances have been made in the United Kingdom and in Europe. Our policy of constructive engagement, rather than shouting from the sidelines, is paying dividends.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman says that real advances have been made in the past 18 months. Would he care to list them? What advances have been made in terms of the industry's profitability and production and the way the fishermen are being treated?
  Mr. Doran: I shall not list them, because enough time has already been spent on such questions, but I shall give the hon. Gentleman one example. The hon. Member for Teignbridge spoke about the crisis in the fishing industry. I do not know what the industry is like in his constituency, but the catchers in my area are happy with the high prices that they now get on the quayside for their fish. One reason for that is that we now have a proper management policy, under which black fish is not the commodity that it was; it has virtually disappeared in my part of the country. The fishing industry now receives proper prices for its product.
  The Minister acknowledged that the industry is disappointed by the cuts in TAC that are likely to be negotiated later this week. In the north-east, we are concerned in particular about the cut in the haddock quota, but a combination of enforcement and changes in market conditions has virtually eradicated the problem of black fish from north-east Scotland.
  Although we all have to accept—certainly I accept—that the only way forward at the moment is the precautionary approach, we are worried that the scientists are being far too cautious in their approach to quotas. One of the issues that concerns me most is discards.
  Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the tremendous contradiction between stopping the landing of black fish and increasing the volume of fish that is dumped back dead into the sea? Can he reconcile himself to the fact that less than half the fish caught by fishermen reach the plate? Is that a regime that he wants to go on supporting.
  Mr. Doran: I do not think that any of us is happy with that situation, but we need a system that regulates the fishing industry and leads to a sustainable fishing industry for the longer term. At the moment, the quota system is
  850
  the best we have. The way to improve the system is not to abolish it, which seems to be Conservative policy—despite the fact that the Conservative Government worked with that system for 18 years—but to ensure that it is properly managed. It is managing the fishing industry that is important.
  Several positive developments were mentioned by the Minister. I do not need to repeat them, but there are a couple of worrying signs to which I should like to draw attention. One is the aging fleet. The Minister dealt with that, but it is a problem that needs to be tackled. Also, we have a major problem with the boom-and-bust nature of the industry, which is linked to quotas.
  Fishing is a difficult business to run, no matter what part of the industry people are in. All the problems of other businesses are there, with the additional uncertainty over the availability from year to year of the primary product.
  We have had several years of quotas based on scientific advice, and we have heard some controversy about the differences between the industry and the scientists, but for the long-term interests of our fishing industry, I would like us to move towards the goal of a sustainable fishing industry and also try to achieve some stability in quotas and TACs, so that the industry can start to do some long-term planning with a degree of certainty, which it does not seem to be able to do at the moment. I hope that that is part of Government policy; I would like to hear the Minister's reply on it.
  Another worrying development is what seems to be the growing market in quotas. Some vessels are trading their quotas, or parts of them, like any other commodity. We appreciate the value that those licences and quotas have, but it was recently reported in the Scottish press that the quota owned by the inheritor of the licences that were operated by the Silvery Seas, another boat that was involved in a tragedy earlier this year, was sold for £5.5 million.
  I have no way of knowing whether those press reports were accurate. The people to whom I have spoken in the industry cannot tell me, but that creates serious problems for the industry—one in particular: how are we going to attract new entrants to the industry if they have to face that hurdle? It will become an industry that is controlled by big business. It will not be the traditional industry that we all grew up with. Anyone whose parent does not operate an existing licence and quota is likely to find it virtually impossible to break into the industry.
  My main constituency concern is for the other side of the industry: the fish processing sector. There are several problems. One of the paradoxes of the industry is that, when one side is doing well, the other tends to do not so well. In the past year, catchers have had a good year, with reasonable supplies of fish and good prices at the quayside. Reduced quotas will probably mean increased prices. Profit margins will be maintained, but the picture in the processing sector is a little less encouraging.
  When the quayside prices that are paid by processors are high, they cannot always be passed on to customers. There are particular difficulties for businesses that are tied into larger supermarket chains. The typical contract does not allow for price flexibility. When quay prices rise, the supermarket still expects its product at the stipulated price, regardless of market conditions. I hope that, in the

  851
  not too distant future, we will be able to have a full debate in the House about the serious effects that our large supermarket chains are having on the food industry.
  The industry has only recently gone through difficult adjustments to the new hygiene regulations. Most of the larger companies were able to make the necessary investments, but many of the smaller operators fell out of the industry. The new hygiene standards are good for the industry because they help to improve the quality of the product, but the transition has been painful for many. A number of other European directives, all introduced by the previous Government, are in the process of being implemented by the industry. They include the packaging directive and the directive dealing with veterinary charges.
  One of the most pressing problems that has been brought to me recently is the waste water regulation and the impact that it will have on the industry. Again, it is the result of the implementation of a European directive. We can all support the principle of polluter pays, but the problem for high-volume water users, such as the fish processing industry, is that, in a short time, they will face large increases in water charges.
  I met my local water authority last week. It is still in public hands and it is taking a sympathetic approach to the industry. It said that there are 82 users in the industry with water accounts over £5,000 a year. They are facing increases in their charges of almost 24 times what they pay now, depending on the strength and volume of their effluent. That is a serious problem for a relatively poor industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about how he expects the industry to face those charges.
  I have raised several issues and I have cantered through my contribution because I am mindful of the fact that other hon. Members want to speak. I want to tell my hon Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and Lord Sewel, that it is widely recognised, certainly in my fishing community, that they have done a tremendous amount of work in taking the fishing industry forward. There is more stability in the industry; it now has a future; and I congratulate them both on what they have done.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, at the end to add:
  "recalls that the previous Government added to the burden of UK fishing communities, missed crucial opportunities to develop and enhance the industry, failed to take decisive action to reduce the loss of British fish quota to "flag of convenience" vessels and brought forward Spanish access to western waters by six years; welcomes the forthcoming reform of the Common Fisheries Policy as an opportunity to establish a decentralised system based on the regional management of fisheries which should aim to reduce the needs for discards and improve the accuracy of the scientific base for decision making, ensure equality of monitoring and enforcement across the EU, protect the six and 12 mile fishing limits and develop a policy to encourage low-impact and sustainable fishing methods; and recognises that the fishing industry should continue to be exempt from the EU Working Time Directive."
  It is surprising that there is no amendment from Her Majesty's Official Opposition. However, listening to the 42 minutes of entertainment and lack of any policy content from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), I can see why there is no amendment. It is clear that the Opposition have signed up as members of the Flat Earth Society.
  852
  In an attempt politely to compliment the Minister, I once said that he had done better than the Ministers responsible for fishing in the previous Government. I then realised that it was a little like damning him with faint praise. Merely having "done better" would imply that he had perhaps fallen asleep on the job or had been plotting the industry's downfall.
  I am not here to praise the Minister, because he has no room for complacency. I discovered that earlier this year when I accompanied him on a visit to fishermen from Newlyn in my constituency. He was not pelted with paint, flour or fish guts or threatened with being barricaded in the fishermen's mission; he was merely shouted at and harangued and told precisely where to stick his fishing policy. He could easily misconstrue that as a Cornish fishing port's equivalent of a ringing endorsement. It is true that their response was a little muted on that occasion, but I think that they were giving the Minister the benefit of the doubt on his first official visit.
  In the few minutes that I have—I want as many Back Benchers to contribute as possible—I wish to deal with quota setting, the meeting later this week, the reform of the common fisheries policy, sustainable fishing methods, the working time directive and the problems of meeting compliance costs in the industry.
  If we are to spend £36 million on fisheries research, equivalent to about 7 per cent. of the value of UK fish landed, we have a right to expect something better for our money. Fisheries stock research is still an imprecise science and appears unable to help—or is restrained from helping—politicians, Ministers and the industry to plan the stock management over the medium term, say a five-year period. Having failed to take advice gradually to introduce a precautionary approach to the setting of total allowable catches in previous years, we are now faced with the prospect of draconian cuts in 1999.
  The Liberal Democrats favour the early introduction of a precautionary approach to the setting of quotas. If the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—which was mentioned earlier in the debate—is right in its pre-debate briefing that TACs have become a "target for brinkmanship", we must have a cushion allowing for a reasonable margin of error if we are to avoid falling off the precipice, as the Canadian fishing industry has done in the Grand Banks. We do not want that to happen here. Although some information clearly requires verification, greater evidence that the experience of fishermen is being heeded would be reassuring.
  As has been mentioned in the debate, there have been examples in area VII of fishermen reporting increased abundance of a particular stock long before that increase has been acknowledged by scientists. In area VII, in 1994–95, fisherman reported greatly increased numbers of both anglers and haddock. However, it took scientists two years to recognise that fishermen were right about the increases. A closer working relationship between fishermen and scientists must be encouraged so that some trust and co-operation, rather than confrontation, is achieved.
  I urge the Minister to leave this debate and to go to the Council of Ministers with two arguments ringing in his ears. The first is that, although we should agree the introduction of a more precautionary approach in setting future TACs, the new approach should be introduced gradually and in phases, so that the industry will have the

  853
  opportunity to plan and to adjust to it. If, like me, the Minister wants the industry to retain respect for the precautionary approach, he will surely appreciate that it is unlikely that that respect will be won if the quota restriction is implemented in a draconian style.
  If the Minister can win an agreement stating that introduction of the precautionary approach should be phased in over three years, for example, I would be prepared to offer my support for it. I am sure that the industry's constructive and sensible representatives would do the same.
  The second argument is that we have to secure a clearer foundation for future years' indicative quota. The multi-annual quota has already been mentioned in the debate. The quotas issue will have to be readdressed. The Minister will know that scientists' assessment takes account of species' age profile and recruitment into stock. It is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility to provide the industry with a report on the future indicative quota for particular species in a given area.
  An earlier resolution of the subsequent year's fishing quota would also be appreciated, so that fishermen plan and invest at least two years ahead—not just two weeks ahead, which is all that they can do at this time of year.
  On the future of the common fisheries policy post-2002, the Minister well knows that the Liberal Democrats' clear policy, which was adopted in 1986, is to create a decentralised regional framework for management of EU fisheries. As the arguments in favour of such a framework have been well rehearsed, I shall not make them again today. However, it is worth noting not only that there are encouraging signs that the United Kingdom industry is enthusiastic about a more decentralised approach but that much of the recent debate—including the Minister's comments earlier today—and comments by EU officials seem to endorse the framework's basic message, which we must drive home. It would be helpful if the Minister outlined how he believes the debate will proceed in coming weeks and months.
  While the matter is being negotiated, it would be appreciated if some of the detailed keys of relative stability were revisited. One of many classic legacies of the Tories' 1983 negotiations, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), has been the remarkably poor share allocated to UK vessels in area VII. Cod—which has been mentioned in the debate—is an outstanding case of that, and has probably been one of the biggest sources of complaint among Cornish and south-western fishermen.
  Cod are ubiquitous in much of area VII fisheries and—as the fisheries are very mixed—are practically impossible to avoid. Consequently, the discard rate of mature fish is unacceptably high. The UK share of quota for cod in area VIIk is about 8 to 9 per cent., whereas the French have 75 per cent. of the quota. Such anomalies must be revisited and renegotiated.
  Part of the problem with fisheries management is that it is based entirely on tight regulation and negative influences, such as restrictions, quotas, restricted landing times and effort control. However, there should now be opportunities for policy makers to employ not only the stick but the carrot. Promotion of sustainable fisheries
  854
  by lifting quota restrictions and providing other encouragements would be a good example of that. The Marine Stewardship Council is championing new approaches towards that and the definition of sustainable fishing methods.
  One clear candidate—the Minister is well aware of it, as I have raised the matter with him previously—is mackerel handlining. The Cornish mackerel handline fleet can provide a living for 100 men and their families at this time of year. I am grateful to the Minister for helping to extend the quota for 1998; I am also grateful to the staff at MAFF for their help. However, we could do a great deal more.
  A Scottish purse seiner can catch the equivalent of the total quota for the Cornish and south-western handliners in one week—about 1,800 tonnes. It means employment for no more than 10 men for a week. The same amount of fish would provide employment for 100 men for more than three months under the handlining method in Cornwall. Handlining is artisanal and has a low impact on stock, so it should be encouraged. The establishment of an EU-wide policy that would take handliners and similar fishing methods out of the quota system would send the right message to the industry. The Minister should be seen to be leading the fight for that in Europe.
  On a connected issue, I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that the mackerel box will be retained. He is aware that it may come under commercial pressure in the near future, and his support would be very much appreciated.
  The working time directive—I appreciate that the Minister has said that it is a Department of Trade and Industry matter, but it still affects the fishing fleet—is a classic case of trying to fit a very round peg into a very square hole. Quite frankly, the concept is absurd. Fishermen cannot down tools and go home in the middle of a week-long fishing operation 200 miles off the Cornish coast.
  It is not simply an issue about working hours. Even if fishermen opt out—which they would do in my area—they could still lose their share fishermen status with both the Inland Revenue and the Benefits Agency, thus leaving them worse off. The directive is supposed to protect workers, not undermine them, yet that is what it will do if such a crass idea is implemented.
  Finally, I want to draw attention to the costs of safety and monitoring. I have already raised with the Minister responsible for shipping a large number of points about safety and I welcome the consultation paper on the subject which was circulated in the summer. I have welcomed the prospect of the increasing use of more sophisticated but potentially more efficient methods of monitoring, such as the gradual introduction of satellite surveillance for larger vessels, to which the Minister referred. However, the proposed improvements fall heavily on the industry.
  I urge the Minister to recognise that Government money invested in safety now is money saved in search and rescue and in accident investigation later—quite apart from the immeasurable cost of human lives lost in what is the most hazardous of all industries. Indeed, it has had two of the worst years for accidents and loss of life for a very long time.
  9.8 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Yesterday, I received a Christmas card saying "Christmas Greetings from Fleetwood." Father Christmas visited the Fleetwood fish auction. Those for whom I speak in the fishing industry in Fleetwood would prefer my hon. Friend the Minister to dress up as Santa Claus rather than as Scrooge. I hope that that will be the message from today's debate.
  I can tell the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) that, when the Minister visited Fleetwood, he obviously received a warmer welcome from my constituents than he did from the hon. Gentleman's constituents when he visited St. Ives. That is possibly because, when he visited the Fleetwood fish auction at the crack of dawn, he was able to recognise all the different species laid out in front of him and so scored 10 out of 10. I hope that after today's debate he will continue to score 10 out of 10.
  Fleetwood has a long tradition as a fishing port. Although 1998 has been a difficult year—largely because of the weather—that is set in the context of a much improved climate of opinion, never mind the weather. There is now an optimism that did not exist two or three years ago. It is vital for my constituents—and, indeed, those in other areas—that the Government get the best deal they can on Thursday. I welcome much that my hon. Friend the Minister said.
  I do, however, want to refer to one or two specific issues. Before I deal with quotas, let me say something about the designated landing ports scheme. I am pleased to learn that Fleetwood has been confirmed as a designated port, but there is continued unhappiness about the specified landing times. I hope that the Government will reconsider.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister will recall, I raised with him earlier the fact that the scheme, as originally proposed, seemed to apply only to British flagships. I understand, however, that following the October meeting of the Fisheries Council, which he attended, he has persuaded his colleagues that vessels from other European Union countries should also be required to follow the new rules. If that is indeed the case, I applaud his efforts, because the original arrangements have been a cause of concern in Fleetwood.
  The introduction of the fixed quota allocations to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred will help Fleetwood and its fish producing organisation, certainly in the long term; but it was disappointing that the reference period for the FQA system could not be extended to reflect a more realistic picture of the fishing effort in Fleetwood. It seems to have coincided with a time when, for a variety of reasons, catches were lower than the typical level. Nevertheless, our fishermen and the industry generally welcome the system, which will lead to more effective quota management.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will know of the speculation in the industry that FQAs may lead to individual transferable quotas. Other hon. Members have expressed anxiety about the possibility that large operators will buy up the quota of smaller operators, which is clearly undesirable. Concern has been expressed to me that speculators may buy quota and lease it to the highest bidder. People with no connection with catching fish could, with sufficient funds at their disposal, corner a
  856
  proportion of the market and then price quota leases beyond the economic reach of vessel operators in need of the additional quota.
  A letter from the Minister appeared in Fishing News on 4 December, a couple of weeks ago. Hon. Members may recall that, during the previous week, a letter had appeared from Mark Hamer, who, representing Fleetwood's fishermen, had expressed concern about remarks that seemed to clarify the financial basis of deals involving purchasing track record and quota units. I was pleased by reassurances given in the last paragraph of my hon. Friend's letter, in which he said—reassuring Mr. Hamer in particular—
  "although the issue of fisheries licences is a matter for the fisheries departments, it is recognised that the industry has invested heavily in the acquisition of track record. Local initiatives to support the viability of ports within the framework of our quota management arrangements are to be welcomed and I have no plans to disturb these."
  That is especially welcome to me, and to Fleetwood.
  Mr. Gill: Is the hon. Lady aware that the same Minister has said that he cannot give assurances to anyone who buys quota? Does she share my concern about the fact that that undermines the Minister's assurance—given to the House again this evening—that relative stability will continue?
  Mrs. Humble: The letter that I have quoted seeks to clarify that very point. It is especially important in Fleetwood. My local council, Wyre borough council, Associated British Ports, and our local training and enterprise council, Lancashire West TEC, have offered a loan to our fish producers' organisation to help it to acquire more track record or quota units. Obviously, if it wants to proceed along those lines, it will need an assurance from the Government that such action is viable. That is why I referred to the assurances in the Minister's letter.
  We need to distinguish between speculation by financial entrepreneurs who may have no links with the fishing industry, and local initiatives in which entire communities work together to support the fishing industry, as happens in Fleetwood. I urge the Minister to safeguard against the former and encourage the latter.
  In the context of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for our fleet, I repeat the point that was made about our aging fleet. Of the 24 vessels in the Fleetwood FPO, only one is less than 20 years old. That is another issue that needs to be addressed.
  I listened carefully to the Minister's speech, and I welcome the wide variety of grants that the Government have made available for health and safety and developing port facilities. He will recall from his recent visit to Fleetwood that that was a serious concern among local fishermen. They want to modernise their vessels in order to compete with other European countries. We know that the UK is ineligible for EU grants because the previous Government failed to meet the fleet reduction targets under MAGP III—the multi-annual guidance programme. Nevertheless, it is frustrating for our fishing industry.
  In his forthcoming meeting with representatives of the fishing industry, therefore, will the Minister look at solutions that are not only imaginative but viable, as we

  857
  need to convince fishermen that they can afford to undertake necessary improvements and that the Government will offer whatever support they can?
  Given the time, I must rush through my speech. In Fleetwood there are encouraging signs that younger people are returning to the industry. For example, the local college is pursuing a variety of new training courses ranging from the techniques of fish filleting to NVQ level 4 in fishing vessel operation. That is a sign that people have some optimism and hope for the future, and we need to build on that.
  Turning to quotas, there clearly needs to be a balance between the preservation of future fish stocks and the current livelihoods of our fishermen. Scientists have painted a bleak picture of existing stock levels—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. John Townend: I have always found the annual debate on fishing and the review of the CFP rather depressing. I cannot remember a year under any Government when a Minister has been able to stand up and say that the CFP is a great success. Indeed, when we consider the criteria on which the CFP should be judged—whether stocks and quotas are increasing; whether conservation is improving; whether the British fishing industry is prosperous and expanding—the answer always seems to be no. Regrettably, this year is no different. Quotas have been cut again.
  The North sea is the main area of concern for the Bridlington fishermen whom I represent. The major species fished is cod, so a 6 per cent. cut in the quota will have serious financial implications for the fleet. I suggest that the cut is unnecessary because, about three months ago, it was reported by people who know that the cod stocks have moved in great numbers out of the Barents sea and migrated into the southern North sea and the Grand Banks. Cuts of 23 and 27 per cent. for haddock and whiting show the extent of the failure of the quota system to deliver the goods.
  We have heard tonight about the tens of thousands of discards that are put back into the sea. Only idiots could support such a policy, but that is the sort of madness that comes out of Europe month on month. I mentioned that the Norwegians have a fishing policy under which it is illegal to discard. Our Government have taken the madness further by appointing more inspectors to ensure that fish in excess of quota are not brought ashore, but destroyed by being thrown back into the sea. What stupidity, when half the world is starving.
  Juveniles are being killed because net sizes are still too small. Rather than make net sizes larger to ensure that more young fish escape, the Government have acquiesced in the harmonisation of net sizes downwards for hake, plaice and megrim. We should note that the harmonisation is to European standards, not to ours.
  As a result of industrial fishing, 1 million tonnes of sandeels and pout, which are the basis of the marine food chain, are caught. Despite their promises, the Government have done nothing to stop that wasteful practice—they are all talk, all spin and no do.
  858
  I shall not go into the history of quota hopping, except to say that the Government did not take the strong line at Amsterdam that the Conservatives would have taken. This Government are responsible for the level of quota hopping. Quota hoppers now make up 25 per cent. of the tonnage and they take 46 per cent. of the hake quota and 44 per cent. of the plaice quota. All that we got for that was an exchange of letters with Jacques Santer, which are not worth the paper on which they were written. Quota hopping has not delivered any benefit of substance. The Prime Minister is again all talk, all spin and no do.
  I shall deal now with the state of the industry. As a result of the activities of the EU and the Labour Government, regulatory costs have soared out of control. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has cited 10 examples of that. I have not time to go through them in detail, but they include costs for satellite monitoring, hygiene inspection costs, tonnage measurement, which can be as much as £2,000 per boat, the western waters reporting, light dues, which are paid by only the British and the Greeks, the general marine distress signal system, EU health and safety directives, the increased fish vessel survey fees—a rate of £70 an hour is excessive—the under-12 m safety code, and the working time directive. When the dust settles, the Government will be held responsible for imposing the working time directive on the fishing industry; by accepting the social chapter, they enabled Europe to impose it on us.
  As has been said, the average age of the fleet is more than 25 years. That has implications both for safety and for the industry's prosperity. We have heard that the industry has not been eligible for European grants. The previous Government bear some responsibility for that, but so too do this Government. We also heard today how low the industry is in the list of the Government's priorities. They are not prepared to pay taxpayers' money on building grants or to have a scrap-and-build policy. It is funny that, when the chairman of BMW wants £100 million, taxpayers' money can be found for him. Fishing is a low priority.
  The industry's aging fleet has to compete with modern EU fleets that are partly paid for by EU funds and our taxpayers. As in so many cases involving Europe, our people are not on a level playing field. The industry has been reduced in size by quota hopping. It is slowly being squeezed by the EU, so that, by 2002, there will be no British industry, only a European industry that is run from Brussels. The CFP is not about sensible fish management: it is about European integration. We will have European fish, European waters and a European industry.
  Is there a solution? I believe that there is, but that it has to be radical. I suggest that we look at the industries in Norway and in Iceland. I was delighted by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), which was the first positive speech we have heard from a Tory fishing spokesman—perhaps we shall now get a decent Tory policy.
  We must go back to square one. We should follow the policy of Save Britain's Fish and leave the CFP, which decimates the food source, legalises the catching and marketing of fish that have not reached breeding size, and leads to thousands of tonnes of prime fish being thrown back into the sea.

  859
  We should return the competence of fishing to the House of Commons and reclaim British control of our territorial waters—200 miles or the median line, whichever is the smaller. That would enable us to manage stocks. We could stop driving British fishermen from our waters and perhaps have the most successful fishing industry in the world.
  Hon. Members should not forget that Britain is an island, surrounded by what could be some of the most fertile fishing grounds in the world. We cannot be at the heart of Europe and have a prosperous British fishing industry. The Prime Minister said that I and some of my colleagues were headbangers. I suggest that, if he thinks that Europe will allow us to have a prosperous fishing industry or a bigger share of the fish from our own waters, he is the biggest headbanger of all.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: People outside know that it is Christmas because they are beginning to buy turkeys. Members of Parliament who represent fishing ports know it because we are having our annual ritual of empowering a Minister before he goes to negotiate in Brussels. It is a pity that so little time has been left by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who got off his chest his suppressed feelings of 18 years. In saying the things that he was unable to say during that period, he has filled the time available to other hon. Members. I shall be brief, and I shall make about five basic points.
  There is no point in looking at individual quotas, because the Minister has gone over them with the fishing organisations this afternoon. However, I hope that the Minister will try to avoid the wild fluctuations in quotas that have occurred from time to time. Just because the year class for cod in 1997 is down is no reason for the lurching drop of 23 per cent. in cod in the Irish sea and 22 per cent. in area VII. The industry needs stability, and those lurches must be cut out. If the Minister is to make the licence a negotiable instrument with a financial basis, it must guarantee some kind of quota, and some stability in that quota. I hope that he will try to moderate those fluctuations.
  The precautionary approach is, in principle, a good idea. It is a good idea to create a buffer zone between the biological limit and the total allowable catch. I am in favour of that, as is the industry. However, bringing it in suddenly, without notice and on a substantial basis—we are looking at a buffer zone of 20 per cent.—is an unreasonable and unfair imposition on the industry. I hope that I am right in saying that the Commission has moderated the proposal, and I hope that the Minister will try to moderate it further. It is right in principle, but not tout d'un coup.
  Our aging fleet worries me. The marine accidents investigation branch's report in 1997 showed that 31 vessels were lost, 23 of which were more than 25 years old and three of which were more than 30 years old. There is a safety hazard—it is not only a competitive problem. France and Spain, in particular, have been able to modernise their fleets with European grants that have not been available to our industry. Consequently, we have an aging fleet, and there is more of a risk to our fishermen. We are less competitive and more risky as a fleet.
  It is important to draw down European money, if it is available. I understand that funding is not available because we have not achieved our MAGP III targets.
  860
  However, surely we can meet the intermediate targets with effort control, and therefore funds could be available on a sectoral basis. I know that we will have to pay more as a national contribution because of the Fontainebleau agreement, and I know that the Treasury will oppose that. However, it is unacceptable to object to the proposal when safety is at stake and the lives of fishermen are at risk. The fleet needs modernising, and something must be done. It is no good just trotting out the Treasury arguments.
  Is European funding available? If it is, we can apply our argument to the Treasury to get some recognition of the need to modernise and to keep the British fleet as up to date as we can. Thanks to the delay in decommissioning by the previous Government, we have a real problem with our aging fleet.
  With the industry in its present state, it is wrong to impose extra charges in the way envisaged. Extra charges are coming from all directions—no one is supervising the process, or protecting the interests of the industry in the way that I hope the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will. Charges are coming from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and from the Department of Trade and Industry. Compliance costs are increasing, and those costs are not being imposed on our competitors in the same way. Light dues were introduced by the previous Government, and are not paid by anyone else. In addition, the cost of satellite monitoring is paid for out of European funding for other nations. There are also hygiene inspection costs; tonnage measurements, which will cost up to £2,000 a vessel; increased survey fees; and, hanging over it all, the threat of the working time directive, which will impose massive costs. I do not think that it will even be possible to enforce it in the industry, but it will be a huge burden.
  The industry cannot afford all those charges, and needs to be protected. Charges should certainly be no higher than those imposed on our European competitors. There is a problem with charges on the processing sector. In Grimsby, we are about to lose 500 fish processing jobs. The Minister is well aware of the situation. There has been such an escalation in the price of fish in world markets—everyone is competing to get fish—that the charge to the consumer has had to be increased, so the consumer bought 9 per cent. less fish in the most recent quarter.
  The industry is in real difficulties, and it is wrong to impose so many charges. The waste water charge will be crippling for merchants, and the sanitary inspection charges, at each stage of processing, will be a real burden for the processing sector. There is too much bureaucratic inertia in the system.
  With the industry and the processing side facing such problems, it is unfair, unreasonable and wrong to impose such charges. Having said that, I express my confidence in the Minister, who has worked hard to understand the industry. He has listened to it and consulted it far more effectively than any other Minister. I am confident that he will fight for what is right for the industry. I wish him more power to his elbow.
  Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituency has the largest beam trawler fleet in Britain and the largest crabbing fleet. My constituents will not understand why, for the second year running, I have been unable to attract the attention of the Chair. I

  861
  understand that, on this occasion, it is because Front Benchers took longer than expected. I wonder whether, when Back Benchers are allowed only 10 minutes to speak, Front Benchers could also be confined to perhaps 15 or 20 minutes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have a great deal of sympathy for him. I have made it known to both the Minister and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that the Chair would expect Back Benchers to be given due consideration in future in a debate such as this. It is unfair for Back Benchers to come in with their cases prepared on behalf of their constituents and be so disappointed. I am glad to be able to put that matter on the record.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I applaud your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and other hon. Members who will be unable to speak. I have attended this debate for the past 12 years, and I have seen this situation occurring many times. I was rather hoping that the new Fisheries Minister, as he complained about the matter so many times in opposition, would ensure, with his colleagues, that we had adequate time for fishing interests to be represented. Not one Northern Ireland Member has had the chance to put his case, and I am the first Scottish Member to do so.
  This is a valedictory performance for Scottish Members, as we are about to move to the Scottish Parliament, and I am certain that, whatever else it does, that Parliament will allow us more time than the House has done to debate the huge and major industry of fishing.
  In January 1997, the Foreign Secretary promised at the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh that a Scottish Minister could lead the delegation in the European negotiations. Given the preponderance of the Scottish fleet in value and landings and its majority in tonnage, I should have thought that fisheries were a highly appropriate matter on which to live up to that promise. I hope that the Minister will answer that point.
  I was struck, when listening to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), by the memory of that great story about Harold Wilson in Devonport. He asked, "Why do I say that the Royal Navy is the premier service?", and a heckler shouted, "Because you are in Devonport." Why does the Conservative party call for the national repatriation of fisheries? Because they are in opposition. I have attended these debates for the past 12 years and many other hon. Members have done so for even longer, but that departure from what the Conservative party said in government almost beggars belief.
  It is true that, within the framework of the European Union, a determined country with a closely defined set of objectives can achieve great things for a particular subject matter, and that is what Spain has done with fisheries and with regional policy. However, the evidence of the Conservative party's 18 years in government was that, far from being the prime objective of European policy, fishing was one of the bargaining counters that was traded away to achieve other objectives. Spain achieved early
  862
  access to western waters because that was negotiated away by the Conservative Government as part of their overall approach to European policy. The Conservative party must hope that fishermen have short memories, but I suspect that they will not be short enough for the political purposes of Conservative Front Benchers.
  I wish to address two serious points to the Fisheries Minister. In opposition, he said that the hallmarks of his approach to fisheries policy would be consultation with the industry and parity with other fishing fleets in Europe. He said that he would not tolerate a situation in which the fishing fleet of this country was placed at a competitive disadvantage to other European fleets. We have had fly-by-night Fisheries Ministers in the past, and the Minister is certainly not one of those, because he has been involved in the issue, in opposition and in government, for most of the 12 years that I have participated in fisheries debates. Even though we had fly-by-night Tory Ministers, they still managed to outstay their welcomes.
  I wish to press the Minister gently on those areas in which he has departed from the admirable objectives that he put forward in opposition. We had an historic event in fisheries policy earlier this year when the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishing Organisations, the two major bodies representing the industry, met and put together a document—which hugely impressed many hon. Members who represent fishing interests—on the zonal management approach to the new fisheries policy emerging in Europe.
  Therefore, I was disappointed that the fishing representatives described the Government's approach to that document as "somewhat non-committal". The Minister lost the opportunity presented by that fine document and the six months of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. I notice that the list of achievements did not get to the heart of the key areas of fisheries policy. When the Under-Secretary winds up, I hope that he will commit the Government to many of the excellent principles of the zonal management approach.
  The Minister briefly alluded to the licence working group. My understanding is that three decisions on licences have been made almost without reference to the licence working group and, in one case, in direct opposition to its declaration of fisheries interests. I refer to the allocation of freezer trawlers to licences based on white fish licences. That was fiercely opposed by the licence working group, but went ahead by ministerial edict.
  Given that the freezer trawlers south of the border are all flagships, someone in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must carry a torch for them. Otherwise, it is inexplicable that the licence working group should be consulted by the Minister, yet he makes decisions that are not favoured by the industry. I gently suggest to the Minister that the commitments that he made to a consultative approach have not always been fulfilled, and that civil servants seem to make decisions without always referring them to the Minister.
  I associate myself with the remarks made about parity by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The Minister must make the connection between the aging nature of the fleet and incidents at sea. The safety record has deteriorated. There are many reasons why fishing boats are lost, and we cannot necessarily put our finger on one particular cause. However, it follows that an aging

  863
  fleet will be more dangerous, and the Minister must make that connection. His remarks about the loss of men from Iona and elsewhere are much appreciated by the industry, but there is an inherent connection between the age and structure of a fleet and the safety record of the industry. It was as a result of parity questions that European fleets received investment over the past 10 years—a point to which the Minister must address himself if he is to live up to the claims he made when he was in opposition.
  Let me offer one more example where parity does not exist. The boats of our pelagic fleet operate in Atlantic waters on restrictive licences. They need a licence for each species, but other pelagic boats do not face that problem. When he was in opposition, the Minister said that he would make sure that our fishermen did not operate at a disadvantage to other fleets. If he is to live up to those words, he must examine areas such as that.
  Mr. Morley indicated assent.
  Mr. Salmond: I am glad to see the Minister nod his assent to that point.
  In the interests of brevity, I shall make four quick references to points that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might mention in his summing up. There is a serious danger that the decline in the quota for North sea haddock will re-ignite the problem that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) rightly said had been almost eradicated—discards and the black fish. If we press too hard on North sea haddock, particularly on the precautionary principle, there is a danger of the re-emergence of that problem, which we have worked hard to eliminate. Can the Minister tell us whether he will invoke the Hague preference to its full extent so that we can at least get some compensation in relation to the North sea haddock allocation?
  Secondly, the Minister may wish to enlarge on points made about the working time directive. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke reassuringly on those points earlier.
  Thirdly, the pelagic fleet has commissioned an excellent report by the Marine Resources Assessment Group, which I read today. Will both Ministers read the report carefully as it makes some excellent points about capacity in the pelagic industry? It is worth careful study.
  Finally, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central about the damage that water charges could do to the economically fragile processing industry.
  I have been as brief as possible under the circumstances, but let me close with one last remark. I look forward to having adequate parliamentary time for debates on fishing policy and the fishing industry in the Scottish Parliament, and I hope that we can pursue those discussions through direct access to the leadership of the fisheries delegation on the Council of Ministers. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will refer to that point in his closing remarks.
  9.42 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I hope that both Ministers will note the number of hon. Members who have been unable to speak, and that we shall be allowed a longer time for a future debate.
  We must ask why we have the annual debate on total allowable catches. There are two reasons. First, we require conservation of a vital national resource. Secondly, we
  864
  require an economically viable fishing industry. Several questions must therefore be asked annually: how do we achieve those two objectives; what are the current problems of the common fisheries policy; what improvements are necessary, and how can they be made; what is the least we will accept; and what can we do if we cannot achieve that minimum?
  Conservation is the first point to consider. The Parliamentary Secretary was quite right to say that conservation is dependent on scientific advice. He said that the precautionary approach was hard to fault in principle, and we agree with that. There are costs, however. That approach may mean that more fish are dumped at sea, and it may be anti-conservationist, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said. Under current policy, the dumping of prime fish continues apace, which is killing fish unnecessarily and polluting the sea bed. Worse still, further reductions in the already proposed minimum landing sizes—to below the size at which fish can breed—must have a dramatic effect on conservation. The policy is failing in one of its main aims.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) raised industrial fishing, an issue that I am sure many other hon. Members would have brought up had they been able to speak. The latest TAC of 1 million tonnes for sandeels and pout gives only 5 per cent. to the United Kingdom, but it is the base of the marine food chain. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us how how that will be controlled, as it is vital to conservation?
  Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), mentioned the aging fleet. We heard that money needed to be made available to help. The Government's defence is that other EU countries get access to money because they have met their multi-annual guidance programme requirements, but the Government know that they question the Commission's reliability on estimates of compliance as much as we did. Do they intend repeatedly to challenge the Commission's estimates and what is to be done about them?
  In agriculture, we have seen the Government's unwillingness to claim agrimonetary compensation, yet the United Kingdom is substantially behind France, Spain, Italy and Portugal as a recipient of the financial instrument of fisheries grant—FIFG. It is a question of priorities. The Treasury line is that 71p out of every pound has to come from the Treasury, which I have always thought of as a bizarre way of saying that one gets 30 per cent. back for everything that one spends on a particular programme. It depends whether one is the Treasury, trying to withhold the money, or the Departments, which want it. The Minister said that the money available would not be best used to modernise the fishing fleet, yet our European partners, who get that money, are also our competitors. We must bear that in mind if our fishing industry is to remain viable.
  I hope that the Minister will take up the safety argument in his response, and deal with the modernisation of an aging fleet. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has said:
  "Regrettably, the Government's approach to the issue so far has combined a sanctimonious high moral tone with a failure to focus on the age of the fleet as a central factor in the high casualty rate."

  865
  I hope that the Government will tackle that.
  On quota hoppers, my hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire made some powerful points. They make up only 2 per cent. of the fleet but, because the boats are typically more powerful and larger, they account for perhaps one quarter of the total national tonnage.
  After the ridiculous throwing out of the Merchant Shipping Act 1998, which was overturned by the European Court of Justice, we were left with the Government's agreement with Jacques Santer, which is utterly meaningless in effect because quota hoppers need meet only one of the following criteria. At least 50 per cent. of the quota, by weight, must be landed in the UK, but that allows for fish to be landed and immediately placed on refrigerated lorries for transport abroad. Normally, 50 per cent. of the crew would be resident in a UK coastal area, but the definition could be said to omit klondikers from associated vessels—I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that—while residency itself remains unsatisfactorily defined. Therefore, many fishermen could still effectively be resident abroad.
  Another criterion is that the owner would incur
  "a given level of operating expenditure"
  in UK coastal areas for goods and services, but that ignores the reality, which is that some quota hoppers also own, or are associated with, food processing companies. Those are the real impacts of what was agreed. The policy has not created jobs or solved the problem.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) could not speak in the debate, as he would have loved to say a few things about compliance costs, which are ever growing. The NFFO has said:
  "the ever growing battery of regulations to which the fishing industry is subject, are now spiralling out of control, posing a threat to vessels whose viability is marginal and imposing a massive burden on the industry as a whole. There appears to be no sensitivity within Government to this or even any attempt at an overview of the costs imposed by different departments."
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said how much he appreciated satellite monitoring, but the UK declines to part-fund it for all vessels over 24 m in length, thereby blocking the EU side of the grant. Our industry is being put at a disadvantage to its competitors.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire mentioned tonnage measurements. There again, extra costs are being imposed on the industry, and for what? Perhaps worst of all is the working time directive. Including the industry in it would ignore the factors that are specific to fishing. It is seasonal and entirely dependent on the weather. Furthermore, share fishing, resulting in what one might call co-operative earnings, makes up a considerable part of the industry. That is better classed as self-employment—if there is no cash, there is no pay.
  The Government have opened the floodgates to all those rules by agreeing to the social chapter, and it is simply not good enough for them to attempt to wash their hands of the damage that will ultimately be done to fishing and other industries.
  866
  I want to give the Minister reasonable time to reply to the many points raised in the debate, but when the Parliamentary Secretary opened the debate, he painted an optimistic longer-term picture for the industry. What will happen in 2002? The derogation may be renewed, but at what cost? If it has to be done by unanimity, what legal challenges may lie ahead?
  We need a firm bottom line for what is too high a price for the British fishing industry to pay within the common fisheries policy, and we need to keep all our options open. It is surely not our position that the maintenance of the architecture of the common fisheries policy is worth paying any price for. If it is, we have abdicated our responsibility and betrayed our fishermen. If it is not, then the job of this House is to put the British interest first. I caution the Minister against using the line that Europe is coming our way—boy, do we know that line.
  We must hope that negotiation is successful, but we must be aware of the consequences of failure for the industry. Failure is not an acceptable outcome and we must ensure that, faced with that, we would rule out nothing at all in our response as a British Parliament.
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I am very pleased to wind up the debate this evening. It has ranged widely, and for the most part constructively, across many aspects of fisheries policy. I shall respond to the specific issues raised by hon. Members, but first, I should like to refer to an important point that was made by several hon. Members. Like them, I acknowledge the special nature of the fishing industry which I know well from my constituency. Fishing is a dangerous occupation, and fishermen have often paid a heavy price for reaping the harvest of the sea. We should never lose sight of that.
  Indeed, in my constituency during the past weekend, a 28-year-old fishermen, Donald Morrison, was lost in a tragic accident while fishing. I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending sympathy to his family and to the families of others who have lost their lives during the past year.
  I shall now turn to some of the points made in the debate. I know that many fishermen believe that they have much to contribute to the management of the stocks, and even to the scientific assessment of the stocks. I know, too, that they are frustrated by the variations in the total allowable catches and quotas. They find it difficult to cope with such variations which disrupt their markets. Undoubtedly, they would like greater stability in the total allowable catches. Many hon. Members made that point, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran).
  In managing the stocks, we need to take full account of those very justifiable concerns. However, at the same time, we need to take account of the scientific evidence about fish stocks and their future viability. We cannot just ignore that evidence, no matter how disappointing it might be for a particular stock in a particular year.
  I can assure the House that the Government will do all we can in the negotiations ahead to get the best possible deal for British fishermen consistent with long-term sustainability of fishing stocks. We shall not hesitate to invoke the Hague preference, when that would be in the interests of the industry. However, we must also ensure

  867
  that, once the Fisheries Council has decided the TACs and the quotas—which it will do with regard both to the scientific advice, which is important, and to the wider economic implications—they are respected in practice by all fishermen.
  It would be appropriate to say something about devolution, given the significance of the debate as we are about to enter a new era for fisheries management within the United Kingdom. In previous debates, some hon. Members expressed the view that devolution will mean that Scotland will lose its voice in fisheries management, especially at the European level. Others fear that the Scottish Parliament will fail to respect UK obligations or, in pursuing the interests of Scottish fishermen, will discriminate against fishermen from other parts of the UK. I am sure that both those anxieties will prove to be unfounded. Devolution will help us to deliver local solutions to local problems across the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Salmond: Will a Scottish Fisheries Minister in the Scottish Parliament be able to lead a United Kingdom delegation to the Fisheries Council, as the Foreign Secretary suggested when he was in Edinburgh last January?
  Mr. Macdonald: I assure hon. Members that Scottish Ministers will continue to be able to attend Fisheries Council meetings as part of the United Kingdom team. There is no reason why they cannot lead delegations, as appropriate. They can do that now, and the position remains unchanged.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Macdonald: I had better not, as I have further points to make.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central referred to important matters that affect the wider industry, particularly the processing sector. The industry has expressed concern about increased water charges in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere in the area. It is important to note that other parts of the United Kingdom have faced similar increases. The North of Scotland water authority is in discussions with industry representatives, and I hope that it will be able to clarify the options for the industry. I understand also that the Sea Fish Industry Authority is consulting the industry about practical ideas for reducing the volume of waste, which is the best way of tackling that problem in the long term.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), referred to the safety of old boats and the need for investment in new boats. The industry is concerned about the safety of older fishing boats, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary addressed that issue squarely in his speech. He made it clear that he and the Scottish Fisheries Minister are prepared to meet industry representatives to discuss practical ways of addressing the issue.
  868
  Hon. Members also referred to the provisions of the working time directive and how they apply to fishermen. I stress that the Government are committed to the principles of the directive on health and safety grounds. We believe that they are important. However, the Government have made it clear that any proposals to extend them to sea fishing must take account of the practical and commercial realities of the industry, including the share fishermen system. The Commission's latest proposals show that it is taking those factors into account. Officials from the various Departments concerned will continue to keep in close touch with the industry regarding the proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) called for better enforcement across Europe. She is correct to say that the Government looked for and welcome the improved control measures proposed for adoption later this week at the Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels. Proposed amendments in the regulations provide for, among other things, a number of improvements in control at the point of landing and in relation to the sale and transport of fish. We welcome the European Commission's efforts to encourage co-operation and consistency of enforcement across the Union.
  Several hon. Members referred to the precautionary approach. That is a sensible principle. It is the first year in which it has been advanced, and we recognise that more work must be done before we can rely solidly on that new approach.
  Perhaps the most striking contribution to tonight's debate was the speech by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who opened for the Opposition. He launched a fierce and relentless attack on the past policies of his party in government but, unfortunately, offered no credible alternative to quota management. The problem is not the CFP, but the need to manage limited and finite stocks. We must face that reality, and we shall approach the forthcoming negotiations on that basis.
  Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not necessary for the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) to put the Question, as the House has agreed that the vote will be taken at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Macdonald: I have reached the end of my remarks. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 340.

  Division No. 24]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Cotter, Brian

  Beggs,Roy

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Brake, Tom

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Breed, Colin

  Hancock, Mike

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Harvey, Nick

  Burnett, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Chidgey, David

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  869

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Stunell, Andrew

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, William

  Moore, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Tyler, Paul

  Oaten, Mark

  Wallace, James

  Öpik, Lembit

  Webb, Steve

  Rendel, David

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Edward Davey and

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Phil Willis.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Austin, John

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Battle, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbett, Robin

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cranston, Ross

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Crausby, David

  Benton, Joe

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cummings, John

  Berry, Roger

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Betts, Clive

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blackman, Liz

  Darvill, Keith

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Borrow, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Denham, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Drew, David

  Burgon, Colin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caborn, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Etherington, Bill

  Cann, Jamie

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Casale, Roger

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flint, Caroline

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foulkes, George

  Fyfe, Maria

  870

  Galloway, George

  Love, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  McAllion, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCabe, Steve

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Goggins, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonnell, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hain, Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marek, Dr John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hope, Phil

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meale, Alan

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Michael, Alun

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Milburn, Alan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hutton, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Illsley, Eric

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Jamieson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Olner, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pendry, Tom

  Khabra, Piara S

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pike, Peter L

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pond, Chris

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pope, Greg

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Laxton, Bob

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Levitt, Tom

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Linton, Martin

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Livingstone, Ken

  Radice, Giles

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rammell, Bill

  Lock, David

  Rapson, Syd

  871

  Raynsford, Nick

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Stringer, Graham

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ruane, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Todd, Mark

  Sawford, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Singh, Marsha

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wise, Audrey

  Snape, Peter

  Wood, Mike

  Soley, Clive

  Woolas, phil

  Spellar, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wray, James

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stevenson, George

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 377, Noes 129.

  Division No. 25]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blackman, Liz

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainger, Nick

  Blizzard, Bob

  Alexander, Douglas

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Allan, Richard

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Austin, John

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Barnes, Harry

  Breed, Colin

  Barron, Kevin

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Battle, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beard, Nigel

  Browne, Desmond

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Beggs, Roy

  Burden, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burgon, Colin

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Burnett, John

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Benton, Joe

  Caborn, Richard

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Berry, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Best, Harold

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Betts, Clive

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  872

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gapes, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gerrard, Neil

  Casale, Roger

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caton, Martin

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Cawsey, Ian

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chidgey, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gunnell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hain, Peter

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hancock, Mike

  Colman, Tony

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Connarty, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cooper, Yvette

  Healey, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cotter, Brian

  Heppell, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cox, Tom

  Hill, Keith

  Cranston, Ross

  Hinchliffe, David

  Crausby, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Darvill, Keith

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Illsley, Eric

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Denham, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jamieson, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Helen (Wanington N)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Etherington, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Flint, Caroline

  Khabra, Piara S

  Flynn, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foulkes, George

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Laxton, Bob

  873

  Lepper, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pond, Chris

  Levitt, Tom

  Pope, Greg

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Pound Stephen

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Linton, Martin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Livsey, Richard

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lock, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Love, Andrew

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McAllion, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McCabe, Steve

  Radice, Giles

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rammell, Bill

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rapson, Syd

  Macdonald, Calum

  Raynsford, Nick

  McDonnell, John

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Rendel, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terry

  McNulty, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWalter, Tony

  Ruane, Chris

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Salter, Martin

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Maxton, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Michael, Alun

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jonn (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Moore, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morley, Elliot

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Norris, Dan

  Stott, Roger

  Oaten, Mark

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson Ian

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Pendry, Tom

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Thompson, William

  874

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Willis, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Winnick, David

  Trickett, Jon

  Wise, Audrey

  Truswell, Paul

  Wood, Mike

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wallace, James

  Wray, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Watts, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Webb, Steve

  White, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Horam, John

  Amess, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Key, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brady, Graham

  Laing. Mrs Eleanor

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Burns, Simon

  Lidington, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Luff, peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  MaLoughlin, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Malins, Humfrey

  Collins, Tim

  Maples, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Norman, Archie

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Paice, James

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paterson, Owen

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Prior, David

  Faber, David

  Randall, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  Gibb, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gill, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Steen, Anthony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Streeter, Gary

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hawkins, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  875

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John

  Willetts, David

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Wardle, Charles

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wells, Bowen

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM(98)680, relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1999 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen based on sustainable fisheries management, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that regional differences of fisheries are fully recognised.
  Sir George Young: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have been defeated yet again in the other place on the principle of the closed list. This succession of defeats on a policy repeatedly attacked by the Government's own Back Benchers is an unprecedented humiliation for the Government.
  Will the Government now state their intentions? Will they reconsider, or do they propose to put on the statute book, using the Parliament Act, a measure that was not in their manifesto and that is an affront to democracy?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be possible for you to allow the Leader of the House to say whether the repeatedly expressed will of this House that there should be a proportional system will now be given effect by the Parliament Act?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for this evening's business, and therefore it is not a matter for the Chair.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 16th December, proceedings on any Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to modernisation of the House of Commons, sittings of the House or meetings of standing committees may continue, though opposed, until any hour and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings not later than eight o'clock, or four hours
  876
  after the commencement of proceedings, whichever is the later, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by her which then be moved.—[Mr. Mikr Hall.]

  PETITIONS

    Old People's Homes (Essex)
    10.27 pm
    Mr. Bob Russell: I wish to present a petition in the name of my constituent, Mary Blandon, and 600 other residents of Colchester and district opposing the sale of old people's homes by the Conservative-run Essex county council.
    The petition states:
    The Petition of residents of Colchester and District, Deplores the proposal of Essex County Council to sell 33 of its 36 Old People's Homes, including Greenways, Marylands, Trippier House and Scarletts in Colchester; believe that this will deprive elderly people of a proper choice of accommodation provided by the public and private sectors; are concerned that the disposal will cause anxiety to existing residents and their families; and are dismayed that employees may experience less favourable terms of conditions if the Homes are privatised.
    The Petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to introduce legislation to prevent such mass disposals of Old People's Homes.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Moreton
    10.29 pm
    Mr. Eric Pickles: This petition is presented on behalf of the residents of Moreton, a small village in my constituency much used by television companies to show a rural idyll. It is threatened by a showman's permanent winter quarters, which would destroy the nature of the village. The petition is signed by 214 people out of a total population of 278; therefore, 77 per cent. of the population support the petition.
    The petition states:
    The Petition of residents and friends of the village of Moreton in the parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar.
    Declare that the imposition of a permanent showman's site at the centre of the village of Moreton on Green Belt land, would increase the population of the village by a third and damage the unique character of Moreton.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons supports their plea to save both the Green Belt and the character of Moreton.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Derbyshire Community Transports
    10.30 pm
    Judy Mallaber: I have pleasure in presenting a petition from the Forum of Derbyshire Community Transports, signed by 7,029 Derbyshire residents who use or support the "Community Transport" service in the county. It is also supported by Derbyshire Members of Parliament on a cross-party basis.

    877
    The petitioners note that commercial passenger transport companies that operate scheduled services are entitled to a rebate of their fuel duty. The rebate is not paid to "Community Transport" services, which last year in Derbyshire made half a million journeys carrying 10,000 elderly or disabled residents with mobility difficulties who were physically unable to use scheduled bus services.
    The petition is beautifully inscribed on hand-made locally produced paper. It concludes:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House enact such legislation, or change such legislation as may be necessary to end discrimination by allowing Companies or Organisations operating professional Community Transport type services for persons with mobility difficulties, to reclaim rebate of duties paid on fuel used to provide such services.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Freight Vehicles (Fuel)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  10.31 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am delighted to have been selected to introduce this debate.
  Freight vehicles come in all shapes and sizes, but the bulk of them are large trucks carrying goods the length and breadth of the land. Such vehicles do not contribute as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as cars, but we know from the recent transport White Paper that they provide a substantial load—some 9 per cent. of total carbon dioxide emissions, against 14 per cent. of the total for cars. They are also far more responsible than car traffic for certain pollutants such as small particles emitted by diesel engines, the preferred power source for most freight vehicles.
  The AA recently pointed out that the 500,000 freight vehicles on the road produce more PM10—particulate matter—fine-particle emissions than the 23 million cars that are also sliding about. We also know that they contribute to the increasing congestion on the roads, and to noise pollution, as they make their deliveries in towns. Increasingly tight emission standards—soon to be tightened further—have been laid down by the European Union for exhaust gases issuing from freight vehicles.
  The White Paper and the recent Green Paper on climate change set out plans to switch transport by both cars and lorries to other modes. Plans exist substantially to increase the freight carried by rail. Even if all those plans succeeded, however, only a small percentage of road transport would be shifted. At most, a switch to rail and other modes would level out road-hauled freight in the foreseeable future.
  As it is likely that the articulated truck will be with us for a long time, we should consider means by which we can make it cleaner and quieter. We need to look at three elements of emissions: carbon dioxide emissions, emissions of noxious gases such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide, and the deposit of particulates. Progress is being made with levels of all those emissions, in terms of cleaner engines; but the continued use of petrol or diesel as a fuel means that they will continue to be pumped out in substantial quantities.
  What fuels might we look at? A number are potentially on offer, but only two present themselves immediately as realistic alternatives to petrol or diesel. First, we can modify diesel itself. Ultra-low-sulphur diesel will eliminate many particulate emissions, but the process of sulphur removal itself means, according to one petroleum company, that for every tonne of sulphur removed by the processing, 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide are discharged into the atmosphere. Biodiesel looks attractive and has the advantage of being CO2 neutral—it derives from crops that fix the CO2 in the first place—but the amount grown per gallon of biodiesel makes it difficult to conceive of serious production in the United Kingdom. There are similar problems with methanol or ethanol, which can also be CO2 neutral, in terms of crop production compared with the amount of fuel produced. For that reason and others, it is very expensive to produce.
  The two candidates most likely to be of practical use currently are LPG—liquefied petroleum gas—and CNG—compressed natural gas. LPG has the advantage of

  879
  liquefying at normal temperatures and can be carried in a relatively compact tank. For natural gas to liquefy, a deep-freeze tank is needed; otherwise, the cylinders that contain it are somewhat bulky, and that can limit the range of a vehicle using the gas. LPG is a by-product of the petroleum cracking process, while natural gas is not and it has the advantage of being freely available—literally, via the mains. Natural gas is also essentially methane which can be derived from recycling processes such as organic waste digestion or it can be collected from the organic breakdown of landfill.
  Both gases are undoubtedly much cleaner than petrol in all respects and emit virtually no particles, unlike diesel. They emit roughly the same CO2 as diesel. Although they are not by any means the perfect fuel substitute for petrol or diesel and are mineral fuels, their widespread use in cars and trucks would undoubtedly make a substantial contribution towards the targets that the Government are seeking from our use of vehicles in the United Kingdom. Conversions of petrol engines are relatively cheap, but conversions of diesel engines are substantially more expensive.
  The problem for the debate and for the scenario is that virtually no large vehicles in the UK run on either LPG or CNG. Altogether 1.1 million vehicles do so in Italy, as do 400,000 in Holland. The buses in Vienna have run on natural gas for 40 years. In the UK, the estimated total of LPG vehicles—mostly cars—is below 8,000. The number of LPG or CNG freight or large passenger vehicles is so low that they can be identified and marvelled at almost individually. There are 10 in my constituency in the shape of natural gas buses which run quietly and smoothly, emit no exhaust fumes and are very popular with passengers. Safeway runs a small fleet of CNG trucks in London, as does Marks and Spencer. There is a relatively small number of other such vehicles, but that is about it.
  There is progress, but it is painfully slow. Powershift, supported by the Energy Saving Trust, has supported the Safeway and Marks and Spencer initiative, and aims to convert 1,000 vehicles, mostly cars, to alternative fuels in 1,000 days. It is exceeding that target. I recently opened a fleet of police cars converted to LPG for the Hampshire constabulary. As I said on the day, I hope that the local criminal fraternity will show equal public awareness by converting a similar number of getaway cars to natural gas. However, there is no disguising the fact that the UK lags behind other countries and that in respect of freight vehicles we hardly register.
  To understand why that is so, I spent a day with Boots the Chemists, looking at the national distribution procedures in Nottingham. I also spent time at B and Q headquarters near Southampton, finding out about its distribution procedures. I have spoken to a number of companies and trade federations with an interest in the matter.
  I believe that some larger companies at least would like to introduce alternative fuels to their fleets for environmental reasons and because they realise that regulation will move them in that direction. They feel constrained, for example, by curfews on deliveries in towns. Quieter vehicles may help. They certainly worry about meeting new EU emission standards with their current fleets. So why do they not convert? I believe that there are four main reasons.
  880
  First, companies are concerned about the instability of the market in the United Kingdom. They are not sure whether there is or will be an industry standard and that, if they invest in new vehicles, those vehicles will have any resale value. They need some view of a long-term future for one or more alternative fuels in the United Kingdom. To put it crudely, the market will be mature when Dodgy Transport Ltd. buys a CNG truck from a company that has, in turn, bought it from Boots when that company has had its use from it.
  Secondly, companies see little or no incentive to switch. They are uncertain about the Government's pricing policies on fuels. They know that there is a fuel escalator, but wonder whether their chosen alternative fuel will escalate too and, if so, over what period.
  Thirdly, companies see little or no evidence that the infrastructure that will genuinely allow them to run their vehicles over long distances and use them flexibly is coming into existence. The Safeway and Marks and Spencer CNG fleets run, in effect, as rail routes to and from given destinations with fuelling taking place in one location—their home depots.
  Boots uses its transport flexibly. It attempts to maintain a high load level by undertaking triangular journeys. After delivering goods, its trucks pick up supplies for the central distribution depot. Other companies, such as B and Q and Tesco, attempt to back-fill—they pick up recyclable waste on the way back to their depots after delivering. They have regional distribution depots, which could be shared by trucks needing to refuel. Companies may even be able to pool the cost of LPG or CNG fuelling plants, although they do not yet seem to be doing so.
  Fourthly, companies see no evidence that manufacturers are providing the engines they would need. Perkins Diesel has recently announced that it is withdrawing its alternative fuel production plant from the UK. Despite obtaining a grant from Powershift, Safeway had to source its engines in Canada. The manufacturers are reluctant to produce, because they are uncertain about the extent to which their products would be sold.
  There seems to be a logjam, despite the fact that many people agree that progress is vital. The immediate, oft-touted and easy solution, it is claimed, is for the Government to reduce duty on LPG and CNG. The decision to freeze duty on natural gas and LPG in the 1998 Budget was welcome, but many people now believe that an important incentive could be a reduction in the price of road gas, which would have an effect similar to that of the price differential that converted the UK motorist to lead-free petrol. Such a step is necessary, but not sufficient. We need a declared policy of long-term stability to allow investment planning and a programme to create a refuelling infrastructure that gives confidence to that planning.
  I believe that many interest groups are waiting for a lead. That lead could come from the Government, who could at least broker the first moves to generate momentum. More than one of the individuals to whom I spoke during my recent inquiries asked: "Why doesn't someone get all the players together to discuss what might be done? Why don't the fuel suppliers, the major truck fleet operators and the manufacturers all sit around a table and talk about the moves that would get the industry going? Why don't you convene something?"

  881
  My contribution, I hope, will be to raise the subject in this Adjournment debate. I recognise the work of the cleaner vehicles task force, but I am not sure whether it addresses the logjam that I have described. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the Government could convene such a round table. I believe that the places around the table would quickly be filled; the results could, in a very few years, be considerable.
  I offer that suggestion for what it is worth. I do not expect my hon. Friend—who always seems to have the misfortune to have to reply to Adjournment debates that I initiate—to respond immediately, but I hope that she can give me some encouragement on what I consider to be an important issue for the Government's pollution targets and the general well-being of our country.
  10.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that I do not regard participating in Adjournment debates as a misfortune? It is a privilege, especially when the debate concerns such an important subject.
  Air pollution has become a matter of increasing public concern and political importance in recent years. Understanding of the medical effects associated with pollutants has also developed. A report published by the Department of Health earlier this year estimated that, in the UK alone, the short-term effects of air pollution may hasten the deaths of between 12,000 and 24,000 vulnerable people each year. Every year, a similar number of people are admitted to hospital suffering from respiratory illnesses because of short-term air pollution.
  Air pollution is of concern to us all, whether we are pedestrians, drivers or cyclists. There is an assumption that, if one is in a car, one is somehow protected from pollution. Regrettably, this is not the case. Last year, my Department published a report based on a review of around 70 studies which showed that car occupants can be subject to levels of pollution two to three times higher than those suffered by pedestrians.
  The Government are fully committed to improving the quality of the air we breathe. In July last year, the Government endorsed the national air quality strategy, on the basis that it would be reviewed at the earliest opportunity, with a view to delivering cleaner air more quickly. The Government intend to consult on the outcome of the review in the new year.
  Road transport is responsible for a significant proportion of air pollution—for instance, an estimated 50 per cent. of nitrogen oxides come from that source. Any attempt to improve air quality therefore needs to address the problems that road transport can cause.
  Increasingly stringent standards for vehicle emissions and fuel quality play an important role in improving air quality. The European auto-oil programme is the first project to propose vehicle emission reduction targets derived from a health-based assessment of air quality needs. It sets emissions standards for both engines and fuels, with increasingly tough standards being brought in from 2000. These standards are expected to halve
  882
  emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxides by 2005. Although such reductions are obviously to be warmly welcomed, in the longer term those gains could be at risk if traffic growth continues unchecked. Fortunately, the Government have stated publicly that we intend to change direction on transport policy.
  It is essential to improve the environmental performance of all vehicles. The cleaner vehicles task force—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Test referred—which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport co-chairs along with Ian McAllister, chairman and chief executive of Ford UK, has been established to do just that, through promoting the production, purchase and use of cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles. At the moment, it is carefully considering, among other things, measures to improve the enforcement of existing emission standards for all vehicles, and the role of alternative fuels.
  Alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas have an important role to play in the quest for cleaner vehicles. Their use can result in substantial reductions in emissions of pollutants such as carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates when compared with conventional diesel. Alternative fuels can also emit less visible smoke and odour than diesel, which is an important consideration for urban areas. They have the potential to offer significant fuel-efficiency benefits.
  A less well known benefit of using alternative fuels is the potential reduction in noise compared with that generated by conventional diesel vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Test referred to that matter in connection with buses. For example, Safeway has a number of articulated lorries powered by natural gas which it uses for deliveries in the Hammersmith and Fulham area. Because the vehicles are so quiet, the local authority has granted them extended delivery times. A further spin-off benefit is that deliveries can now take place outside the peak rush hours, so reducing congestion.
  If we are to develop a truly sustainable transport system, we must consider not only road fuel gases such as LPG and CNG, but a whole range of cleaner fuels and technologies. For example, electric hybrid and fuel cell technologies offer the possibility, in the longer term, of significant reductions in the emission of both local air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
  In addition, one must not forget that improved diesel and petrol technology means that those fuels are becoming cleaner and more efficient. For example, the increasingly widespread use of ultra-low-sulphur diesel, which now comprises around 17 per cent. of total diesel supplied, is to be welcomed because that results in significant reductions in particulate emissions.
  Indeed, vehicle and fuel technology is generally developing so rapidly that the relative merits of different fuels can change almost from day to day. Government support for alternative fuels and vehicle technology must therefore remain even-handed.
  Urban freight distribution raises difficult tensions between business, environment and amenity. The Government support the retail industry, and we certainly want vital, economically healthy town centres; but we want our town centres to be vital from every point of view: attractive places to live, to work and to visit, whether for business or pleasure.

  883
  Quality partnerships for freight between the road haulage industry, local authorities, business and the local community will help to develop an understanding of distribution issues and problems at a local level and to promote constructive solutions that reconcile the need for access for goods and services with local environmental and social concerns. Alternative fuels could have a useful role to play in such quality partnerships. For example, Safeway and its CNG delivery vehicles provide an example of a constructive solution that allows goods to be delivered while reducing the environmental impact.
  We are committed to encouraging the use of cleaner fuels such as CNG and LPG through a package of measures, including fiscal incentives. My hon. Friend touched on that point earlier. In the most recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor froze the duty on road fuel gases for the second year in a row. We are also committed to retaining the differential in duty rates between gas fuels and diesel that existed at the 1997 Budget, to provide some certainty to the market. I hope that my hon. Friend will take comfort from that.
  There is now a substantial difference between the duty on CNG and LPG and that on conventional fuels, providing a significant incentive for operators to switch from diesel to gas fuels. Indeed, the differentials are among the largest in the European Union. There are also other cost savings associated with road fuel gases; for instance, in lower maintenance costs.
  The Government car service showed that there is a strong economic case for fleet operators to use gas fuels when it announced last year that the economic grounds for using road fuel gases, along with the environmental benefits, were strong enough to persuade it to convert its entire car fleet to run on CNG or LPG over the next five to six years. In a similar vein, the London borough of Merton has estimated that it will save around £5,000 a year for each of the natural gas refuse trucks that it currently operates.
  The Government are offering operators of lorries and buses an incentive to adapt their vehicles to a higher environmental standard. From 1 January 1999, the reduced pollution scheme announced by the Chancellor in the March Budget will be implemented by regulations laid before Parliament last week.
  Under the scheme, vehicles adapted to meet strict emissions standards will obtain a reduced pollution certificate that will reduce the vehicle excise duty by up to £500 a year. There are two ways in which the standards are likely to be achieved: by re-engining the vehicle to a higher environmental standard—including conversion to run on alternative fuels such as LPG or CNG—or by fitting a device that reduces particulate emissions. The Government believe that the scheme will encourage operators of lorries and buses to improve the environmental performance of their vehicles.
  The price premium on larger gas-powered vehicles, such as buses and lorries, is more significant than for cars, partly because not enough vehicles are currently purchased to introduce significant economies of scale. To develop further the market for alternative fuels and to encourage people to buy gas and electric vehicles that are more expensive than their conventionally fuelled counterparts, my Department has funded the Powershift programme, run by the Energy Saving Trust.
  884
  Powershift's aim is to create a sustainable market for alternatively powered vehicles by pooling different companies and local authorities interested in purchasing such vehicles into partnerships to increase economies of scale; it provides grants for up to 75 per cent. of the additional cost of purchasing alternatively fuelled vehicles.
  To date, Powershift has offered grants to assist in the purchase of more than 1,000 alternatively powered vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles, the majority of which have been ordered in the past year. For instance, the additional conversion costs of the Safeway lorries were partially offset by Powershift grants. Powershift has helped to secure more than £40 million-worth of orders to date.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport recently announced the Government's intention to support Powershift beyond its original three-year time scale. Although the detailed content of the next phase of Powershift's work has yet to be finalised, the programme will continue to support the move to gas-fuelled vehicles but will in addition explore more fully the potential environmental and energy efficiency benefits offered by other emerging technologies such as electric hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
  Under the new system of local air quality management, local authorities must put in place action plans to deal with poor air quality. As air quality tends to be poorest in urban areas, some local authorities may look to introduce low emission zones, areas in towns or cities into which only vehicles producing very low emissions would be allowed to enter. Since gas-powered vehicles are significantly cleaner than their conventionally fuelled counterparts, it is likely that they would be allowed to enter low emission zones: those zones could therefore provide a further boost for clean fuel vehicles.
  A closely related project is Alternative Traffic in Towns—or ALTER—which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched in April. Local authorities participating in that Europewide initiative will commit themselves progressively to replace their public vehicle stock with new lower emission vehicles, and to allow access to designated parts of their areas only to vehicles that meet stringent emission standards.
  The Government are aware that a number of barriers remain to the further uptake of clean fuel vehicles. Some of those barriers are inherent properties of the fuel. For instance, the tank required to store CNG is large and heavy enough to reduce a bus's capacity by one passenger, or a lorry's payload by around a tonne, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test mentioned. However, there are also other problems, and the cleaner vehicles task force has set up a working group to look at the role for alternative fuels, and the barriers hindering their wider introduction into the marketplace.
  One of industry's main concerns is the current limited refuelling infrastructure for both CNG and, to a slightly lesser extent, LPG. The situation is improving, however, in that there are more than 150 public LPG and natural gas refuelling points nationally, and more are being built on petrol station forecourts as demand for those fuels grows. In addition, the Powershift programme has targeted depot-based fleets where refuelling points can be most easily provided.

  885
  The Government have played their part in providing certainty to the alternative fuels market through their commitment to retaining the differential in duty rates between gas fuels and diesel that existed at the 1997 Budget. We must now look to industry to resolve any difficulties surrounding refuelling infrastructure. However, I am encouraged by recent announcements from fuel suppliers. For example, Shell has announced a £10 million plan to provide a nationwide network of 200 LPG sites by 2001. Other suppliers such as BP and Mobil are also scaling-up their involvement.
  The Government have shown their continuing commitment to clean fuel vehicles through fiscal incentives and by giving greater certainty to the market through initiatives such as Powershift and the cleaner
  886
  vehicles task force. I am pleased to say that some parts of industry are also playing a full and active role through the provision and use of cleaner fuel vehicles and the provision of refuelling infrastructure. However, reducing the pollution produced by road transport in the face of increasing levels of traffic is a continuing challenge, and we cannot afford to be complacent. Government and industry must continue to work together to ensure that we take full advantage of the environmental benefits afforded by cleaner fuels and vehicles.
  I will respond to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Test by ensuring that his remarks and mine are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, so that he may convey them to the other members of the cleaner vehicles task force.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62847]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department employs 3 Special Advisers, Ms Wendy Alexander, Mr. Murray Elder and Mr. David Whitton. Ms Alexander advises specifically on health, the Arts, social work, child care, housing and European affairs. Mr. Elder advises on issues relating to agriculture, the environment, forestry and fisheries, home affairs, devolution, local government and transport matters. In addition, both Ms Alexander and Mr. Elder deal with matters relating to business, industry and education. Mr. David Whitton has particular responsibility for the presentation of policy and relations with the media. Special Advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements. It is not appropriate to give details about particular individuals' level of security clearance.

  Highlands and Islands
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) landing capabilities and (b) designated sites associated with his announcement of expansion to the Highlands and Islands air ambulance service; and if he will make a statement. [63309]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The announcement concerned the recent contract awards made by the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust, which has secured the continuing provision of Patient Air Transport Services for the people of Scotland. In addition to sustaining the high quality Air Ambulance Service and Air Ambulance High Dependency Service, both of which traditionally use fixed wing aircraft, significant improvements have been made to the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service.

  The 2 new helicopters that are being commissioned into service are roomier, faster and quieter than their predecessors. Fully equipped for patient care, the aircraft are built for flying in more adverse weather conditions and in hours of darkness. Both will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with air crew supported by ambulance paramedics and technicians and will be capable of landing at any of the 226 Civil Aviation Authority approved airports, landing strips and other landing sites located across Scotland. Outwith hours of darkness helicopters can land at any site so long as it is safe to do so. I shall write to the hon. Member with a detailed list of all of these locations as soon as possible, and will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.
  418
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the forecast payment from the European Union with regard to the Highlands and Islands Objective I area for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [63152]

  Mr. Macdonald
  In 1997–98, the amounts received from the European Commission with regard to the Highlands and Islands Objective 1 area totalled £24.3 million, while the forecast receipts for 1998–99 amount to £78.9 million. These payments include those made for the purposes of the Highlands and Islands Objective 1 Programme as well as those made in pursuance of various Community Initiatives using the European Union Structural Funds. The amounts shown do not include certain payments made from the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund where separate information for the Highlands and Islands Objective 1 area could not be identified except at disproportionate cost. Nor, for the same reason, do they include any payments made by European institutions other than the European Commission.

  The amounts received from the Commission as shown do not necessarily correspond in terms of their timing either with the commitment of funds or the payment of funds to individual projects under the Objective 1 Programme or with the Community Initiatives.

  Dounreay
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Environment Protection Agency report into fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel in the Dounreay local environment will be received. [64389]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The report was submitted to my right hon. Friend by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on 10 December 1998. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library. We have noted the recommendations contained in the report. These are:The primary aim should be to restore the area affected by the fishing restrictions and any other affected areas to a clean pristine condition, and that as far as possible, within SEPA's powers, SEPA should insist that UKAEA make all practicable efforts to assist in quantifying the risks involved as a result of the irradiated nuclear fuel fragments in the environment, as a matter of priority and urgency.
  In the meantime, applying the precautionary principle, SEPA's advice to the Scottish Office is that the two kilometre fishing restrictions should remain in force.
  The public should be kept well informed and any information issued to the public should make clear the low level of risk involved by reference to comparisons with other activities.
  The ultimate aim should be to remove the restrictions as soon as possible and, to that end, greater and speedier effort should be made by the UKAEA to find and quantify the extent of contamination in the local marine environment, using the best available methodology and technology.

  Accordingly, the two kilometre fishing restrictions will remain in force. Clearly these restrictions cannot be lifted until UKAEA find and quantify the extent of contamination in the local marine environment, and this work should proceed as a matter of urgency. I have asked SEPA to ensure that there is sufficient monitoring in place to ensure that any particles finding their way to the public beach at Sandside are promptly detected and removed.

  Television Licence Fees (Non-Payment)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions arose from non-payment of television licence fees in the last year for which figures are available; if he will estimate the number of such prosecutions against women; what was the average fine for non-payment; how many people are currently in prison for non-payment, and how many of these are women; and if evidence from television detector vans or hand-held detectors has been successfully used in any such prosecutions. [62441]

  Mr. McLeish
  The available information is set out in the table. Custodial sentences for non-payment of a television licence are not available to the courts as a first disposal. Information on the method of detecting such offences is not collected centrally.

  In 1996, there were 30 fine default receptions (21 of which involved females) into Scottish penal establishments for non-payment of fines for offences committed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

  Persons proceeded against where the main offence was under the Wireless Telegraphy Act1 1949, Scotland, 1996

  Main disposal

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Persons proceeded against

  1,917

  3,817

  5,734

  Persons with a charge proved

  1,841

  3,762

  5,603

  Of which:

  Persons fined

  1,575

  3,207

  4,782

  Average fine (£)

  60

  54

  56

  Persons admonished

  251

  540

  791

  Other disposal

  15

  15

  30

  1 Most prosecutions under this Act relate to non-payment of a television licence. Where known, prosecutions for other offences under this Act have been excluded from the table

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 668, if he will take steps to seek to refer the Government of Iraq for breaches of the UN Convention on Genocide to the International Court in The Hague. [64113]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This question has been considered in the past. I will write to the hon. Member on the subject. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 668, what action he has taken in support of the INDICT campaign to date. [64110]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have fully supported the INDICT campaign since its launch in the House last year. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message to INDICT' s press conference earlier this month reconfirming that support. Foreign Office officials keep in regular contact with the INDICT campaign and offer advice and support where needed.
  420
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 668, if he will take action to indict Tariq Aziz, the Foreign Secretary of Iraq, for war crimes. [64111]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As the hon. Member will be aware, the INDICT campaign is calling for charges to be brought against key members of Saddam Hussein's regime, including his Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. HMG fully supports the INDICT campaign as it works toward the day when such people can be brought to book for their crimes.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the written advice his Department gave to British companies considering contracts in Chechnya. [64168]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 402.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) guidance, (b) advice and (c) assistance was (i) offered to and (ii) requested by the Chechen authorities in connection with the search for the four hostages. [64167]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  During the 15-month captivity in Chechnya of Camilla Carr and Jon James, and the subsequent tragic kidnap of Rudolf Petschi, Peter Kennedy, Darren Hickey and Stanley Shaw, the FCO, HM Embassy Moscow and the Metropolitan Police corresponded with and held meetings with the Chechen authorities outside Chechnya to discuss the two cases. Some of these contacts followed requests for assistance from the Chechen authorities, but most were at our request. We provided some non-lethal police equipment to the Chechen investigating authorities, to assist them. At the last such meeting, with Chechen Deputy Prime Minister Atgeriev in London on 26 October, we emphasised the need to avoid endangering the four men's lives. Atgeriev agreed that the safety of the hostages was paramount. He confirmed that the equipment provided by the UK had been of assistance to his staff.

  Chile (Airbus Sale)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the number of hours spent by the Commercial Attaché in the British Embassy, Santiago, Chile since 1 May 1997 in assisting the sale of Airbus aircraft to LAN Chile. [64025]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Airbus Industrie has sought no help from the British Embassy in Santiago with the sale of Airbus to Lan Chile.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he intends to set next year's television
  421
  licence fee at the level indicated by the five-year formula announced by the previous Government; and if he will make a statement about future licence fee levels. [64272]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On 11 December 1998,Official Report, column 636, the Government announced their intention, after careful consideration, to retain the television licence fee formula for the five years from April 1997 introduced by the previous Government. The formula, based on a report by independent consultants, Braxton Associates, is based on an assessment of the BBC's financial needs and the potential for improved efficiency and the development of alternative sources of revenue. It is designed to allow the BBC to plan its business properly for the period as a whole.

  Under the formula, licence fee increases for the five-year period as a whole are set just below inflation as measured by the Retail Prices Index (RPI). However, the increases from 1 April 1999 are set at RPI plus 0.5 per cent., reflecting primarily the additional costs faced by the BBC in launching its new digital services. The formula provides for changes in the licence fee of RPI minus 1 per cent. and RPI minus 2.5 per cent. in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively.

  Application of the RPI figure of 3.2 per cent. for the year to September 1998, plus 0.5 per cent., to the current unrounded licence fees produces new rounded totals of £101.00 for a colour licence and £33.50 for a black and white licence. The necessary regulations to bring these fees into force will be laid before the House in due course.

  Radio Authority
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff at the Radio Authority have been(a) suspended and (b) subsequently dismissed since July; and for what reasons. [63437]

  Janet Anderson
  I understand that one member of the Radio Authority staff is currently suspended pending the outcome of current police investigations. The Authority has not dismissed any staff since July.

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures are in place to monitor the conduct of those staff at the Radio Authority who award broadcast licences to local radio stations and monitor their compliance with the conditions of the licence. [63436]

  Janet Anderson
  The Radio Authority is a statutory public corporation independent of Government and my Department has no supervisory role in its day-to-day activities. It is the members of the Radio Authority, not its staff, who award broadcast licences for independent local radio. Members are bound by the Authority's detailed code of best practice, a copy of which I have placed in the Libraries of the House. The Authority's members supervise and monitor the Authority's staff, who in turn are bound by the Authority's staff rules and regulations.

  Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates his Department has made of the percentage of viewers which will be able to obtain access to independent television and digital terrestrial services(a) in England and (b) in Wales. [63398]
  422
  Janet Anderson
  The BBC and Independent Television Commission are responsible for transmission arrangements for terrestrial television services in the UK. They estimate that analogue terrestrial television services reach 99.4 per cent. of the UK population and 98.3 per cent. of the population of Wales. The BBC and ITC estimate that the launch phase of digital terrestrial television will deliver services to around 90 per cent. of the UK population, and 70 per cent. in Wales, by the end of 1999. Coverage of each of the six multiplexes will vary and in some cases will be less. The BBC and ITC have jointly produced a CD-Rom containing coverage predictions for each multiplex for each transmitter site. Copies of the CD-Rom have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62843]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  There are currently two special advisers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, John Newbiggin and Andy Burnham. The work is divided between the two as appropriate but covers the full range of issues for which I am responsible. Special advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements.

  British Library
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what were the(a) total building costs and (b) fitting out costs when the new British Library was handed over to its new head; and what additional costs have been incurred in respect of (a) and (b) since that date. [63363]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The new British Library building was legally transferred to the British Library Board on 1 July 1997. By that date the Department had spent an estimated (a) £470.1 million on building costs, which included construction of the building, project management and professional services; and (b) £28.3 million on fitting out costs which included such items as office and reading room furniture, carpets and book shelving. The equivalent figures at 8 December 1998 stood at (a) £476.4 million and (b) £28.5 million.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the fees paid to date to lawyers and consultants for advice or litigation concerning the British Library. [63364]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The fees paid for professional services by lawyers and consultants on the project over the past 16 years, to 8 December 1998, were £71.6 million. This is broken down as follows: architectural services, structural design and quantity surveying (£47.6 million); mechanical and electrical engineering design and advice (£19.7 million); and commercial claims management, legal advice and legal costs (£4.3 million).
  423
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the average(a) number of books delivered per reader and (b) waiting time for the automated book delivery system in each month since the new British Library opened. [63369]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: (a) The average number of items delivered per reader is as follows:

  Average number of items delivered per reader

  December 1997

  3

  January 1998

  3

  February 1998

  3

  March 1998

  3

  April 1998

  3

  May 1998

  3

  June 1998

  3

  July 1998

  3

  August 1998

  3

  September 1998

  3

  October 1998

  3.5

  (b) Book delivery performance data are recorded by the percentage of items delivered against benchmarks measured in minutes. The methodology does not lend itself to calculation of average delivery times. In the period during which three of the main reading rooms (Humanities 1 and 2, and the Rare Books and Music Reading Room) have all been open, the percentage of books delivered within an hour of request was as follows:

  Percentage of items delivered within sixty minutes

  March 1998

  55

  April 1998

  47

  May 1998

  47

  June 1998

  38

  July 1998

  47

  August 1998

  42

  September 1998

  54

  October 1998

  64

  Task Forces and Review Bodies
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many task forces and review bodies are currently in place in his Department; if he will list them; and when they will be reporting their conclusions. [63502]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: My Department has 4 task forces and review bodies. These are listed with their reporting timetables.

  1. The Film Policy Action Committee
  The Committee was set up to take forward the recommendations of the Film Policy Review, which reported in March 1998. The Committee is due to complete its work by April 1999.

  2. The Creative Industries Taskforce
  The results of the mapping exercise it instigated were published in November 1998. The Task Force are currently in the process of formulating their forward work programme.

  3. The Football Taskforce
  The Taskforce has reported to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport on:

  a. Eliminating Racism from Football—30 March 1998;

  b. Improving Facilities for Disabled Supporters—29 July 1998.

  424
  The Taskforce's report on "Players as role models" is expected by the end of the year and the report on the "Commercial aspects of the game" is expected early in the near year.

  4. Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art
  The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art produces an annual report, addressed to the Secretary of State which is presented to Parliament. The most recent publication is the forty-fourth report, covering the period 1 July 1997–30 June 1998, which was published by the Stationery Office (Cm 4056) in October 1998. The forty-fifth report (1 July 1998–30 June 1999) will be published in October 1999.

  Tourism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives are planned by his Department to assist local authorities to develop tourism policies; and if he will make a statement. [63821]

  Janet Anderson
  Our new tourism strategy, to be published early in 1999, will set out the strategic direction needed to ensure tourism growth that this economically, environmentally and socially sustainable. The strategy highlights the ways in which regional and local tourism strategies can help to increase tourism's benefit to local communities.

  In recognition of the economic and social importance of cultural services to local communities, local authorities are also being encouraged to develop Local Cultural Strategies covering the full range of cultural services they offer, including tourism.

  Tourist Guides
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what market research on tourist guides has been undertaken(a) for and (b) by the English Tourist Board in the past three years. [63681]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: No dedicated research on tourist guides has been undertaken for or by the English Tourist Board in the last three years.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list (i) the total provisional standard spending assessments for 1999–2000 for(a) Buckinghamshire County Council, (b) Aylesbury Vale District Council, (c) Chiltern District Council, (d) South Buckinghamshire District Council, (e) Wycombe District Council, (f) Milton Keynes Borough Council and (g) Thames Valley Police, indicating the amounts for each major service block within each authority and (ii) the amount of the SSAs as they would have been if calculated by the same formula as in 1998–99. [64169]

  Ms Armstrong
  The figures are given in the table. Table A shows the 1999–2000 provisional SSAs. Table B shows what the SSAs would have been if calculated by the same formula as in 1998–99, but using data and national control totals for 1999–2000.
  425

  Table A: 1999–2000 Provisional SSA

  £ million

  SSAs

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  Chiltern

  South Bucks

  Wycombe

  Milton Keynes

  Thames Valley Police

  Total

  312.891

  13.148

  6.948

  5.232

  13.445

  167.481

  111.927

  Education

  193.629

  —

  —

  —

  —

  92.715

  —

  Personal Social Services

  54.624

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26.411

  —

  Police

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  110.569

  Fire

  11.062

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.782

  —

  Highway Maintenance

  17.664

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.889

  —

  Environmental Protective and Cultural

  21.056

  13.467

  7.110

  5.366

  13.616

  30.230

  —

  Capital Financing

  14.856

  -0.319

  -0.162

  -0.133

  -0.170

  6.543

  1.358

  Table B: SSA using date and control total for 1999–2000

  £ million

  SSAs

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  Chiltern

  South Bucks

  Wycombe

  Milton Keynes

  Thames Valley Police

  Total

  315.638

  13.287

  7.041

  5.279

  13.632

  167.369

  111.992

  Education

  194.563

  —

  —

  —

  —

  93.177

  —

  Personal Social Services

  56.216

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26.021

  —

  Police

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  110.685

  Fire

  11.115

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.800

  —

  Highway Maintenance

  17.749

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.926

  —

  Environmental Protective and Cultural

  21.505

  13.525

  7.143

  5.385

  13.675

  30.251

  —

  Capital Financing

  14.488

  -0.238

  -0.101

  -0.106

  -0.042

  6.194

  1.306

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the impact of the inclusion of sparsity factors into standard spending assessments for each shire county(a) in total amounts and (b) as a percentage change. [63391]

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority the increase in standard spending assessment(a) for education, (b) for social services and (c) in total included in the 1999–2000 local government revenue finance settlement. [64200]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for 1999–2000 the proposed percentage gains and losses to standard spending assessments for each district council arising from their enhanced population figures, ranked and numbered in descending order. [63181]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested has been placed in the Library, together with a similar table for education authorities.

  The calculations have been made by re-estimating the underlying statistical formulae using resident population instead of enhanced population. If such a change in the formula were being contemplated, several other components of the formula would need to be re-examined if its statistical validity was to be maintained.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for 1999–2000 the(a) proposed external funding included in education SSAs, (b) total proposed funding from other grants to LEAs and (c) combined amounts for (a) and (b) as sums per head of pupils in (i) shire counties,
  426
  (ii) unitary authorities, (iii) Metropolitan authorities and (iv) London authorities ranked and numbered in descending order. [63427]

  Ms Armstrong
  The main sources of external funding of local authorities are Revenue Support Grant and a share of National Non-Domestic Rates. The amount of these for each local authority is shown in the tables which have been placed in the Library. No distinct amount of Revenue Support Grant or National Non-Domestic Rates is allocated specifically to education. The amount of other grants relating to education proposed for each local education authority will be announced in due course by the Department for Education and Employment.

  Inner Thames Marshes
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what English Partnerships has spent on feasibility studies, investigations and the preparation of planning applications for the proposed development in the Inner Thames Marshes SSSI at Havering Riverside, Rainham Marsh; [62882]

  (2) if he will list the feasibility studies and investigations carried out by or funded by English Partnerships and those in which English Partnerships has had involvement with regard to the proposed development in the Inner Thames Marshes SSSI at Havering Riverside, Rainham Marsh; [62881]

  (3) what plans English Partnerships has to provide financial support to attract development in the Inner Thames Marshes SSSI at Havering Riverside, Rainham Marsh. [62883]

  Mr. Caborn
  When English Partnerships was formed in 1993 it inherited, acting as Agent for the Secretary of State, a commitment to pay Derelict Land Grant to the
  427
  London Borough of Havering worth £156,700 for the preparation of site investigation reports. In 1996, English Partnerships increased this grant to a total of £180,000. In addition, the Agency has paid £149,506 towards the costs of environmental site investigations by LB Havering and amassing supporting evidence for the planning application and has spent a further £20,159 for an assessment of investment demand for the Havering Riverside site.

  If planning consent is approved, an application for gap funding may be made to English Partnerships to cover the abnormal costs of developing the Havering Riverside site.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62805]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the information requested for those task forces, review panels and advisory groups set up by my Department since 1 May 1997 and still in existence. The list uses the same definitions as in my answer to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 30 July 1998,Official Report, columns 430–32.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate(a) the number of one and two person households which would benefit from water metering and (b) the amounts of saving forgone by them in each of the past two years, for the current year and for next year, distinguishing between (i) pensioner households and (ii) households including a person on income support or housing benefit. [63242]

  Mr. Meale
  The following estimates are taken from the report "Incidence Effects of Charging for Domestic Water and Sewerage Services" published by my Department in July 1998. This reported the results of modelling work undertaken on behalf of the Department by Maxwell Stamp Plc. Estimates were produced as percentages rather than numbers in groups.

  (a) Under the current tariffs of water undertakers, 66 per cent. of single person households, 31 per cent. of couples with no children nad 38 per cent. of single parents with one child would pay less on a measured than an unmeasured basis. No breakdown has been made of these categories into pensioners and persons on income support or benefit. However, 55 per cent. of all pensioner households and 47 per cent. of all households in which one member was in receipt of income-related benefit would pay less on a measured than an unmeasured basis. These estimates assume no consequent reduction in consumption or tariff rebalancing.

  Under a move to a measured basis without standing charge, those gaining would be as follows: 79 per cent. of single person households, 32 per cent. of couples with no children, 43 per cent. of single parents with one child,
  428
  63 per cent. of all pensioner households and 54 per cent. of all households in which one member was in receipt of income-related benefit.

  (b) Savings figures have not been separately estimated for past or future years. Under current tariffs the distribution of savings for these groups would be as in the following table:

  Percentages

  Annual Gain

  £0–50

  £50–100

  More than £100

  Single adults

  32

  21

  13

  Couples with no children

  18

  7

  6

  Single parents with one child

  20

  9

  9

  Pensioner households

  29

  16

  10

  Households with a recipient of income-related benefits

  25

  13

  9

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to require water supply companies to notify customers of the likely range of metered water charges. [63243]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government's view is that water undertakers should ensure that all their customers are made fully aware of all the charging options open to them without favouring one solution over another.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to require water supply companies to install meters without charge by December 1999 to one and two person households including a person on income support or housing benefit. [63245]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government's policy, reflected in the Water Industry Bill, is that domestic consumers presently charged on an unmeasured basis should have the option of requesting a measured basis of charging. However, no household should be compulsorily transferred to a measured basis of charging where they are using water only for essential household use.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to allow landlords of short-term tenants to deny them the benefit of metered charges for water. [63244]

  Mr. Meale
  Under the present provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991, neither tenants nor any other consumers have a legal right to be charged for water on a measured basis, although water undertakers have powers to install meters and to charge any customer on a measured basis.

  We propose that domestic water customers should have the right to move to a measured basis of charging for water, free of any initial costs for meter installation. Consumers benefiting from this right would include tenants who pay their own water charges. The Water Industry Bill provides that any contrary provision of any tenancy agreement which might otherwise prevent the installation of a meter is not to block the exercise of this right by tenants. However, the right would not be afforded to tenants on fixed term tenancies of less than six months. It is the Government's view that such tenants do not have

  429
  a sufficiently long term interest in the basis of charging for water to warrant over-riding any provision in the tenancy agreement.

  Marine Targets Sub-group
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the members of the Marine Targets Sub-group. [63237]

  Mr. Meale
  The members of the Marine Targets Sub-group are:

  Dr. Duncan Shaw, Liverpool University, Chairman

  Dr. John Baxter, Scottish Natural Heritage

  Joan Edwards, Wildlife Trusts

  Dr. Susan Gubbay, Independent Consultant

  Dr. Tim Hill, English Nature

  Dr. Stephen Lockwood, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture (CEFAS)

  Elspeth MacDonald, Fisheries Research Services, Scottish Office

  Dr. Mandy McMath, Countryside Council for Wales.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the forecast payment from the European Union with regard to the Merseyside Objective 1 area for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [63153]

  Mr. Meale
  The payment from the European Union was, for 1997–98, £63.672 million and the forecast payment for 1998–99 was £53.457 million.

  The Objective 1 Programme on Merseyside is now close to full commitment and while spend on ERDF, in particular, has been slower than expected this will increase substantially as the Programme draws to a close.

  Gatwick Airport
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in which year noise limits were first placed on individual aircraft taking off from Gatwick Airport; and when he expects these limits to be reduced. [63453]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Noise limits on aircraft taking off from Gatwick have applied since 1968. On 24 November 1997 we published a consultation paper proposing lower daytime and night-time noise limits for aircraft departing from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and more efficient noise monitoring arrangements. In February 1998 the International Air Transport Association (IATA) submitted an application for leave to apply for judicial review of that consultation paper. The Department subsequently undertook to publish a supplementary consultation paper and IATA withdrew its application for leave to apply for judicial review. We hope to issue the supplementary paper early in the new year. The consultation period will remain open until eight weeks after the supplementary paper is issued. As indicated in the November 1997 consultation paper, if possible the Secretary of State will aim to announce his decision within 3 months of this deadline.430
  If the decision is to implement the proposals as set out, or with only relatively minor alterations, the Secretary of State would seek to bring them into effect within not less than 2, and not more than 3, months of the date of the announcement. Comments have been invited on these timescales as well as on the proposals.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of(a) the passenger throughput of the Manchester second runway by 2008 and (b) the increase in passenger throughput at Gatwick airport up to 2008. [63458]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department publishes national traffic forecasts, the most recent being for the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. These forecasts split traffic between the London area and the other United Kingdom airports but the Department does not produce forecasts for individual airports. Manchester Airport has not published detailed forecasts for the period beyond 2005, but I understand that the airport company expects passenger throughput to exceed 30 million by 2008. the standard operating procedure will be for arriving aircraft to use the existing runway and for departing aircraft to use the second runway. BAA's most recent 10 year forecasts for its London airports, published in October, include 39.2 million passengers at Gatwick Airport in 2007–08 and 40.0 million in 2008–09.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the NATS system at Swanwick to be assessed as fit for purpose. [63605]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are a number of steps to progressively assess the Swanwick system's fitness for purpose. The Technical Transfer, which represents the confirmation that the system is technically ready for operation, is expected in late 2000. NATS will also have to demonstrate the safety of the system to the CAA's Safety Regulation Group before the system can come into operation.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to ensure that all letters from his Department and its agencies use the titles of addressees; and if he will make a statement. [63460]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department seeks to ensure that all correspondence is correctly addressed to recipients, and includes titles where appropriate.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has made to determine the proportion of private road and freight journeys which could be achieved on an equal basis by public transport. [63357]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Studies of the potential for modal shift are usually carried out to inform decisions on investment in major public transport projects and to
  431
  monitor the effects. Examples of these and other recent studies carried out by the Department or in which it has been involved include:

  The M1/A1 (M) Corridor Road/Rail Cross Elasticity Study (May 1994)

  Manchester Metrolink Monitoring Study (December 1996)

  Sheffield Supertram Monitoring Study (expected 1999)

  The Trans-Pennine Rail Strategy Study (January 1992)

  Impact of Transport Policies in Five Cities (November 1994).

  In relation to the potential for shifting freight journeys from road to rail, the Office of the Rail Regulator commissioned the following study:
  "The Potential for Rail Freight: A report to the Office of the Rail Regulator" (September 1997).

  In addition, the environmental benefits of reducing lorry journeys are taken into account in assessing applications for freight grants.

  Departmental Staff (Kandola Report)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the report by Pearn Kandola in relation to discrimination in his Department on grounds of(a) race and (b) gender; [63351]

  (2) what factors underlay the commissioning of a review of his Department's staff appraisal system by Pearn Kandola; [63354]

  (3) what were the findings of the report commissioned by his Department into his Department's staff appraisal system, undertaken by Pearn Kandola; [63337]

  (4) if the report by Pearn Kandola into his Department's staff appraisal system identified the causes of the statistically significant differences in performance marking between ethnic minorities and whites; [63349]

  (5) what advice he has received from officials on the compliance of departmental staff appraisal systems with requirements to be non-discriminatory; [63353]

  (6) if the report by Pearn Kandola into his Department's staff appraisal system identified the causes of the statistically significant differences in performance marking between men and women in certain grades; [63350]

  (7) what was the cost of the study of his Department's staff appraisal system by Pearn Kandola; [63355]

  (8) if he will make a statement on staff concerns relating to racial discrimination contained in the Pearn Kandola report into his Department's staff appraisal system; [63348]

  (9) if he will publish the report by Pearn Kandola into his Department's staff appraisal system; [63352]

  (10) what action he is taking on the findings of the study by Pearn Kandola into his Department's staff appraisal system. [63356]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is committed to equality of opportunity. All DETR staff have a right to fair treatment throughout their careers regardless of race, ethnic or national origin, age, religion, gender, marital status, disability or sexual orientation.
  432
  As part of our commitment to equality of opportunity, my Department monitors and compares the annual performance and promotability of its staff by gender, ethnicity, disability and part/full-time working. When the analysis of performance reports for staff in the central Department for the year to 31 March 1998 was carried out, a number of statistically significant differences were identified in relation to gender, ethnic and other groups: the performance marks for women were significantly higher than those for men in administrative grades, and white staff received higher marks than ethnic minority staff at Executive Officer and Personal Secretary level.

  In the light of these findings, Pearn Kandola, a firm of occupational psychologists, were appointed to carry out an independent study of the appraisal system.

  The Pearn Kandola report was completed in the first week of December. It concluded that overall, from the evidence looked at, the appraisal system on balance appeared to be fair. The specific cause or causes of the differences in report markings could not be identified. The report made a number of recommendations on how the system could be improved which the Department will be acting on.

  The cost of the study was £32,000.

  I have placed copies of the full report in the House of Commons Library.

  The issues raised by the report are currently under consideration.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which UK-wide or Britain-wide programmes will be the responsibility of his Department after the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament; and what is the forecast level of expenditure on such programmes in 1998–99.[63481]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government of Wales Act 1998 provided for a Transfer of Functions Order to be made to transfer Ministerial functions to the National Assembly for Wales. The order was published in draft for public consultation on 12 November 1998. Work is continuing within Government to finalise the text of the Order and until work is completed, it is not possible to state with certainty what functions will transfer to the Welsh Assembly. Similarly, the functions which will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, depend in part on secondary legislation which has yet to be passed. My Department is reviewing its programmes to establish whether any programme expenditure relates to the functions which are being devolved and to assess the need for any consequential transfer of funds to the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament.

  Detrunked Roads
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is in respect of the maintenance of detrunked roads, where that maintenance is currently subject to a DBFO agreement. [63557]
  433
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The A30/35 Exeter to Bere Regis project is the only DBFO project affected by detrunking proposals. The Highways Agency will discuss the implications of detrunking this road with all the interested parties, to ensure that it continues to be maintained to proper standards.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what formula he will apply to determine the funding to be transferred to highway authorities in respect of detrunked roads. [63383]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made it clear that there will be a fair re-allocation of resources to reflect the financial responsibilities which local authorities will assume when roads are actually detrunked. The arrangements for achieving this objective are currently the subject of consultation with the Local Government Association.

  Emission Targets (Kyoto)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made in achieving the CO, reduction targets agreed at Kyoto for the United Kingdom. [63614]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 14 December 19981: On 26 October 1998, the Government published a consultation paper on climate change. The paper describes progress to date in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the UK and sets out a variety of policy options for meeting our climate change targets. It covers both the UK's legally binding target from Kyoto of a 12.5 per cent. reduction in a basket of six greenhouse gases by 2008–2012 and our domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. Following the consultation period, we will develop and consult on a new UK climate change programme.

  Action has already been taken to reduce the UK's emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, the Government have introduced their integrated transport policy; we have increased the fuel duty escalator to an average of 6 per cent. above inflation per year; the European car industry has negotiated a voluntary agreement to reduce emissions of CO, from new cars by an average of 25 per cent.; Lord Marshall has reported on the scope for using economic instruments to improve business's use of energy; we have launched a review of what would be necessary and practicable to deliver 10 per cent. of electricity demand from renewable sources by 2010; and we have increased resources for energy efficiency.

  Rolling Stock Companies (Safety Compliance)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 115, concerning rolling stock companies, what responsibility the ROSCOs have to comply with the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive. [63413]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCOs) have a responsibility to comply with the requirements relating to them under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  434
  and its statutory provisions. The Health and Safety Executive monitors and enforces compliance with these requirements.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 115, concerning rolling stock companies, what responsibility the Franchising Director has to the franchisee if the HSE's requirements in respect of rolling stock change during the life of a franchise. [63412]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Under the terms of the Franchise Agreement there are arrangements in place for the Franchising Director to meet up to 95 per cent. of the costs falling on a train operating company for modification to rolling stock which is required to be made under any applicable law, any Government authority or any directives from Railtrack relating to safety. These directives could relate to Acts of Parliament and/or directives originating from Railway Group Standards. Railway Group Standards are rules, regulations, instructions and procedures which are produced as mandatory operational and engineering standards and all relate to safety aspects of the operation of railways and are set and enforced by Railtrack.

  New Housing Development
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to issue guidance on a sequential approach to selecting locations for new housing development and sites. [64151]

  Mr. Caborn
  Guidance on the approach to the selection of locations and sites for housing will be included in the draft new planning policy guidance note on housing (PPG3) which will be issued early next year.

  A14
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what change in traffic levels on the A14 in Cambridgeshire is predicted as a result of the opening of the A1(M) south of Peterborough. [63534]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The upgrading of the Al to motorway status between Alconbury and Peterborough is not expected to result in any increase in traffic levels over and above that due to general growth in traffic on the A14.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63870]

  Mr. Meale
  The over-riding principle of Civil Service recruitment procedures is that they should be fair, and selection should be on merit at each stage. Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin rather than nationality. The categories monitored by my Department are based on those used in the 1991 census, which did not include an Irish category. The categories will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Road Traffic Targets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the representations he has received which opposed the setting of specific targets to reduce road traffic volumes. [63384]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department does not maintain a detailed central record of the views expressed on particular issues in all written and oral representations made to the Secretary of State. A comprehensive answer to the hon. Member's question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  We have, however, extracted the following information on opposition to national road traffic reduction targets from our database of the responses to the Government's August 1997 consultation on developing an integrated transport policy. (A summary report on those responses was published in July 1998). Five respondents indicated that they did not support national road traffic reduction targets. Of these, one was a member of the public and the remaining four were:

  Ford Motor Company Ltd.

  The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.

  Environmental Transport Association

  Civil Engineering Contractors Association.

  Copies of all the written responses, except those where confidentiality was requested, are available for inspection by arrangement at the Department's library at Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SWIE 6RB.

  Aircraft Emissions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's target for percentage reduction in emissions from aircraft; and what proportion of the Government's planned 20 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions this constitutes. [63641]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are currently consulting on options to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases and meet their climate change targets. Our consultation paper looks at a wide range of options. It does not propose targets for particular sectors. Our aim is to develop a balanced climate change programme where all sectors play a part.

  Only the emissions from domestic flights, beginning and ending within the UK, are included in our national inventory. These account for around 11 per cent. of total emissions from UK originating air traffic. The UK is working within the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which was given the responsibility under the Kyoto Protocol, on ways of reducing emissions from international aviation.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that improvements carried out to stations on behalf of, and at the expense of, train operating companies are not subject to excessive charges by Railtrack. [63631]
  436
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Rail Regulator is responsible for setting the access charges which meet Railtrack's costs of maintaining and repairing station infrastructure. The Regulator is presently reviewing all Railtrack's access charges and is required to publish his final conclusions by July 2000. In addition, the Regulator's approval is required for any changes to station access charges which Railtrack may agree with a train operator as a result of investment in station improvements. On 5 December, the Regulator issued guidelines to the industry designed to ensure that any such changes to meet Railtrack's additional costs from enhancing station facilities are justified and calculated in a fair, consistent and transparent manner.

  Aviation Fuel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) discussions and (b) studies his Department is supporting in respect of the taxation of aviation fuel; and if he will make a statement. [63642]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The UK supported the Community Resolution of 9 June 1997 which asked the European Commission to study the environmental and economic effects in Europe of a tax on aviation fuel. The study report is expected early next year.

  The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) agreed a work programme for its Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection in October this year. This includes the need to identify and evaluate the role which a range of market based options, including fuel taxes, might play in reducing aviation emissions. My Department will continue to play a leading role in this work programme which must be completed before the next ICAO Assembly in 2001.

  British Rail
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 36, what the reasons were for the size of the increase in the external finance requirement for the British Railways Board between 1996–97 and 1997–98. [63905]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The increase in the British Railways Board's external finance requirement between 1996–97 and 1997–98 reflects the combined effects of large changes in the Board's finances. In particular, as a result of privatisation, the Board's turnover fell from £3,397 million in 1996–97 including grants of £1,507 million, to just £231 million in 1997–98 including grants of £51 million.

  A26 and A27
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce safety improvements to(a) the A26 Beddingham-Newhaven and (b) the A27 Lewes-Polegate. [63558]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highways Agency has introduced a number of safety improvements on the A26
  437
  between Beddingham and Newhaven and the A27 between Lewes and Polegate respectively and has plans to introduce more. These are:

  (a) A26 Beddingham to Newhaven
  South Downs Way Crossing—a study is underway with a view to providing a signal controlled pedestrian/cycle/equestrian crossing.
  Beddingham Warning Sign—'Queues Likely' sign is about to be erected to the south of Beddingham roundabout.
  Itford Farm Layby—study is in progress with a view to providing a layby in the vicinity of the South Downs Way.
  Resurfacing—the skidding resistance of most of the carriageway from north of the Beddingham landfill sites to the Tarring Neville junction is programmed to increased early in the new year.

  (b) A27 Lewes to Polegate
  Lewes—Polegate—a study of the double white lining system has currently been completed and improvements are due to be implemented shortly.
  Willington Cross Road—a scheme to provide a right turn facility is being prepared and subject to land acquisition, is expected to be implemented in the next financial year. If SUSTRANS opts for National Cycle Route at this point on the trunk road the scheme will include a light controlled 'Toucan' pedestrian crossing.
  Aberdale Road, Polegate, Cycle Crossing—a SUSTRANS sponsored National Cycle Route Crossing of the trunk Road involving the provision of a light-controlled 'Toucan' pedestrian crossing is programmed in the current financial year.
  Southerham to Ranscombe Lane Cycle Route—a scheme is in preparation and is expected to be implemented during the next financial year.
  Beddingham Footways—a study is in hand to establish the provision of footways between laybys on either side of the railway level crossing and crossings telephones.
  A22 Junction (South)—consideration is being given to upgrading the traffic signals at this busy junction and to linking them with the A22 Wannock Road signals.
  Firle Cycle Track—a study is underway with a view to providing a cycle track between the Glynde junction and Middle farm, programmed for this financial year.
  Southerham Roundabout—a study is in hand to provide dedicated lanes at this very busy junction.
  Sameston—a lower speed limit is planned for early in the new year and crash protection for 'Corner Cottage' is currently being designed.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of(a) staffing reductions and (b) dividend payments by Rai1track on the performance of its rail safety responsibilities. [63645]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994, reductions in staffing levels would require amendment to a Railway Safety Case where this might affect safety. The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate monitors compliance with the Regulations and will take whatever action it considers appropriate to ensure safety is not compromised.

  Dividend payments are a commercial matter for Railtrack's Board of Directors.

  Members Car Parking Charges
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for introducing car parking charges for hon. Members within the parliamentary estate; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the financial incentives of the scheme. [63632]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Greater London Authority Bill will enable London's elected Mayor to levy a charge on non-residential workplace parking. Alternatively the London Borough of Westminster will be able to introduce a levy within its boundary, subject to the agreement of the Mayor. The Bill provides that, if any scheme is brought forward in the Westminster area, it will be able to apply to the parliamentary estate. The charge would be payable by the Corporate Officer of the House. Whether or not to pass the charge on to individual Members would be for the House itself to determine.

  Railways (Carnet Tickets)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of the issuing of carnet tickets by train operating companies. [63644]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's White Paper on the Future of Transport (Cm 3950) made it clear that we consider that carnets are a desirable alternative to season tickets. They would be a particular benefit to part-time workers as well as occasional travellers and we wish to encourage all rail (and indeed other transport) operators to offer them as part of their ticketing range. The current arrangements for fares are a consequence of legally binding franchise agreements inherited from the previous Government. When opportunities arise for negotiating franchises, the structure and marketing of fares is one of the areas in which the new Strategic Rail Authority will look for improvements.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on his proposals with regard to local transport plans. [63555]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's proposals for local transport plans were announced in the White Paper on the future of transport "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". We have received numerous representations following the White Paper, many of which have included consideration of local transport plans. These helped inform our draft guidance for local authorities on local transport plans, which was published for consultation on 12 November. The consultation period ends on 8 January 1999.

  Local Agenda 21
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities on the Local Agenda 21 environmental strategies. [63554]

  Mr. Meale
  We receive representations on a range of matters relating to sustainable development, including from local authorities on Local Agenda 21 strategies.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make it his policy to exclude pesticides used in horticulture from the proposed environmental tax on pesticides; and if he will make a statement; [64031]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the price elasticity of demand for different types of pesticides during his consideration of the proposed environmental tax on pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [64032]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have not made a proposal for a pesticide tax. However, my Department has commissioned extensive research into the scope for a pesticide tax or charge, including sectoral usage, consideration of price elasticities of demand for different pesticides, and the impact on users, manufacturers and suppliers. The Government will take this work fully into account in reaching a decision on whether to introduce such an instrument.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedules)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the offices or agencies under his control which will be subject to L.2 of Head L in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998; how many people are currently employed in these offices; and what equal opportunities practices are adopted in these offices. [63806]

  Mr. Meale
  I will write to the hon. Member with this information, and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Northern Line
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what extra funds his Department has given to London Underground since August 1998 for the provision of the new trains on the Northern Line. [64112]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department does not provide funds specifically for the new Northern Line trains. However, when making decisions on the overall level of funding for London Transport, the Government take into account the payments which London Transport are required to pay to PFI contractors. This includes the deal with ALSTOM for the new Northern Line trains.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the number of train cancellations and (b) the punctuality performance on Northern Line services for each day since 1 November. [64105]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available in the form requested. London Underground measure their performance against a series of Key Performance Indicators and data on performance are collected for weekdays only and presented for each 4-week period.

  In the period from 9 November to 4 December, a total of 406 trains were cancelled at weekday morning and evening peak times out of a total number of 3,360 scheduled trains. This means that 87.9 per cent. of scheduled trains were in service during the period compared with the target of 98.3 per cent.
  440
  London Underground base their punctuality measure on whether the scheduled time interval between trains—the 'headway'—was achieved. This is expressed as a percentage of the total number of headways during weekdays. The following table sets out the latest data available from London Underground and covers the period from 2 November to Friday 4 December (inclusive).

  Date

  Percentage of headways achieved

  2 November

  89.3

  3 November

  91.2

  4 November

  90.5

  5 November

  85.1

  6 November

  88.4

  9 November

  85.0

  10 November

  85.4

  11 November

  88.5

  12 November

  89.3

  13 November

  92.4

  16 November

  91.7

  17 November

  88.4

  18 November

  88.2

  19 November

  88.6

  20 November

  88.8

  23 November

  90.2

  24 November

  92.5

  25 November

  91.9

  26 November

  89.3

  27 November

  91.0

  30 November

  83.7

  1 December

  86.5

  2 December

  79.5

  3 December

  89.6

  4 December

  84.9

  Target

  94.4

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints his Department has received concerning the service on the Northern Line since 1 September. [64106]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since 1 September the Department has received 26 letters relating wholly or mainly to the poor service on the Northern Line. Establishing the total number of letters which refer to poor performance on the Northern Line could be done only at disproportionate cost, because letters are often wide-ranging and only the main issue raised is logged.

  Building Regulations (Control Charges)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on devolving the setting of Building Regulations control charges to individual local authorities in England and Wales. [64386]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A consultation paper on draft regulations to devolve the setting of Building Regulations control charges to individual local authorities in England and Wales with building control functions, was published in June this year. Having considered the responses I announced my decision on 31 July to proceed to lay regulations with a coming into force date of 1 April next year. I have today laid those regulations before Parliament. They are entitled "The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 1998".
  441
  An essential part of operating this new system of charging will be the making of a Scheme by each local authority responsible for building control in order to fix those charges and administer the charging process. The Department is therefore publishing a Circular whose primary purpose is to give guidance to local authorities on how to produce a Scheme. This will be available shortly.

  Somerset Levels (Water Management)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has given to the Environment Agency concerning the implications for the management of water levels on the Somerset Levels of(a) the EU Birds Directive, (b) the EU Habitats Directive, (c) the Water Resources Act 1991 and (d) the Land Drainage Acts. [63394]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Environment Agency is the principal flood defence operating authority and, in exercising those functions, is subject to the conservation duties placed on it by sections 7 and 8 of the Environment Act 1995. The Agency is required to have regard to the Habitats and Birds Directives in exercising its functions, as it is a "competent authority" under the terms of the Habitats Directive. It is also required to make an appropriate assessment of the impact before approving any plans or projects which, on their own or in combination with other plans or projects, may affect a European site. The Ministry and Welsh Office have issued a Code of Practice on Environmental Procedures for Flood Defence Operating Authorities which includes specific guidance on the responsibilities of the Agency and the other operating authorities under the Habitats and Birds Directives.

  The Ministry and Welsh Office have also issued guidance to the Environment Agency and other flood defence operating authorities on the production of Water Level Management Plans. The plans provide a means by which the range of activities in a particular area, including agriculture, flood defence and conservation can be balanced and integrated. We have encouraged preparation of such plans with highest priority being given to internationally important sites, including those designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. Water Level Management Plans are in preparation on the Somerset Levels, with the majority being produced by internal drainage boards, as the relevant operating authority.

TREASURY

  Road and Parking Charges
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the money raised through(a) road pricing and (b) workplace charging will be hypothecated for public transport improvements. [63639]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government propose (as laid out in the recently published consultation document—"Breaking the Logjam") that local authorities which bring forward pilot road user charging or workplace parking charge schemes 442
  should be able to retain 100 per cent. of the net revenue generated for at least 10 years from the implementation of a scheme—provided that there are worthwhile transport-related projects to be funded.

  The Government will make an announcement about the retention of proceeds from schemes brought forward after the pilot phase in due course.

  Tax Credits (Abolition)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister is currently responsible for reviewing the policy of abolishing tax credits for non-taxpayers; and if he will make a statement. [64197]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 346.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the changeover plans regarding preparations for British entry into the single currency. [63865]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The outline changeover plan should be published early in 1999.

  VAT (Golf Clubs)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to harmonise the VAT exemption for proprietary and private golf clubs. [62605]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government understand the problems of both types of golf club and have arranged for HM Customs and Excise to discuss these with the European Commission, in the light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling in Commission of the European Communities vs. the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-124/96, Judgment of the Court, Sixth Chamber, of 7 May 1998).

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the inclusion of the Irish as an ethnic category in the next census. [63868]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's proposals for the 2001 Census, including the topics to be covered and details of the ethnic question, will be published in a White Paper early next year.

DEFENCE

  Challenger 2 Tanks
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the new transporters for Challenger 2 tanks. [64276]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD will shortly issue an invitation to four consortia to negotiate for a private-sector financed solution to the Army's heavy equipment transporter requirement, with the aim that the service is provide from 2002. This is the first programme to invite solutions to invite solutions for an operational combat support vehicle
  443
  through the Private Finance Initiative. The consortia are also being invited to explore options for the employment of Sponsored Reserves to deliver the service. A decision on the way forward is expected in early 2000, with a contract let later that year following final negotiations with the preferred bidder.

  Queen Victoria School
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the key targets are for 1998–99 for the Chief Executive of Queen Victoria School. [64271]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of Queen Victoria School has been set the following Key Targets for 1998–1999.

  1. Achieve a staying on rate at School for S4 to S5 of at least 68 per cent. based on a 3 year trend.

  2. Exceed by 2 per cent. the average percentage pass rate for all Scottish presentations obtaining 5 or more Credit awards at Standard Grade based on a 3 year trend.

  3. Achieve a percentage of the presentations at Higher Grade achieving A to C grade greater than or equal to the Scottish averaged based on a 3 year trend.

  4. To achieve a pupil per capital cost of no more than £17,246 (at 1997–98 prices) by March 1999. 1997–98 target was £17,420.

  5. To generate commercial income to the School of at least £20,000.

  Duke of York's Royal Military School
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for 1998–99 for the Chief Executive of the Duke of York's Royal Military School. [64273]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of The Duke of York's Royal Military School has been set the following Key Targets for 1998–99.

  1. To achieve 100 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A* to G.

  2. To achieve 5 or more GCSE passes at grades A* to C; 1998-–9 target is 78 per cent.

  3. To achieve 88 per cent. of A level passes at grades A to E.

  4. To achieve 3 or more A level passes at grades A to E; 1998–99 target is 80 per cent.

  5. To achieve 34 per cent. of A level passes at Grades A and B.

  6. To achieve 100 per cent. award rate for GNVQ Advanced and BTEC National Diploma courses.

  7. To achieve places in higher education for at least 70 per cent. of sixth form leavers.

  8. To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £13,151.

  9. To generate income of at least £452,000.

  10. To achieve at least 260 applications for September 99 intake.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter dated 30 November from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) concerning nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the former Soviet Union. [63900]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following is the text of the letter to which I understand my hon. Friend refers.
  444
  Letter from the Secretary of State for Defence to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 30 November 1998:
  In my answer to your Parliamentary Questions on 19 November, (Official Report, cols 712–713). I undertook to write to you about certain aspects of Trident computer systems.
  You asked first about the percentage of computer chips purchased "off the shelf' from suppliers. The Trident Strategic Weapon System was procured "off the shelf' from the US Government under the provisions of the Polaris Sales Agreement as amended for Trident. It is not, therefore, possible to provide the level of detail called for in the question. However the US has a programme of work to provide certification of Year 2000 compliance for all items associated with the system procured by the UK
  As far as your question about audits and action plans on millennium compliance is concerned, I can tell you that a comprehensive audit of the deterrent is being conducted by a dedicated Deterrent Millennium Task Group. At the top level this includes areas such as the missile and warhead, fire control, navigation, targeting, firing chain, reactor and propulsion control, sonar, command and control and all associated shore based facilities. Each of these areas is further sub-divided into many hundreds of smaller sub-systems, each of which is being investigated. Extensive tests are being conducted on all equipment associated with the Trident Weapon System and its supporting infrastructure to confirm that it will not be affected by any key dates before, during and after the turn of the century. A programme of trials is in place to provide further verification. I trust this also addresses your question about systems identified as being critical to the safe and continuous operation of the Trident system. It would not be in the national interest to disclose the details of our audits and investigations as this would reveal information which could compromise the effectiveness of the UK's strategic deterrent. I am therefore withholding this information under exemption 1, Defence, security and International relations, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  As far as our discussions with the US are concerned, we are working extremely closely to ensure that common equipment critical to each nation's defence capability, including Trident, are millennium compliant. In addition to the regular, frequent meetings on the wider Year 2000 problem, regular meetings are held with the US under the provisions of the Polaris Sales Agreement with Year 2000 compliance one of the items on the agenda: The most recent such meeting was on 10 November. The US programme I have already mentioned has a forecast date for completion of 31 December this year.
  You also asked about planned expenditure to ensure millennium compliance of the Trident systems. There is no separately identified central record of planned millennium compliance expenditure specifically related to the Trident system. I would, however, refer you to the answer given by Margaret Beckett to Maria Eagle on 21 October in which she announced the results of the latest quarterly review of Government departments and agencies progress in tackling the bug. The results of the next quarterly review will be announced shortly to the House and the updates to quarterly plans will be placed in the Library of the House and on the internet.
  Finally, there is no central record of the number of staff dedicated to ensuring the Trident systems's millennium compliance which you also requested. However, staff in relevant appointments are working to ensure the status of all systems is identified and that action plans are in place where required.
  I am copying this letter to Llew Smith to whom I also undertook to write in respect of his question on the issue of millennium compliance of nuclear systems.
  I hope this is helpful.
  I am placing a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Surveillance Towers (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total annual cost of staffing and maintaining surveillance towers(a) at the hilltop sites in the South Armagh area, (b) the two towers in Derry and (c) the three posts mounted on blocks of flats in Belfast. [64204]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for the Armed Forces on 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 320.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the offices or agencies under his control which will be subject to L.2 of Head L in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998; how many people are currently employed in these offices; and what equal opportunities practices are adopted in these offices. [63804]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There were some 23,200 Service and civilian personnel based at 116 locations in Scotland, as at 1 April 1998 (the most recent date for which figures are available). All of these personnel will continue to be subject to the appropriate UK legislation. For the 10,000 civilian personnel this involves compliance with the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, listed in Head L2 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act, as well as Departmental policies against unfair discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, age and religious belief. In order for the Armed Forces to maintain combat effectiveness they are granted an exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, in Section 85(4) of the Act, and from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Current policy is also that homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the Armed Forces; this issue will be reviewed in the lifetime of this Parliament. Aside from these specific exceptions the Armed Forces are committed to equality of opportunity irrespective of gender, religion, ethnic or social background and vigorous policies are in place to ensure that this is achieved.

  Service Women (Pregnancy)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what total expenditure his Department has incurred to date in the payment of claims for compensation by service women required to leave the armed forces on grounds of pregnancy. [64010]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 10 December 1998,Official Report, column 257 to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

  Louise Jensen
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department of the defence of the British soldiers convicted of causing the death of a Danish tour guide in Cyprus. [63343]
  446
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The costs of the defence and subsequent appeal of the soldiers convicted of causing the death of the Danish tour guide were met by the Army Legal Aid scheme, and have been £260K to date. This figure does not include the cost of the appeals process which has only recently concluded.

  The Army Legal Aid scheme provides legal assistance to Army personnel similar to that available in this country to ensure that they are not placed at a disadvantage when tried overseas in a civil criminal court; the scheme is funded by my Department.

  Polo Ponies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many polo ponies the British Army owns; and in which countries they are based. [63990]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The British Army does not own polo ponies. All military horses maintained by the Army fulfil either ceremonial duties or work in the Army School of Equitation.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63878]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department's ethnic monitoring of Service and civilian recruitment is based solely on an applicant's ethnicity. The nine ethnic origin categories monitored by my Department are those used in the 1991 census which did not include an Irish category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Hunting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost since 1 May 1997 of supplying military police to protect huntsmen on MOD land from potential activity by anti-hunt protesters. [63638]

  Mr. Spellar
  Military Police are not involved with hunts, so no costs have been incurred from protecting huntsmen.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 when authorisation has been given for MOD land to be used for hunting; and if he will indicate those occasions when hunting occurred on land designated as a site of special scientific interest, giving for each occasion the location of the SSSI. [63637]

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

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what charges have been made and to which hunts for the use of MOD land since 1 May 1997. [63634]
  447
  Mr. Spellar
  The table shows charges which have been paid since 1 May 1997 allowing hunting with hounds to take place over the Defence Estate.

  Hunt

  Charges since 1 May 1997 (£)

  Comments

  Tanatside Hunt

  158.75

  North Shropshire Hunt

  179.37

  Surrey Union Hunt

  398.13

  Blankney Hunt

  208.75

  Essex and Suffolk Hunt

  405.75

  Thorney Island Hunt

  39.38

  The previous Commanding Officer used to invite the Hunt onto the Island for one day a year—this has now ceased

  East Kent Hunt

  172.75

  South Pembrokeshire Hunt

  39.60

  Sennybridge Hunt

  160.89

  Brecon and Talybont Hunt

  160.89

  Irfon and Tywi Hunt

  160.89

  Taunton Vale Foxhounds

  80.00

  There is a reciprocal agreement in place whereby land is licenced to the MOD

  West of Yore Hunt

  170.18

  Bedale Hunt

  170.18

  Zetland Hunt

  170.18

  Wensleydale Hunt

  36.43

  Ullswater Foxhounds

  152.37

  Lunesdale Foxhounds

  57.12

  Border Hunt

  175.12

  West Percy Hunt

  175.12

  Avon Vale Hunt

  375.00

  Tedworth Hunt

  125.00

  Royal Artillery Hunt

  225.00

  South and West Wiltshire Hunt

  225.00

  Bewcastle Hunt

  177.22

  Licence to pass over MOD land only

  Tynedale Hunt

  233.62

  Licence to pass over MOD land only

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 when his Departments' buildings have been used for purposes connected with hunting. [63633]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the MOD units which have hunt kennels on their land, indicating in each case the rent charged for the use of these kennels. [63635]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD units which have hunt kennels on their land are as follows:Britannia Royal Naval College—Kennels for beagles. Charges made for utilities only and for this Financial Year this stands at £55.
  Catterick Garrison—Kennels for Catterick Garrison Beagles—£1,698 per annum.
  Larkhill Garrison—Royal Artillery Hunt—Encroachment. (No charge)
  RMA Sandhurst—Beagle kennels—Encroachment. (No charge)
  RMCS Shrivenham—Beagle kennels—Encroachment. (No charge).

  An encroachment is granted for authorised sporting, recreational and welfare activities in accordance with guidelines in the Joint Services Publication 362 Defence Lands Handbook, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which MOD units permit their personnel to hunt during normal working hours, with particular reference to the Wednesday afternoon sports period. [63636]
  448
  The following charges have been paid since 1 May 1997 allowing hunting with hounds to take place over the Defence estate:

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

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) total expenditure and (b) expenditure by programme by his Department in Scotland on areas covered by the exception under E.3 of Head E in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. [63803]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I thus regret I am unable to answer under Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Chile
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of his Department's Defence Sales Organisation visited Chile in each year since 1990. [64022]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers of the British armed forces of one star status or above visited Chile in each year since 1990. [64013]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The information requested is not held centrally and complete records are not available.
  449
  The information that we have, however, shows the following visits by officers of One Star status or above to Chile:

  Year

  Number of visits

  1990

  1

  1991

  1

  1992

  5

  1993

  4

  1994

  3

  1995

  6

  1996

  2

  1997

  3

  1998

  4

  In addition we are aware that students of the Royal College of Defence Studies, which is attended by some officers of one star status and above, visited Chile in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996 and in 1998. We do not, however, have details of the number of officers concerned.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which chiefs of staff of the British armed forces visited Chile from 1990 to date indicating the dates of the visit in each case. [64014]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The information requested is not held centrally and complete records are not available. The information that we hold, however, shows the following visits to Chile:

  Date

  Visit

  1990

  Chief of the Naval Staff

  March 1994

  Chief of the Air Staff

  March 1995

  Chief of the Naval Staff

  March 1996

  Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

  June 1998

  Chief of the Naval Staff

  October 1998

  Chief of the Air Staff

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vessels of the Royal Navy, including ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, visited Chilean ports and naval bases during each calendar year since 1990. [64015]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 331, to the hon. Member for Worthing, East and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). The following visits were also made by the Royal Navy from 1990 to 1993:

  Royal Navy vessels

  Dates

  1990

  HMS Otter

  9 June-14 June

  1991

  HMS Alacrity

  29 August-2 September

  HMS Endurance (Old)

  11 April-16 April

  HMS Cumberland

  25 February-4 March

  1992

  HMS Ambuscade

  9 October-12 October

  HMS Campbeltown

  29 July-3 August

  HMS Endurance

  1 April-6 April

  450

  Royal Navy vessels

  Dates

  1993

  HMS Newcastle

  18 November-22 November

  HMS Endurance

  8 April-13 April

  HMS Endurance

  18 February-22 February

  Note:

  Records of RFA deployments for the period prior to December 1993 are not sufficiently detailed to show individual visits

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of(a) the total cost of transfer of equipment and (b) the cost of transferring IT equipment, in the move of 101 Battalion REME from Chorley Barracks to Queensferry. [63652]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 7 December 1998, Official Report, column 54.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he used to select Chorley TA for closure in the review of the Territorial Army. [63617]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The planning assumptions underlying the restructuring of the Territorial Army were well publicised during the consultative process. A copy of the assumptions has been placed in the Library of the House. The particular factors bearing on the decision to close Chorley TA Centre were explained by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the hon. Members in the House on 2 December 1998, Official Report, columns 859–64.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on travelling costs of the transfer of 101 Battalion REME from Chorley Barracks to Queensferry. [63623]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The effect on travelling costs will depend on whether individuals are transferred from the headquarters at Chorley to that at Queensferry, when the Battalion transfers, which has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many TA centres will remain open(a) in South Lancashire and (b) in the parliamentary constituencies of (i) Chorley, (ii) South Ribble, (iii) West Lancashire, (iv) Rossendale and Darwen and (v) Ribble Valley. [63618]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: There are two TA centres in South Lancashire; both are located in Blackburn and will remain open.
  Chorley is the only constituency among those listed which has a TA centre; this is scheduled for closure.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Army's requirement for ammunition. [64277]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am pleased to announce the outcome of two recent ammunition competitions. First, we intend to contract with Royal Ordnance to meet most of the British Army's requirement for large calibre ammunition for the next five years. The contract will cover ammunition for
  451
  use with the AS90 155mm self-propelled gun, Challenger 2 tank, and a range of reconnaissance and infantry fighting vehicles.

  Secondly, we intend to contract with Marconi Marine Land and Naval Systems, formerly Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., to develop and produce enhancements to extend the range and increase the effectiveness of the AS90 self-propelled gun. Within this contract, Royal Ordnance will be sub-contracted to manufacture new barrels, and a South African company, Somchem, will manufacture a new Modular Charge System.

  These contracts, which are subject to the completion of final negotiations, are together worth around £200 million and will bring valuable work to both Marconi and Royal Ordnance, securing over 500 jobs for British industry.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what steps have been taken to recycle paper from hon. Members' offices. [63996]

  Mrs. Roe
  All waste paper from honourable Members' offices is sorted and recycled by an approved contractor.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions he has had with(a) the New Millennium Experience Company, (b) London Underground and (c) the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about travel and entry ticket packages for visitors to the Dome; [62775]

  (2) what representations he has received from the tourist industry about the timing of the announcement of travel and entry ticket packages for visitors to the Dome. [62776]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: Responsibility for negotiating travel and ticket arrangements with transport providers and tour operators rests with the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). I have had no discussions with representatives from individual transport providers or the tourist industry. The NMEC are in discussion with both about combined travel and Millennium Experience entry packages. The aim is to ensure that attractive and competitive packages are available within the United Kingdom and abroad. Announcements about these packages will be made at the appropriate time. Officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport provide me with advice in my capacity as shareholder of the NMEC and they keep me advised of NMEC's progress in these matters.

  Management Practices
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the Institute 452
  of Personnel Development: Study No. 22, Impact of People Management Practices on Business Performance; and if he will make a statement. [64107]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The need to improve the skills of the British work force is well-recognised and this forms a key theme of the Competitiveness White Paper which I am to publish shortly. This report is the first substantive piece of British research on how people management practices impact upon business performance in manufacturing industries. I welcome the report's findings that recent business performance was better where firms encouraged acquisition and development of employee skills, and where workers had more job autonomy—either individually or in teams.

  My Department has jointly funded the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS). Data from this will be used to do a similar type of analysis but it will be for a nationally representative set of British workplaces with 10 or more employees.

  Foresight Programme
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the development of the Government's Foresight Programme. [64270]

  Mr. Battle
  I am delighted to publish today the blueprint for the next round of Foresight which will start in April 1999. Copies have been filed in the Library of the House.

  The next round of Foresight will have a broader focus than before. The work will be taken forward through ten sectoral panels and three thematic panels looking at the aging population, crime prevention and the future of manufacturing. Associate Programmes will be run by professional institutions and other organisations, working closely with the Office of Science and Technology.

  There will be many avenues for participation, with a particular emphasis on involving young people. An Internet-based Knowledge Pool will provide a unique resource to support Foresight participants and promote widespread debate on emerging results and conclusions.

  The Government's vision is to put the future on Britain's side. We have the talent to exploit the opportunities of the future. The forthcoming Competitiveness White Paper will set out a framework for the Government's role in helping British business to achieve this. Foresight is a central part of that framework.

  GEC
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total value of grants paid by his Department to GEC since 1 May 1997. [61988]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: Between 1 May 1997 and 30 November 1998 my Department paid a total of some £1.8 million in grants to GEC companies. This includes grants paid under the Civil Aircraft Research and Technology Demonstration Programme (CARAD).

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total value of grant paid by his Department to British Aerospace since 1 May 1997. [61990]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: My Department has paid a total of around £4.5 million in grant on various schemes to British Aerospace since 1 May 1997. This was mainly under the Civil Aircraft Research and Technology Demonstration Programme (CARAD).

  In addition, the Government agreed on 2 February 1998 to invest up to £123 million in a public-private partnership with British Aerospace on the development of the Airbus A340–500/600.

  Sellafield
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many shipments of mixed oxide fuel were made between 1 January and 30 November from Sellafield(a) by air and (b) by sea. [63438]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand that there was one shipment of Mixed Oxide fuel by air and one by sea from Sellafield between 1 January and 30 November.

  Millennium Coin
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to issue to each school child in the United Kingdom a commemorative coin to mark the millennium. [62968]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Royal Mint is planning to issue a commemorative coin to mark the millennium, which will be widely available.

  Microchips (Radiation)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation his Department is carrying out into the potential damage to transistors in microchips from background alpha and neutron radiation, following the recent report to the International Test Conference in Washington; and if he will make a statement. [62967]

  Mr. Battle
  The issue of potential damage to transistors from background radiation is primarily a matter for those companies and organisations that design and manufacture microchips. My Department continues to monitor developments.

  Academy of Invention
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has evaluated for setting up an Academy of Invention; and if he will make a statement. [63850]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government fully recognise the need to harness better the depth of creativity which we have in the UK. Earlier this year the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with the full support of my own Department, set up the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA), with an endowment of £200 million from the National Lottery, to support 454
  talented individuals. NESTA's trustees will soon be consulting on their policies and programmes, which should start next year.

  I have had useful discussion with proponents of an Academy of Invention, and other organisations which support invention. They are fully aware that any further public support for inventors must be consistent with and add value to NESTA's operation.

  Minimum Wage (Ministers of Religion)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if ministers of religion are persons qualifying for the national minimum wage. [63709]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As office holders ministers of religion will not be covered by the national minimum wage. However, those who do work under a worker's contract will be covered.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Internal Market Council held in Brussels on 7 December 1998; and if he will make a statement. [63166]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 7 December.

  The Council discussed the draft directive on late payments, which would give companies across the EU a statutory right to interest on late payments, and a proposal for a multiannual programme to assist European tourism. The Presidency concluded that it had not been possible to reach political agreement on either proposal and that discussion would continue under the German Presidency.

  The Presidency presented a report on taking forward the process of European economic reform agreed at the Cardiff Summit in June 1998. This will enable the Internal Market Council on 25 February to make a contribution to ECOFIN preparation of the Broad Economic Guidelines and help inform its own future single market work programme.

  The Commission presented reports on the interim Single Market Scoreboard, which showed good progress in transposition of internal market directives, particularly in the UK, Luxembourg, Ireland and Spain; chemicals legislation; and a proposal for a directive to facilitate the development of an internal market in electronic commerce.

  The Council reached unanimous political agreement on the extension of the 1985 Product Liability Directive to primary agricultural products and game; and on the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive, which will make it easier for victims of road accidents that take place in another member state to make an insurance claim. The Free Movement of Goods Regulation and Resolution were adopted, with the UK Presidency mentioned as the driving force behind the agreement.

  Domestic Metering
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on(a) the use of 2 in 1 metering by Swalec and Welsh Water and

  455
  (b) the Director General of Electricity Supply's view that Swalec should take all reasonable steps to discontinue use of these meters; [62272]

  (2) how many homes in each United Kingdom region have 2 in 1 meters; and if he will make a statement. [62273]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: The 2 in 1 metering scheme is a trial one being run by the Hyder Group (Swalec and Welsh Water). I understand that it is currently confined to 3,000 customers who join the scheme on a voluntary basis. Swalec have issued proceedings seeking a judicial direction that their scheme is lawful, not contrary to the Electricity Act 1989 and that the Director General of Electricity Supply has no powers to issue enforcement proceedings under the Act. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further while this process is under way.

  British Nuclear Fuels Limited
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the KPMG report on BNFL. [63494]

  Mr. Battle
  The KPMG report has not yet been received. An announcement will be made once Ministers have considered the report.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the offices or agencies under his control which will be subject to L.2 of Head L in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998; how many people are currently employed in these offices; and what equal opportunities practices are adopted in these offices. [63797]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Department has a total of 132 staff in the following offices in Scotland which will be subject to L.2 of Head L in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998:

  Oil and Gas Directorate

  Infrastructure and Energy Projects Directorate

  Redundancy Payments Office.

  Its Executive Agencies and ACAS have the following numbers of staff:

  Number

  Companies House

  43

  Employment Tribunal Service

  50

  Insolvency Service

  6

  Radiocommunications Agency

  12

  ACAS

  57

  All staff in these offices are covered by the DTI Equal Opportunities Policy or the relevant equal opportunities for their Executive Agency or ACAS. The Order designating cross-border public authorities is still under discussion. Therefore, information on the authorities, and their employees, which will be affected by the Order cannot yet be provided.

  Tobacco
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take to further the adoption of global standards on tobacco marketing. [64125]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  We will fully co-operate in the planning, scheduling and information-sharing that would accompany the development of an international framework convention for tobacco control, intended to facilitate and encourage member states to strengthen their own national tobacco control policies. We will liaise with relevant organisations in taking this forward. The White Paper 'Smoking Kills' signalled our willingness to co-operate and we hope it will provide a model in the development and operation of a framework convention.

PRIME MINISTER

  Duty Free
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the numbers of duty free cigarettes per month brought into the United Kingdom by EU travellers in the past year. [64097]

  The Prime Minister
  HM Customs and Excise have no published estimate of the number of duty free cigarettes brought into the UK by EU travellers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he took the decision to support a continuation of EU duty free purchases of cigarettes for travellers; [64096]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to oppose the continuation of duty free personal imports of cigarettes. [64101]

  The Prime Minister
  At the recent European Council meeting in Vienna a number of Member States, including the UK, asked the Commission and the Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) to examine, by March 1999, the problems which could arise with regard to employment and to address, on the basis of proposals from the Commission, possible means of tackling these problems, including the possibility of a limited extension to duty free shopping. Any proposal to extend duty free shopping beyond 30 June 1999 would still be subject to unanimity in Council.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1998,Official Report, column 219, what case for looking again at the 1991 decision to abolish duty-free sales within the European Union at the end of June 1999 is available now that was not available at the time of his written answer of 19 May 1998, Official Report, column 315, his oral answer of 20 May 1998, Official Report, column 952, his written answer of 3 June 1998, Official Report, column 215, or during the last United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union. [63948]
  457
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply I gave him in the House on 14 December 1998, Official Report, column 618.

  South Africa
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to visit South Africa in 1999; if he will list those who will accompany him and their travel arrangements; and what estimate he has made of the cost of the visit. [63678]

  The Prime Minister
  Details for my visit are still being finalised.

  RAF Planes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to use RAF planes between 17 December 1998 and 11 January 1999; and if he will list those who will accompany him and the estimated cost of the journeys. [63677]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to use RAF planes between 17 December 1998 and 11 January 1999.

  Appointing Minister

  Name of appointee

  Chief Whip

  Ian McKenzie

  Sue Jackson

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Tom Greatrex

  Kieran Simpson

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  John Newbiggin

  Andy Burnham

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Bernard Gray

  Alasdair McGowan

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Conor Ryan

  Hillary Benn

  Tom Bentley—part time

  Sophie Linden—part time

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Joe Irvin

  Paul Hackett—part time

  Joan Hammell

  Darren Murphy—part time

  Richard Olszewski

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  David Clark

  Andrew Hood

  Secretary of State for Health

  Joe McCrea

  Simon Stevens

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Ed Owen

  Justin Russell

  Lord Chancellor

  Gary Hart

  Secretary of State for International Development

  David Mepham

  Dee Sullivan

  Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women

  Clare Cozens

  Jo Gibbons

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Nigel Warner

  Andrew Lappin

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Tim Walker

  Anna Healey

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Sheila Watson

  Nicci Russell

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Wendy Alexander

  Murray Elder

  David Whitton

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Andrew Maugham

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Dan Corry

  Ben Wegg Prosser

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Ed Balls

  Charles Whelan

  Chief Secretary

  Ed Milliband

  Spencer Livermore

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Julia Crowley

  Gareth Williams

  Pressure Groups
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will amend the Ministerial Code to provide guidance to Ministers on how to respond to questions about past affiliations to pressure groups. [64088]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Ministerial Code already provides guidance on the handling of private interests, including membership and/or support to pressure groups. Guidance is also provided on the declaration of Ministers' private interests if these might conflict, or be thought to conflict, with their Ministerial duties.

  Departmental Staff
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list, by Department, all special advisers, together with their salaries. [63912]

  The Prime Minister
  For details of the Special Advisers employed in my office I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on 8 December 1998,Official Report, column 143.

  At 14 December, my Ministerial colleagues had appointed the following Special Advisers.
  459
  In addition, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has appointed Mr. Keith Hellawell as the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator and Mr. Michael Trace as his Deputy. Professor Michael Barber has been appointed as the Standards and Effectiveness Adviser to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed Mr. Chris Wales and Mr. Paul Gregg as members of the Council of Economic Advisers. All are employed on Special Adviser terms.

  For information on the salaries of Special Advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 16 November 1998, Official Report, column 354–55.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official visits which he has made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997. [64131]

  The Prime Minister
  I visited the Chilton Cheshire Home at Gerrards Cross on 30 October 1997. In addition, some of my official duties are carried out at Chequers.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the countries of Latin America visited by members of Her Majesty's Government since 2 May 1997, stating the name of each Minister, the purpose of each visit and the duration of each stay. [64020]

  The Prime Minister
  There have been 29 Ministerial visits to 12 different countries in Latin America since 2 May to strengthen bilateral relations, promote British interests and continue to play our leading role in international affairs. All visits have been made in accordance with the Ministerial Code.

  Local Government Cabinet Sub-Committee
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has appointed Councillor Jeremy Beecham to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Local Government. [64089]

  The Prime Minister
  No. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is Chairman of the Ministerial Group on Better Government, has invited Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham to attend relevant meetings of the Group in order to bring a local government perspective to discussion of ways of improving service delivery in the public sector.

  President of the Council
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister what ministerial support is provided to the President of the Council. [64274]

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty, the Queen, has been pleased to approve that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) be appointed Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office.

  My hon. Friend will provide support to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, in a number of areas for which she is responsible. The President's responsibilities were set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) on 2 November 1998, Official Report, column 363.
  460
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood will not draw a Ministerial salary.

  Queen's Awards
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans there are to carry out a review of the Queen's Awards for Export, Technological and Environmental Achievement. [64275]

  The Prime Minister
  The Queen's Awards are made by Her Majesty The Queen on my recommendation. At Buckingham Palace's suggestion it has been agreed that now would be an appropriate time for a further review of the scheme, to ensure that it is up to date and provides the best possible incentive for British business. The Review Committee will be set up shortly. The Committee will consider all aspects of the Awards, including their scope and eligibility. The membership of the Review Committee will be made in time for any resulting changes to be implemented for the Awards in the year 2000.

  Those wishing to express views on the operation of the Awards or to suggest changes are invited to submit their views to the Secretary, Queen's Awards Review, Room 188, 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9SS by no later than the end of January 1999. Views may also be submitted by e-mail to queens-awards-review@lond05.dti.gov.uk. or from the Secretary, Queen's Awards Review, telephone number 0171–215 3772.

  M15-M16
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the report by the National Audit Office into the construction of new headquarters for MI5 and MI6. [63853]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The reports on the purchase and fitting out of Vauxhall Cross and Thames House contain sensitive information. It is established practice under Section 1(a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information where disclosure would harm national security or defence.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the contents of the National Audit Office report on the construction of the new MI6 building. [63854]

  The Prime Minister
  I am aware of the report which the Comptroller and Auditor General made to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in 1992 on the purchase of Vauxhall Cross. The report was dealt with in accordance with the agreed procedure set out in the House by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in 1987 on 27 January 1987,Official Report, columns 246–49.

  European Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister further to his reply of 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 371, if he will make a statement on what types of outside organisations Her Majesty's Government classes as relevant for inclusion in lists of recommended sources for further contact in official documents; and if he will consent to the listing of organisations opposed to closer European Union on Government-funded publications. [64109]

  The Prime Minister
  There are no set criteria concerning contact lists in UK Government publications about the European Union. The Government are keen to
  461
  ensure that members of the public are given access to all relevant information. They do not list publications by political parties in source material, but would seek to include academic institutions. These may well have differing views on the development of the European Union.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) of 2 December 1998,Official Report, column 874, on the constitutional position of the United Kingdom in relation to the EU, if he will list the essential interests to which he referred. [64017]

  The Prime Minister
  Our essential interests are to maintain and enhance the security and prosperity of the UK, and to improve the quality of life of its citizens. We seek to protect and promote these interests through membership of the European Union.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) of 2 December 1998,Official Report, column 879, on age discrimination, what action the Government have taken to tackle age discrimination; and when he plans to introduce legislation on this matter. [64019]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government stand by their manifesto commitment that in work older people should not be discriminated against because of their age.

  On 16 November, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities launched a consultation on the draft Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment. A final version of the code will be published early next year.

  The draft Code of Practice builds on the results of the year long consultation on age discrimination set out in the report 'Action on Age' published in August. This pointed to the immediate impact a Code of Practice would have in tackling unfair age discrimination in employment. Proposals for the Code were widely welcomed by employers and individuals alike.

  Given this Government's busy legislative programme, the Code of Practice is an effective measure that will challenge employment practices that unfairly discriminate against employees on the grounds of age. The impact of the Code will be evaluated and this will inform future plans for legislation in this area.

  The Code of Practice is one of many strands in the Government's approach to helping older people enjoy an active life, participating fully in work and more widely. On 23 November "Building a Better Britain for Older People" was published, setting out the Government's wide strategy for supporting older people.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) of 2 December 1998,Official Report, column 880, on the ban on beef exports, when agreement was reached that the export ban be entirely lifted. [64018]
  462
  The Prime Minister
  On 25 November the European Commission adopted a Commission Decision which permits the resumption of exports of deboned beef produced under the Date-Based Export Scheme.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 2 December 1998,Official Report, column 877, on waiting lists, what has been the rise in the number of general practitioner referrals over the last six months; and from what source these figures have been derived. [64011]

  The Prime Minister
  General practitioner referrals for an outpatient appointment rose by 31,000 in the first six months of 1998–99, compared to the first six months of 1997–98. Referrals from all sources (including general practitioners, accident and emergency departments, other consultants and other healthcare professionals) rose by 97,000 during the same period.

  These figures are derived from the quarterly returns from National Health Service trusts.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), of 2 December 1998,Official Report, column 874, on the Rover Group, if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to assist Rover. [64012]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government continue to be in close contact with Rover and BMW over future investment plans for Longbridge. The decision by Rover employees to implement the new working-time arrangements and the decision to make the new mini at Longbridge are very important milestones in helping to secure further investment for the plant.

  We will maintain our close contact and support to both companies. However, the Government have not been asked for financial assistance. Should such an approach be received, it will be considered on its own merits and within the usual rules for providing financial assistance to companies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Firearms)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish statistics on the police use of firearms for the latest period for which such statistics are available. [62268]

  Mr. Boateng
  The statistics for April 1997 to March 1998 show that the number of police operations in which firearms were issued to officers was 11,842, a fall of over 4 per cent. on the previous year. The number of occasions on which firearms were discharged by police fell to just three, from five the previous year, resulting in two fatalities.
  463
  There was a decrease of 7 per cent. to 7,510 in the number of operations in which armed response vehicles were deployed. Firearms were carried in these vehicles, but were not necessarily issued to offers on each occasion.

  Full details are set out in the tables.

  Number of operations in which firearms were issued

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total

  6,141

  8,726

  12,379

  11,842

  Avon and Somerset

  156

  326

  312

  139

  Bedfordshire

  36

  264

  345

  323

  Cambridgeshire

  73

  47

  54

  96

  Cheshire

  93

  219

  288

  216

  Cleveland

  107

  487

  1,026

  103

  City of London

  325

  275

  308

  307

  Cumbria

  44

  54

  72

  68

  Derbyshire

  68

  72

  109

  147

  Devon and Cornwall

  29

  90

  160

  133

  Dorset

  46

  36

  36

  54

  Durham

  100

  111

  131

  103

  Essex

  267

  267

  331

  505

  Gloucestershire

  27

  33

  41

  51

  Greater Manchester

  110

  142

  214

  165

  Hampshire

  195

  190

  245

  217

  Hertfordshire

  69

  47

  96

  82

  Humberside

  49

  92

  291

  472

  Kent

  95

  82

  236

  423

  Lancashire

  57

  227

  333

  338

  Leicestershire

  78

  138

  155

  89

  Lincolnshire

  50

  25

  58

  52

  Merseyside

  116

  280

  671

  675

  Metropolitan

  1,804

  2,178

  2,439

  2,578

  Norfolk

  56

  96

  166

  128

  Northamptonshire

  40

  54

  64

  77

  Northumbria

  593

  452

  1,360

  823

  North Yorkshire

  25

  52

  65

  102

  Nottinghamshire

  47

  57

  84

  306

  South Yorkshire

  172

  225

  155

  302

  Staffordshire

  21

  80

  257

  240

  Suffolk

  119

  150

  180

  193

  Surrey

  60

  70

  133

  87

  Sussex

  375

  445

  235

  330

  Thames Valley

  65

  96

  215

  227

  Warwickshire

  25

  55

  97

  152

  West Mercia

  50

  59

  106

  132

  West Midlands

  141

  226

  270

  227

  West Yorkshire

  181

  657

  617

  630

  Wiltshire

  26

  26

  26

  26

  Dyfed Powys

  16

  11

  17

  27

  Gwent

  20

  47

  89

  86

  North Wales

  60

  117

  233

  310

  South Wales

  55

  69

  59

  101

  Number of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total

  6,837

  6,554

  6,738

  6,137

  Avon and Somerset

  156

  157

  165

  161

  Bedfordshire

  67

  48

  46

  42

  Cambridgeshire

  87

  92

  90

  80

  Cheshire

  122

  84

  70

  82

  Cleveland

  55

  65

  86

  84

  City of London

  146

  120

  88

  81

  Cumbria

  105

  100

  108

  122

  Derbyshire

  140

  130

  110

  100

  Devon and Cornwall

  116

  140

  151

  147

  Dorset

  76

  75

  74

  72

  Durham

  108

  103

  138

  144

  Essex

  209

  203

  228

  217

  464

  Number of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Gloucestershire

  71

  85

  82

  84

  Greater Manchester

  181

  186

  209

  182

  Hampshire

  110

  104

  106

  112

  Hertfordshire

  48

  43

  42

  41

  Humberside

  110

  104

  90

  102

  Kent

  147

  144

  150

  150

  Lancashire

  135

  138

  132

  125

  Leicestershire

  103

  105

  104

  94

  Lincolnshire

  73

  81

  82

  85

  Merseyside

  160

  119

  147

  165

  Metropolitan

  2,013

  1,915

  2,035

  1,523

  Norfolk

  117

  99

  98

  102

  Northamptonshire

  83

  95

  92

  92

  Northumbria

  166

  160

  173

  126

  North Yorkshire

  142

  134

  108

  95

  Nottinghamshire

  125

  126

  128

  129

  South Yorkshire

  162

  125

  110

  108

  Staffordshire

  84

  80

  78

  86

  Suffolk

  65

  70

  82

  96

  Surrey

  76

  79

  76

  61

  Sussex

  142

  149

  180

  146

  Thames Valley

  180

  175

  185

  194

  Warwickshire

  56

  50

  41

  38

  West Mercia

  160

  153

  155

  159

  West Midlands

  87

  87

  88

  95

  West Yorkshire

  156

  150

  131

  114

  Wiltshire

  165

  145

  134

  105

  Dyfed Powys

  58

  57

  70

  71

  Gwent

  54

  55

  70

  59

  North Wales

  71

  70

  72

  90

  South Wales

  150

  154

  134

  176

  Number of operations involving Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total

  2,423

  5,523

  8,060

  7,510

  Avon and Somerset

  90

  200

  247

  121

  Bedfordshire

  0

  239

  309

  285

  Cambridgeshire

  27

  15

  23

  19

  Cheshire

  76

  180

  240

  166

  Cleveland

  89

  465

  1,014

  157

  City of London

  0

  23

  25

  0

  Cumbria

  19

  44

  64

  43

  Derbyshire

  58

  53

  97

  99

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  21

  77

  58

  Dorset

  25

  22

  28

  50

  Durham

  27

  38

  62

  85

  Essex

  165

  155

  218

  180

  Gloucestershire

  0

  10

  13

  48

  Greater Manchester

  69

  6

  2—

  56

  Hampshire

  156

  159

  208

  170

  Hertfordshire

  37

  20

  35

  25

  Humberside

  6

  35

  284

  437

  Kent

  47

  42

  208

  212

  Lancashire

  48

  187

  320

  321

  Leicestershire

  50

  101

  126

  68

  Lincolnshire

  45

  21

  39

  34

  Merseyside

  73

  239

  618

  559

  Metropolitan

  3—

  1,025

  790

  954

  Norfolk

  36

  80

  152

  117

  Northamptonshire

  21

  3

  20

  29

  Northumbria

  310

  325

  715

  515

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  13

  52

  Nottinghamshire

  40

  44

  66

  1256

  South Yorkshire

  140

  171

  129

  252

  Staffordshire

  3

  70

  235

  206

  Suffolk

  113

  117

  120

  135

  Surrey

  25

  47

  52

  76

  Sussex

  304

  413

  173

  284

  465

  Number of operations involving Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Thames Valley

  6

  73

  164

  184

  Warwickshire

  22

  54

  91

  127

  West Mercia

  26

  39

  77

  98

  West Midlands

  58

  98

  103

  102

  West Yorkshire

  173

  587

  584

  586

  Wiltshire

  13

  1

  23

  21

  Dyfed Powys

  9

  6

  12

  19

  Gwent

  9

  39

  58

  47

  North Wales

  0

  14

  173

  260

  South Wales

  8

  42

  55

  97

  1 These forces have amended their arrangements for counting ARV deployment to incidents

  2 No figures available

  3 Not known

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive a copy of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report. [64269]

  Mr. Straw
  I expect to receive the report of the Inquiry in late January or early February 1999.

  Refugees and Asylum Seekers (Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the number of(a) refugees and (b) asylum seekers currently residing in the areas administered by (i) East Sussex County Council, (ii) Eastbourne Borough Council and (iii) Wealden District Council; [63231]

  (2) how many asylum seekers or refugees are currently residing in council or housing association accommodation in Eastbourne Borough; [63232]

  (3) how many asylum seekers or refugees are currently living in emergency accommodation within the Eastbourne Borough. [63234]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not available to the Home Office and the hon. Member should approach the local authority.

  Asylum seekers and refugees who are able to support themselves are currently free to live within the United Kingdom in a place of their own choosing. Asylum seekers who register their application for asylum at their port of entry may be eligible for Income Support and Housing Benefit and can then find their own accommodation. Refugees may also qualify for such benefits and are in a similar position. Asylum seekers who do not qualify for benefits, but who may be supported under the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948, or the Children Act 1989 are supported by local authorities under the terms of that legislation. The Home Office currently has no role in providing support and is consequently not aware of the information sought. The Government plan a fundamental reform of the asylum and immigration laws to remove cash benefits and more strictly control where asylum seekers live.
  466
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people currently residing in Eastbourne have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. [63233]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that reliable information on the number of people residing in Eastbourne who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Charity Commissioners
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the Charity Commissioners, indicating the term of office of each; [63552]

  (2) to whom the Charity Commissioners are accountable; and what plans he has to reform their lines of accountability. [63553]

  Mr. Boateng
  In accordance with Schedule 1 of the Charities Act 1993, the Home Secretary is responsible for the appointment of the Charity Commissioners. There are a maximum of five Charity Commissioners: the Chief Charity Commissioner is Head of the Department and Accounting Officer; there is a full-time Legal Commissioner; and three part-time Commissioners, one of whom must be legally qualified.

  The Chief Charity Commissioner is Richard Fries, who was appointed on 1 June 1992 for a period of five years. This appointment was extended until 1 June 1999 with effect from 1 June 1997. The full-time Legal Commissioner is Michael Carpenter, appointed on 1 January 1998 until 7 October 2002. The part-time Commissioners are John Bonds, appointed on 1 January 1995 until 31 December 1997, extended to 31 December 1999; Jean Warburton (the other Legal Commissioner), appointed on 1 October 1996 until 30 September 2001; and Julia Unwin appointed from 1 May 1998 until 30 April 2001.

  Whilst the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the efficiency of the Charity Commission, his powers do not extend to investigating the Commission's decisions in particular cases. The Commission is a non-ministerial Government Department, accountable to the courts for its legal decisions. In exercising its powers under charity law, it functions in a quasi-judicial way and is not subject to Ministerial direction. In these matters it acts as an extension of the High Court and its decisions are subject to appeal to the courts. There are no plans to reform their lines of accountability.

  South East London Probation Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much will be spent by the South East London Probation Service pilot for treatment and testing orders with regards to(a) Probation Service administration, (b) Probation Service officer posts, (c) research and (d) providers of treatment and rehabilitation. [63704]
  467
  Mr. George Howarth
  South East London Probation Service spending over the entire drug treatment and testing order pilot period (1 October 1998–31 March 2000) will be as follows:

  Probation Service

  £

  (a) probation service administration:

  195,238

  (b) probation officer and administrative staff posts:

  96,299

  (c) research:

  24,000

  (d) treatment and rehabilitation:

  368,127

  Total

  583,664

  1 Includes start-up costs, travel and subsistence, training rent and services, and contingency costs.

  Prisons
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Prison Service establishments he or his Ministers plan to visit between 17 December 1998 and 11 January 1999. [63396]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I expect to visit Hindley Prison on 7 January. No other visits are scheduled during this period.

  Car Crime
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department are developing to reduce car crime. [63403]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 29 September my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a national target of a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime over the next five years. To achieve this, we have recently established a ministerial task force—the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team—which will use as a starting point, a 14 point action plan developed jointly by the former Vehicle Crime Prevention Group and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Identification Procedures
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce video ID evidence as an alternative to the current identification procedure. [63610]

  Mr. Boateng
  In response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology about Digital Images as Evidence, published in February of this year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary established a Working Group to take forward the recommendations in the report to consider other issues relating to the impact of technology on the laws of evidence, including the issue of video identification evidence.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of identity parades in each year since 1993–94; and if he will make a statement. [63611]

  Mr. Boateng
  Decisions to hold identification parades are operational matters for the police. Details of the numbers held and the cost of each, which will vary, are not collected centrally.

  Explosives
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the regulations governing the use of(a) black gunpowder and (b) other explosives by historic re-enactment societies; and if he will make a statement. [63609]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Health and Safety Executive keeps the regulations under review. The Executive has recently published guidance on the safe use of gunpowder and other explosives by historical re-enactment societies. The intention of the guidance is to ensure that members of these societies are aware of the relevant legislation, and good safety practice for the protection of themselves and members of the public. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Library. The publication of such guidance is a regular part of Health and Safety Executive work to promote health and safety. I welcome and support the Executive's initiative publishing this guidance.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62801]

  Mr. Straw
  The information is available in the Library.

  Police Funding
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in introducing a sparsity factor into the budgets for rural police authorities. [63687]

  Mr. Boateng
  The formula which distributes resources between police authorities in England and Wales already contains an element for rural sparsity. This year, 0.5 per cent. of available resources have been allocated on the basis of population sparsity. This element has been retained in our proposals for 1999–2000 which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 2 December 1998,Official Report, columns 194–97.

  We have commissioned external consultants to find out whether there are additional costs involved in policing sparsely populated rural areas. We are expecting their report shortly. The results of this study will be available to inform funding settlements from 2000–2001.

  Council Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to ensure that the Criminal Cases Review Commission can deal with cases where a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity; and if he will make a statement. [63106]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government accept that the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 should be amended to enable the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer to the Court of Appeal a special verdict of 'guilty but insane', under section 2(1) of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1993; and to give
  469
  the Court of Appeal powers to hear and dispose of an appeal upon such a reference. Such a measure will be brought forward as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on current trends in NHS waiting lists(a) regionally and (b) nationally. [62454]

  Mr. Dobson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier today,Official Report, column 759.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in reducing waiting lists. [62470]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government inherited the biggest and fastest-rising NHS waiting lists ever. Since April, the number of people waiting for hospital treatment has fallen by 119,000.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients currently have been waiting over 18 months for hospital treatment; and what was the largest figure for those waiting over 18 months in the NHS in the period 1979 to 1997. [62474]

  Mr. Milburn
  There were no patients waiting over 18 months for hospital inpatient treatment at the end of October 1998.

  Data on the number of patients waiting over 18 months for hospital treatment were not collected centrally until June 1992. At the end of June 1992 there were 20,559 patients waiting over 18 months for hospital treatment which is the highest recorded number.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to reduce waiting times for operations in the NHS. [62463]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government's successful drive to reduce the numbers of patients waiting for hospital admission is also reducing waiting times for patients, and latest figures show there were no patients waiting over 18 months for hospital treatment at the end of October.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in the establishment of primary care groups. [62464]

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the development of primary care groups. [62473]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are well on target to establishing Primary Care Groups by 1 April 1999. There are now 481 shadow Primary Care Groups in place. The Autumn guidance, Health Service Circular 1998/228 and guidance on governance, Health Service Circular 1998/229 were published on 8 December. Copies are available in the Library. These are the latest in a rolling programme of guidance.
  470
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will relax the restrictions on health authorities in inner city areas in relation to the development of primary care premises. [62465]

  Mr. Milburn
  Since coming into Government, we have introduced a number of new flexibilities to support our aim of improving primary care premises. We will consider whether other flexibilities might be helpful and provide value for money in achieving this aim.

  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the progress towards implementation of the nine specific recommendations on primary care set out in the strategic review of London health services conducted by the independent advisory panel chaired by Professor Sir Leslie Turnberg. [62475]

  Mr. Milburn
  The implementation of the recommendations in the Turnberg report, on primary care and on other matters, is being taken forward by the NHS Executive in conjunction with local National Health Service organisations. Good progress is being made. The new NHS Executive regional office for London will be established on 1 January 1999 as the strategic health body for London in response to the London review. The regional office will produce a report on implementation which will be published in the new year.

  NHS Hospitals
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for encouraging co-operation between NHS hospitals. [62467]

  Mr. Milburn
  In the White Paper The new NHS we set out our plans to replace the internal market with a system based on partnership and driven by performance. National Health Service trusts, other NHS organisations and local authorities are already working more closely together to improve health and healthcare.

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for encouraging management co-operation between NHS hospitals in order to reduce administration costs. [62471]

  Mr. Milburn
  The new NHS White Paper set out our plans to abolish the internal market and shift the focus from competition to co-operation across the National Health Service. NHS trusts, working with health authorities and Primary Care Groups, are being encouraged to share support functions to eliminate duplication and free up extra resources for direct patient care. This will ensure we focus NHS management effort on improving health and health care, by cutting unnecessary bureaucracy.

  NHS Treatment
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances the age of a patient is the determining factor in the provision of NHS treatment. [62468]

  Mr. Hutton
  The fundamental principle of the National Health Service is to provide services for everybody on the basis of clinical need.

  There are particular circumstances in which age may be one factor in determining the provision of NHS services. Immunisation programmes are targeted at certain age

  471
  groups, for example this year for the first time all people over 75 have been targeted for influenza vaccination. Screening services may also be targeted at particular age groups, for example breast screening is targeted at women between the ages of 50 and 64. As natural fertility declines with age, health authorities may operate eligibility criteria for specialised infertility treatment which may include age.

  Mount Vernon Hospital Burns Unit
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) letters and (b) other representations his Department has received against Hillingdon health authority's proposal to move the Burns, Plastic and Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Unit from Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood. [62469]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received approximately 1,082 letters.

  All petitions sent to the Department were referred to Hillingdon Health Authority, it is understood that the Health Authority received over 80,000 signatures.

  Meetings have also taken place between the Chairman of the North Thames Regional Office and local MPs.

  Winter Pressures
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to monitor co-operation between health and social services bodies in dealing with winter pressures. [62472]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are managing this winter in the normal way through regional offices supported by the Emergency Services Action Team. We have made it clear that health authorities should work closely with social services in managing winter pressures and announced a further £159 million on 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 33–46, to support them in this.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to protect NHS staff in the event of inaccurate attacks on their professional integrity and performance. [62476]

  Mr. Milburn
  Complaints regarding the professional integrity and performance of National Health Service staff are dealt with through the official complaints procedure or through the regulatory bodies of the professions concerned.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the effect on management costs of abolishing GP fundholding. [62477]

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the savings in administrative costs to be made from abolishing GP fundholding. [62478]

  Mr. Dobson
  The White Paper sets out a programme of action to sweep away the bureaucracy of the internal market. Over the lifetime of this parliament, £1 billion that would otherwise have been spent on bureaucracy will be released for patient care. Of this, savings of £20 million 472
  were made in 1997–98 by deferring the eighth wave of general practitioner fundholding, with a further saving of £25 million in GP fundholding costs to be made in 1998–99.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with representatives of general practitioners about retaining fundholding after 31 March 1999. [63688]

  Mr. Milburn
  Consultations have taken place and continue to do so with organisations involved in, or affected by, general practitioner fundholding about all aspects of the Government's implementation of the new National Health Service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in the event of the Bill to abolish fundholding not having received Royal Assent by 31 March 1999, GP fundholders will receive their fundholding budget for 1999–2000. [63684]

  Mr. Milburn
  We propose, subject to the outcome of consultations currently in hand, to lay regulations that will bring the existing general practitioner fundholding schemes to an end on 31 March 1999 and substitute a residual scheme.

  NHS Resources
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the elements of the weighted capitation formula for the allocation of NHS resources to health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [62479]

  Mr. Milburn
  On 10 November 1998, we announced a wide ranging review of the weighted capitation formula used to inform allocations to health authorities and primary care groups.

  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how he intends to meet his target for nurse recruitment. [62480]

  Mr. Milburn
  We announced on 23 September 1998 a four-point recruitment and retention plan. The plan takes into account the need to increase the numbers of nursing and midwifery students in training, target staff who have left the profession to return, broaden career structures and improve the working lives of people working in the National Health Service.

  Road Traffic Accidents (Costs)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the correlation between road traffic levels and health service costs. [62481]

  Mr. Hutton
  As part of the work which has been undertaken in association with the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill, which is currently before the House, we have looked at the number of road traffic accidents which take place, their level of severity and the cost of treating those people injured in accidents. This information has informed the tariff of charges which will be applied under the terms of the Bill.

  Care Standards
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what roles and responsibilities he proposes for regional commissions for care standards. [62447]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier today.

  Mental Health Services (Leeds)
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of mental health services in the city of Leeds. [62466]

  Mr. Hutton
  I understand there have been concerns about mental health services in Leeds and I welcome the Leeds Health Authority's commitment to improve services through increased funding and the modernisation of facilities over the next few years.

  Trainee General Practitioners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the trend in the number of trainee general practitioners in the NHS over the past 12 months. [63339]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about general practitioner Registrars (previously referred to as trainees) over the past 12 months is not available. Between October 1996 and October 1997, the number of GP Registrars in England increased by 2.9 per cent.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to revise the current system of funding for NHS treatment and care services for HIV/AIDS; [63608]

  (2) when he will announce the outcome of the Stocktake Group on spending on HIV/AIDS and the allocations to health authorities for treatment and care services for HIV/AIDS. [63607]

  Ms Jowell
  We set up the Stocktake Group last year to advise on a lasting formula for the distribution of the HIV/AIDS treatment and care budget. The group's recommendations are currently with Ministers and an announcement on their decision and on the allocations to health authorities of the HIV/AIDS treatment and care budget for the financial year 1999/2000 will be made in due course.

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions the Chief Medical Officer has compiled an assessment of, or report into, the safety of CS sprays since January 1993. [63779]

  Ms Jowell
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is currently considering the health effects of CS spray when used as an incapacitant. A comprehensive review of the available data has been prepared by officials at the Department for this purpose. The COT will consider the subject further at their February 1999 meeting. Their conclusions will be made known publicly once agreed and a copy of the review will be placed in the Library at the same time.
  474
  Officials at the Department have previously reviewed the scientific data on CS gas and sprays but they have not produced any scientific papers or reports on the subject. A list of the published scientific literature which was fully reviewed has been placed previously in the Library.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments are planned to be refurbished during the coming financial year. [62655]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are investing £30 million from the National Health Service modernisation fund to upgrade around 50 accident and emergency departments in England next year.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Annual Report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [64266]

  Ms Jowell
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has published its seventh Annual Report today. The Report has been laid before the House in accordance with the requirements of section 7(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Sodium Valproate
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the effects of prescribing sodium valproate to epileptics during pregnancy; and if he will make a statement. [63944]

  Ms Jowell
  We are not currently aware of any representations concerning the effects of prescribing sodium valproate to people with epilepsy during pregnancy. Risks to the foetus are recognised for anticonvulsant therapies and information about whether and how to use medicines in pregnant patients can be found in the authorised product information for health professionals and patients. Women taking antiepileptic drugs who may become pregnant should be informed of the possible consequences. Those who wish to become pregnant should be referred to an appropriate specialist for advice. Women who become pregnant should be counselled and offered antenatal screening. The risks of epileptic control need to be weighed against the risks to the foetus of these treatments.

  Chemical Weapons Attack (Iraq)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work his Department has funded(a) to treat the victims of Halabja in northern Iraq following the chemical weapons attack by Iraqi military forces on the town in March 1998 and (b) to monitor the long-term effects of the chemical weapons on the residents of the town; and if he will make a statement. [63778]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health has not provided any assistance to the people of Halabja since the chemical weapons attack in March 1988, as international assistance of this kind is channelled through the Department for International Development (DfID). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development
  475
  provided a written answer on DflD's efforts on 29 July 1998, Official Report, column 283 and this represents the current state of play.

  National Foetal Anti-convulsant Syndrome Association
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support is given out of public funds to the National Foetal Anti-Convulsant Syndrome Association; and if he will make a statement. [63937]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department provides no funding at present. The Association recently applied for a grant under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and this is under consideration.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (League Tables)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish league tables of units of delivery for the New Deal in such a form as to enable a comparison to be made between the performance of the private sector, the Employment Service and other providers. [63273]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Yesterday I published performance tables for all units of delivery. The tables compare progress at local level of all those young people who entered the New Deal in April—the first month of full national operation—and in particular shows what proportion of those young people has moved into jobs. Copies will be placed in the Libraries.

  Environmental Skills
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made by the Sustainable Development Education Panel in identifying environmental key skills. [63443]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Earlier this year the Panel made two submissions to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority identifying sustainable development skills at each of the key stages. The sustainable charity Forum For The Future is publishing position papers on the Panel's behalf, identifying sustainable development curriculums in higher education for design, business and teacher education.

  I have placed copies of these document in the Library of the House. Later this month the Panel will make its first annual report to the Government. I will deposit this in the Library of the House when it is published.

  Further Education
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he will give to further education colleges on the use of hardship funds. [63472]

  Mr. Mudie
  College hardship funds are provided by colleges themselves and their use is not subject to guidance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In many cases hardship funds are paid alongside Further 476
  Education Access Funds. My right hon. Friend's guidance on the use of these Funds is that they should address financial barriers to the access and completion of training and encourage participation.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the range of assistance available to further education students out of access funds. [63471]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. the Secretary of State has recently reviewed the assistance available to further education students from Access Funds and last month announced significant improvements in funding and an extension of scope to students aged 16 to 18 years old.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to publish his response to the representations received by his Department in respect of his consultation paper regarding accountability in the governance of further education colleges. [63469]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend published the Department's response to this consultation on 27 November. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the average level of funding per unit at FE colleges in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and if he will list the average level of funding unit values for each of the previous five years. [62090]

  Mr. Mudie
  Latest information for the financial years 1994–95 to 1998–99 gives the following cash figures for public funding per full-time equivalent student in further education:

  £000

  Financial years

  1994–95

  3,040

  1995–96

  2,930

  1996–97

  2,920

  1997–98 estimated

  2,950

  1998–99 planned

  2,900

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced additional funding of £725 million for the Further Education sector over the next two years. In the first of these years, 1999–2000, the average level of funding per full-time equivalent student, including additional employer contributions but excluding the allocations for capital and the Further Education Standards Fund, will be subject to a 1 per cent. efficiency gain. This compares with an estimated average annual efficiency gain of over 3.5 per cent. for the period 1994–95 to 1998–99. An announcement on the position for 2000–2001 will be made next year.

  New Deal (Winchester)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have entered the New Deal Gateway in the Winchester City Council area since its inception; and how many took up each New Deal option. [63159]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide separate figures for individual towns or council areas.
  477
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures for the Mid Hampshire Unit of Delivery, which covers Winchester, show that to the end of September 1998 (a) 206 young people had entered the Gateway and 41 have secured unsubsidised employment; (b) 17 had joined one of the four options. This breaks down to: 2 on the Employment option; 3 on the Voluntary Sector option; and 12 on the Full-Time Education and Training option.

  EU (Educational Material)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many requests his Department received prior to the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union, to update material available on the EU; and if he will make a statement. [64092]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for lifelong learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), on 18 November 1998,Official Report, columns 639–40.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in how many cases convicted sex offenders have been offered placements working with children under the New Deal programme; and when he was informed of such cases. [63886]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: I am not aware of any cases of convicted sex offenders being offered placements working with children under the New Deal programme. We have investigated the allegations in press articles of 8 December, but have been unable to substantiate them.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to instigate a review of New Deal placements involving contact with children. [63370]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Those providing such placements are contractually required to undertake relevant checks. We will investigate

  Region

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Total

  Northern

  Gateway

  25

  15,927

  39,556

  166,209

  362,232

  15,302

  599,251

  Option

  18,090

  110,403

  151,761

  320,215

  435,379

  608,580

  1,644,428

  North West

  Gateway

  24

  13,185

  56,507

  224,563

  238,678

  198,129

  731,086

  Options

  47,920

  72,179

  192,934

  268,465

  468,285

  611,478

  1,660,961

  EME

  Gateway

  154

  7,202

  18,317

  36,916

  59,360

  50,291

  172,240

  Options

  3,130

  9,170

  29,708

  70,353

  145,129

  268,805

  526,295

  Y&H

  Gateway

  230

  6,339

  46,321

  92,932

  114,086

  191,245

  451,153

  Options

  50,440

  74,431

  185,490

  310,442

  570,784

  592,391

  1,783,978

  West Midlands

  Gateway

  6

  8,526

  29,972

  29,490

  71,324

  112,581

  251,899

  Options

  13,680

  27,507

  94,251

  159,183

  222,187

  370,822

  887,630

  South West

  Gateway

  104

  7,576

  27,570

  56,277

  47,028

  47,245

  185,800

  Options

  37,060

  63,565

  145,500

  257,255

  324,714

  387,582

  1,215,676

  478
  any specific cases in which it is claimed that unsuitable people have gained jobs with children through the New Deal. There is currently a wider review through an Interdepartmental Working Group looking at many issues around preventing unsuitable people working with children.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps he is taking to prevent convicted sex offenders obtaining placements working with children under the New Deal programme; [63887]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the risk of convicted sex offenders being offered placements working with children under the New Deal programme; and what steps he is taking to prevent such placements being made. [63888]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The primary responsibility for checking the suitability of people they recruit rests firmly with the employers. Guidance has been issued to ensure that everybody working in the Employment Service understands their responsibilities. No Employment Service officer would knowingly submit a serious offender for a job working with children but they have been reminded of the need for vigilance and of the importance of reminding employers of their responsibilities.

  The Employment Service is already working closely with other agencies, including the Home Office, to explore what else can be done, including more effective arrangements for the exchange of information.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the monthly expenditure on(a) Gateway provision and (b) other provision for the New Deal for young people by region from January to the end of September. [63276]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Expenditure which has been brought to account by the Employment Service since national roll-out of New Deal for Gateway provision is £814,540 and £8.9 million for the New Deal options. This is shown in the table.
  479

  Region

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Total

  LSE

  Gateway

  39

  16,851

  300,898

  179,170

  331,267

  471,237

  1,299,462

  Options

  15,410

  38,591

  95,497

  178,501

  369,935

  579,576

  1,277,510

  Scotland

  Gateway

  30,090

  2,052

  55,083

  71,018

  103,926

  106,104

  368,273

  Options

  20,590

  31,470

  117,646

  211,567

  237,351

  378,654

  997,278

  Wales

  Gateway

  20

  2,921

  11,593

  77,960

  112,375

  93,223

  298,092

  Options

  22,330

  61,660

  109,598

  165,160

  201,872

  404,428

  965,048

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63875]

  Mr. Mudie
  The overriding principle of Civil Service recruitment procedures is that they should be fair, and selection should be on merit at each stage.

  Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin, and not nationality. The 10 minority ethnic origin categories monitored by DfEE are those used in the 1991 census, which did not include an Irish category. The use of these categories will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Engineering Qualifications
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the current range of engineering qualifications in further and higher education; and what work he has commissioned to review these qualifications. [63551]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department has received a number of letters on these issues. The results of a Department-commissioned study of national occupational standards for engineering were published in 1996. National Vocational Qualifications at levels 2 and 3 were subsequently revised to take account of those standards. Draft Higher Level National Occupational Standards for Engineering were published recently and once those have been approved NVQs at level 4 will be revised. As part of its creation of a national framework of qualifications, the Qualifications

  Full-time equivalent number of education support staff in maintained1 schools in England January 1998

  Other education support staff

  Nursery assistants

  Special needs support staff

  Minority ethnic pupil support staff

  Total

  Of which medical staff, librarians and technicians 3

  Total

  Nursery

  1,828

  209

  62

  38

  5—

  2,138

  Primary

  24,852

  16,645

  1,230

  15,329

  5—

  58,055

  Secondary

  5—

  8,823

  151

  17,576

  16,042

  26,549

  Special2

  5—

  5—

  59

  416,531

  620

  16,590

  Pupil Referral Units

  5—

  365

  1

  63

  5—

  429

  Total

  26,680

  26,042

  1,502

  49,536

  16,662

  103,760

  1 Includes grant maintained schools and middle schools as deemed

  2 Includes non-maintained special schools and special and general hospital schools

  3 Includes laboratory assistants/technicians, design technology assistants/technicians (including home economics assistants, craft technicians), IT technicians

  4 Includes teaching assistants and childcare staff employed to meet the needs of pupils with Special Educational Needs.

  5 Not applicable.

  480
  and Curriculum Authority is working with the awarding bodies to ensure that other vocational qualifications in engineering meet the criteria for approval.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62840]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Special Advisers in the Department for Education and Employment are Conor Ryan (full time), Hilary Benn (full time), Tom Bentley (part time) and Sophie Linden (part time); equivalent to three full time posts. They advise on the full range of Education and Employment issues for which the Department is responsible. The additional post was agreed by the Prime Minister to provide support to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in dealing with written material, reflecting the particular circumstances he faces in undertaking his job on equal terms with other ministerial colleagues. In addition, Professor Michael Barber has been appointed as Standards and Effectiveness Adviser.

  Special Advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teaching assistants were in post in schools at 30 September. [60980]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: The available information is shown in the table:

  Teachers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools which have been successful in bidding for advanced skills teacher status for a member of their staff. [63253]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Complete information about school participation is not yet available in respect of the bids for more than 1,100 AST posts submitted so far by local education authorities for 1999–2000. Schools and LEAs have until 5 February 1999 to bid for the funding from April 1999. We plan to create 5,000 advanced skills teacher posts over the two school years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The specialist schools which have been successful in bidding for advanced skills teacher status for one or more members of their staff in the 1998–99 introductory phase are listed.

  William Ellis School

  All Saints Catholic School and Technology

  St. Angela's Ursuline Convent School

  St. Bonaventure's RC School

  Mill Hill County High School

  The St. Marylebone School

  Homerton House Community School

  Chestnut Grove School

  Oakbank School

  Bishop Heber County High School

  Woolston High School

  St. Aidan's CE High School

  Hyde Technology College

  Deanery CE High School

  Shevington High School

  The Lincoln School of Science and Technology

  Latimer School

  Campion School

  Prince William School

  George Spencer GM School

  Sawtry Community College

  Parkside Community College

  The Greensward School

  Chalvedon School

  Saffron Walden County High School

  Goffs School

  Lynn Grove (GM) High School

  Wymondham College (GM)

  Deacon's School

  Thomas Mills High School

  Standish Community High School

  Calday Grange Grammer School

  Hermitage Comprehensive School

  St. John's RC Comprehensive School

  Ponteland County High School

  Prudhoe Community High School

  St. Joseph's RC Comprehensive School

  Carmel RC Comprehensive School

  Ninestiles Technology College

  City of Coventry

  Wodensborough Community Technology College

  Ercall Wood GM School

  Tudor Grange School

  482

  Thomas Alleyne's High School

  Queen Mary's High School

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Beauchamp College

  King Edward VII Upper School

  The Robert Smyth School

  Benjamin Britten High School

  Denefield School

  Cowes High School

  Hugh Christie Technology College

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  Cornwallis School

  Sandwich Technology School (GM)

  Peers School

  Didcot Girl's School

  St. Birinus School

  Davison CE High School for Girls

  Poltair Community School and Sports College

  Richard Lander School

  Redruth Community College

  Penryn Community School

  Fowey Community College

  Torquay Boys' Grammar School

  South Dartmoor Community College

  George Ward School

  Wyvern College.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidance his Department has issued to schools on the provision of supply cover for advanced skills teachers while they are operating in schools other than those in which they are usually employed; [63247]

  (2) what financial arrangements will need to be put in place between the schools concerned where an advanced skills teacher from one school is providing support, advice or training in another school. [63252]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: The guidance in Circular 9/98, Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Employment 1998, applies. The funding available through the Standards Fund to the school which is an advanced skills teacher's main employer includes an element to meet the cost of supply cover when the advanced skills teacher is operating outside the school. Advanced skills teachers are expected to spend most of their time teaching in their own school.

  Teachers (PE)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of teachers in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools are PE trained. [63440]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In 1996–97, some 26,000 full and part-time teachers in English maintained secondary schools (approximately 13 per cent.) had a post A level qualification in physical education.

  Similar information for primary teachers is not available. However, primary teachers are trained to deliver the whole primary curriculum including physical education.

  Post-devolution Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the expenditure to be incurred this year by his Department on programmes or activities located in Wales as part of UK-wide programmes; and what will be the mechanism for supporting such expenditure when the National Assembly for Wales has been established. [63478]

  Mr. Mudie
  As part of UK-wide programmes, I estimate that the Department for Education and Employment will spend around £200,000 on programmes or activities located in Wales. The Government of Wales Act 1998 provided for a Transfer of Functions Order to be made to transfer Ministerial functions to the National Assembly for Wales. This Order was published in draft for public consultation on 12 November. Until the content of the Order has been finalised it is not possible to say with certainty what functions will transfer. Work is continuing within government to finalise the text of the Order and to establish whether any programme expenditure relates to those functions which will transfer. Funds will be transferred as necessary on this basis.

  School Sport
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the teaching of sport in schools. [63442]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department has received a number of representations from organisations and individuals about aspects of teaching PE, including sport, in schools. Physical education must be taught to all children throughout their compulsory schooling and is a key part of providing them with a broad and balanced education.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will require admission limits for infant Key Stage 1 schools to be limited to multiples of 30 in order to meet the class size regulations. [63310]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No. Although admission authorities have a duty to vary standard numbers where these are incompatible with the class size limit, adjusting school admission numbers to multiples of 30 is only one of a number of ways of meeting the limit.

  Disabled Students' Allowance
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students in full-time post school education took up the disabled students' allowance in each of the last five years. [63399]

  Mr. Mudie
  The disabled students allowance forms part of the mandatory award. Mandatory awards are payable to personally eligible students attending full-time sandwich courses leading to a first-degree or comparable qualification, DipHE or HND courses and courses of initial teacher training. There are three separate allowances—that for specialist equipment; for non-medical helpers; and the general disabled students allowance. Travel costs resulting from a disability can also be met as part of the award. The number of disabled students' allowances made by Local 484
  Education Authorities in England and Wales as part of mandatory awards in the academic years 1992–93 to 1996–97—the latest year for which figures are available—are shown in the table:

  Number1 of disabled students' allowances England and Wales2: academic years 1992–93 to 1996–97

  Academic year

  Number of awards3

  1992–93

  2,490

  1993–94

  4,050

  1994–95

  5,320

  1995–96

  6,550

  1996–97

  8,120

  1 The table shows the number of awards, not the number of students. Students can receive more than one type of disabled students allowance.

  2 Made by Local Education Authorities in England and Wales to students normally domiciled in their area.

  3 Number of awards rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  F503G

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those schools in education action zones that(a) have been identified by Ofsted as failing and (b) are under special measures. [63313]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table lists the schools within an education action zone which are, or have been, in special measures.

  Education action zone area

  School name

  Barnsley Priory

  Hunningley Junior and Infant School

  Milefield Primary School

  Birmingham Kitts Green

  Audley Infant School

  Heathland Primary School

  Sir Wilfrid Martineau School

  Blackburn and Darwen

  Intack Primary School*

  St. Antony's RC VA Primary School

  St. Mary's and St. Joseph's RC VA Primary School*

  Brighton & Hove

  Coldean Infant School

  Falmer School

  St. Mark's CE (VA) Primary School*

  The Marina High School

  Calderdale

  Mixenden Primary School

  Parkinson Lane Primary School

  The Ridings School*

  East Basildon

  Bradfield Junior School

  Briscoe County Junior

  Fairview Special School

  Manor County Junior School

  Northlands Infants School and Nursery

  Ryedene County Primary

  Vange County Primary School

  Kingston Upon Hull

  Perronet Thompson School

  Lambeth

  Archbishop Summer's CE VA Primary

  Lilian Baylis School*

  Loughborough Primary School

  Mostyn Gardens Primary School

  St. Stephen's CE VA Primary School*

  Leicester

  Mary Linwood School

  New Parks Community College

  New Parks House Primary School

  Newry Junior School

  Queensmead Junior School

  Rowley Fields Secondary School*

  Southfields Infant School

  Wycliffe Community College

  North East Lincolnshire

  Bradley Park Junior School

  485

  Education action zone area

  School name

  Newham

  Eastlea Community School

  Gainsborough Primary School*

  Scott Wilkie Primary School

  Star Primary School

  Norfolk—Thetford

  Abbey Farm Middle School*

  Canterbury First School

  Redcastle Furze First and Middle School

  Nottingham City

  Alderman Derbyshire School

  Plymouth

  Tamarside Secondary School*

  Salford and Trafford

  Old Trafford County Primary School

  Windsor High School

  Sheffield

  Hartley Brook Primary School

  Hinde House School

  South Tyneside

  Margaret Sutton School

  Southwark

  Charles Dickens Primary School

  Geoffrey Chaucer Secondary School*

  Grange Primary School

  St. Joseph's RC VA Primary*

  Notes:

  1. Schools in special measures are often referred to as failing schools.

  * denotes that the school has been removed from special measures.

  3. The information contained in the table is correct as of 8 December 1998.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement about Public Bodies 1998 and the Executive NDPB 1998 report. [64385]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government have today published Public Bodies 1998, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House, and the Executive NDPB 1998 Report (CM 4157) which has been laid before both Houses. Quangos: Opening the Doors, published on 29 June 1998, promised that future editions of both publications would develop in line with the Government's policy of making public bodies more efficient, transparent and accountable. Public Bodies 1998 and the Executive NDPB Report 1998 take important steps in that direction.

  Public Bodies 1998 provides a range of statistical information on those national and regional public bodies for which Ministers retain a degree of responsibility. This includes all nationalised industries and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) as well as certain public corporations and NHS bodies. On 1 April 1998, there were 1,073 NDPBs, a reduction of 55 over the previous year. As of 1 September 1998, 32 per cent. of appointments to bodies listed in Public Bodies were held by women; and 3.7 per cent. were held by ethnic minorities. In line with the Government's commitment to increase substantially the information publicly available on these bodies, Public Bodies includes for the first time the terms of reference of each of the bodies listed, the names of individual chairmen and chief executives (or their equivalents) and e-mail and Internet addresses where these are available. Public Bodies 1998 provides more information than ever before in a single document about this sector of government.

  The Executive NDPB 1998 Report brings together performance and trend data on 81 of the largest executive NDPBs each with expenditure of over £20 million in 1997–98. The contribution of NDPBs is important to achieving the policy goals of the Government and the
  486
  results that people want. The individual entries covering annual performance measures and key business summary data show that some NDPBs are performing well both in terms of meeting stringent performance targets and delivering more efficient and effective services. However, there are no grounds for complacency. Too many of the bodies do not have adequate performance measures in place nor proper measures of efficiency. It is vital that these measures are put in place so that it is clear where success is being achieved and where there are problems to be resolved if we are to make the best use of taxpayers' money.

  NDPBs, like other parts of government, have the opportunity to increase the impact of their work and contribute to improvements in the quality and convenience of public services by linking up with other public bodies and working across boundaries to match people's needs. This will be a key area for further development over the next few years, and the Better Government White Paper to be published in the Spring will have more to say about what has been achieved and possible ways forward.

  The Public Bodies and the Executive NDPB 1998 Report will in future years continue to develop and widen in scope. The Government recognise the important roles performed by the bodies listed in these publications and are committed to ensuring that they, like other parts of the public service, play their full part in helping to achieve the high level policy objectives set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Public Service Agreements.

  Both Public Bodies 1998 and the Executive NDPB 1998 Report are available on the Internet via the Cabinet Office home page (www.open.gov.uk/co/cohome.htm).

  Better Government White Paper
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he expects to publish the Better Government White Paper. [63782]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  As I explained to the House on 21 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1267–68, the Government will publish a White Paper in the spring, setting out proposals for modernising government and joining up public services, to secure effective decision-making and services that work and respond to the people who need them. The Prime Minister has asked me to chair a Cabinet Committee to drive this agenda forward and the timetable remains firmly on course. I am keen to take into account a wide range of views and ideas in preparing the White Paper.

WALES

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his e-mail address. [62553]

  Mr. Michael
  I have asked my officials to introduce systems to provide e-mail access from outside the Department as quickly as possible. Work is already in hand to provide this facility on a general basis. My Department is already able to provide e-mail facilities to specific officials where a specific need can be
  487
  demonstrated. In addition the Department publishes e-mail addresses for replies to consultation exercises. On the Internet Web site for the National Assembly for Wales, members of the public are encouraged to enter into a debate about Assembly issues by posting views and questions to the Web site by e-mail.

  Beef (Schools)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to encourage local education authorities to allow beef to be served in schools in Wales.[63404]

  Mr. Hain
  Decisions on whether to allow beef to be served in schools in Wales are for local education authorities and, in the grant maintained sector, schools themselves to take.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he has made for additional expenditure over the next three years on NHS mental health services in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [63476]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) on 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 392. This set out the additional cash that will be available for the NHS over the next three years. I am now considering in detail my spending priorities in view of the range of pressures, including those arising from developments in mental health services in Wales and will make a further announcement in due course.

  Community Hospital, Porthmadog
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give approval for the North Wales Health Authority to go ahead with its proposal to build a new community hospital at Porthmadog to serve eastern Dwyfor and northern Meirionnydd. [63445]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The proposal to build a North Meirionnydd East Dwyfor community hospital will be considered along with all other priorities for 1999–2000.

  Roads (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of(a) the new River Dee Bridge in Flintshire and its associated road works, (b) the Grade Interchange at the entrance to the Deeside Industrial Park, (c) the Queensferry Flyover and (d) the Hawarden By-Pass, at current prices; and if he will make a statement. [63938]

  Mr. Hain
  Scheme costs at current prices are:

  (a) The A548 Third Dee Crossing (the responsibility of Flintshire County Council): £74.300 million (est.);

  (b) A550 Deeside Park Interchange: £10.399 million;

  (c) A494 Queensferry Interchange: £13.829 million; and

  (d) A55 Hawarden Bypass: £66.007 million.

  488
  The figures for the three schemes for which the Welsh Office are responsible have been revalued to 1998–99 prices using current Treasury deflators.

  Health Authority Spending
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total amount spent on administration by each health authority in Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [63705]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  £000

  Bro Taf

  4,772

  Dyfed Powys

  3,112

  Gwent

  3,264

  Morgannwg

  2,605

  North Wales

  3,744

  Source:

  Annual accounts of health authorities 1997–98

  A5-A55 Dual Carriageway
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1998,Official Report, column 184, on the A5-A55 dual carriageway, what is the name of the preferred bidder. [63707]

  Mr. Hain
  The preferred bidder is UK Highways.

  North Wales Health Authority
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many administrative staff are employed by North Wales Health Authority. [63706]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  At 30 June 1998, the latest date for which data are available, there were 153 administrative and clerical staff (equivalent to 149 staff working whole-time) in post at North Wales Health Authority.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost(a) of giving in the current uprating to all those pensioners eligible for the National Insurance retirement pension who are aged 80 years or more an increase in benefit in line with earnings and (b) of such an increase if the current year's increase in pension for those aged 80 years or more reflected the rise in earnings since 1980. [62630]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested because average earnings figures for September 1998 are not yet available. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  489

  The estimated cost if the April 1998 retirement pension rates for pensioners aged over 79 years had been uprated in line with rises in earnings up to and including September 1997

  £ million

  RP uprated by the growth in earnings between 1996 and 1997

  RP uprated by the growth in earnings since 1979

  Retirement Pension cost

  40

  2,780

  Means-tested benefit offsets

  -20

  -940

  Net cost

  20

  1,840

  Notes:

  1. The RP cost has been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Means-tested benefit offsets have been estimated using the 1995/6 Family Resources Survey and the May 1997 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, both uprated to 1998/9 benefits and earnings levels.

  3. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total numbers of pensioners for the current year who are(a) receiving income support, (b) entitled to income support but are not receiving these funds at present, (c) with incomes below £5,600, excluding those already accounted for by (a) and (b), (d) aged 65 to 74 with incomes between £5,410 and £9,710, (e) aged 65 to 74 with incomes between £9,711 and £16,200, (f) aged 65 to 74 with incomes between £16,201 and £17,000, (g) aged 65 to 74 with incomes between £17,001 and £18,630, (h) aged 65 to 74 with incomes above £18,630, (i) aged 75 and over with incomes between £5,600 and £9,900, (j) aged 75 and over with incomes between £9,901 and £16,200, (k) aged 75 and over with incomes between £16,201 and £18,000,(I) aged 75 and over with incomes between £18,001 and £19,010 and (m) aged 75 years and over with incomes above £19,010. [62628]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  There are 1,425,000 pensioner benefit units currently in receipt of Income Support, excluding Residential Care and Nursing Home recipients. Information for other parts of the question is not available for the current year.

  The number of pensioner benefit units estimated to be entitled to, but not receiving, Income Support in 1996–97 is provisionally estimated to be between 400,000 and 700,000. These estimates differ from those published on 1 October. An error in the published take-up estimates for pensioners has been discovered; a full set of corrected figures will be published in the new year.

  In 1996–97 there were an estimated 1,250,000 pensioner benefit units with incomes of £5,600 or less who were not entitled to Income Support and did not receive it.
  490

  The estimated numbers of pensioner benefit units in 1996–97 given by income bands for pensioners aged 65 to 74 who were not entitled to nor receiving Income Support

  Thousand

  Income (£)

  Number of pensioner benefit units

  5,410 to 9,710

  1,120

  9,711 to 16,200

  740

  16,201 to 17,000

  (50)

  17,001 to 18,630

  (60)

  More than 18,630

  300

  Total

  2,270

  The estimated numbers of pensioner benefit units in 1996–97 given by income bands for pensioners aged 75 and over who were not entitled to nor receiving Income Support

  Thousand

  Income(£)

  Number of pensioner benefit units

  5,600 to 9,900

  850

  9,901 to 16,200

  370

  16,201 to 18,000

  1—

  18,001 to 19,010

  1—

  More than 19,010

  80

  Total

  1,360

  1Due to small sample sizes a reliable estimate for these cells cannot be supplied.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates in brackets are based on small sample sizes and should be treated with caution.

  2. Estimates of recipients are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  3. Estimates based on the Family Resources Survey exclude the full time self-employed and are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  4. Benefit units are classified into age groups according to the age of the elder pensioner in the benefit unit

  5. A pensioner benefit unit is defined as a single person aged 60 or over or a couple (not necessarily married) where at least one member of the couple is aged 60 or over.

  6. Pensioner incomes are defined as before housing costs net income including all benefits, pensions, investment income and earnings, net of Income Tax, National Insurance contributions, contributions to occupational pensions schemes and Council Tax.

  Source:

  1. Estimates of the number of recipients of Income Support are taken from the May 1998 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and exclude pensioners in Residential Care or Nursing Homes.

  2. All other estimates are based on an analysis of the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey which is a survey of private households in Great Britain.

  Child Support
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers the CSA possesses to follow up cases in respect of absent parents who have moved to a different country; and what plans he has to review them. [63395]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support Act only applies where both parents and the child are habitually resident in the UK. In some circumstances a person can be regarded as habitually resident in more than one country. In such cases, child support liability may still exist even though a non-resident parent is living abroad.

  If there is no child support liability the parent with care has recourse to the courts to obtain maintenance. The Lord Chancellor's Department administers reciprocal

  491
  enforcement arrangements with a number of other countries. Under these provisions many foreign courts can enforce a British order for maintenance.

  The outcome of the consultation process on the Green Paper, "Children First: a new approach to child support", together with our detailed proposals for reforming the Child Support system, will be announced in due course.

  Incapacity Benefit (Appeals)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many incapacity benefit paper appeals relating to the all-work-test were processed in the last four quarters for which figures are available; and what percentage was decided in the claimant's favour. [63958]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Incapacity benefit (all works test)

  Paper breakdown

  All appeals

  Percentage in appellant's favour

  Q2 1998

  2,880

  11.9

  Q1 1998

  4,036

  12.2

  Notes:

  Q2 April—June 1998

  Q1 January—March 1998

  Source:

  100 per cent. computer extract from Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) systems

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many incapacity benefit appeals relating to the all-work-test were heard in the last four quarters for which figures are available; and what percentage were decided in the appellant's favour where the appellant(a) attended the hearing but was not represented, (b) was represented but did not attend, (c) attended and was represented and (d) did not attend and was not represented. [63957]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Incapacity benefit (all work test)

  Q2 1998

  Q1 1998

  Q4 1997

  Q3 1997

  Appellant only attended

  All appeals

  4,100

  4,226

  3,714

  3,793

  Percentage in appellant's favour

  52.6

  52.2

  54.1

  51.4

  Representative only attended

  All appeals

  260

  240

  237

  220

  Percentage in appellant's favour

  50.8

  57.5

  45.1

  43.2

  Both attended

  All appeals

  4,281

  3,723

  4,249

  4,094

  Percentage in appellant's favour

  67.5

  68.2

  70.2

  69.2

  Not attended

  All appeals

  3,998

  3,485

  4,834

  5,005

  Percentage in appellant's favour

  24.2

  25.3

  14.5

  10.9

  Notes:

  Q2 April—June 1998

  Q1 Janury—March 1998

  Q4 October—December 1997

  Q3 July—September 1997

  Source:

  100 per cent. computer extract from Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) systems

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many incapacity benefit claimants have(a) failed the all-work test, (b) appealed against
  492
  disallowance of the test, (c) had their benefit re-instated prior to the hearing of the appeal and (d) had their appeals upheld. [63956]

  Mr. Timms
  Between April 1995 and 31 August 1998, 321,791 claims for Incapacity Benefit were disallowed following examination under the all work test.

  Up to 31 August 1998, 169,247 appeals had been lodged with the Independent Tribunal Service. In the cases appealed, 2,797 decisions were reversed on review by the adjudication officer and 49,951 by an appeal tribunal.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63882]

  Mr. Denham
  Civil Service recruitment is based on the principle of fair and open competition and that selection should be on merit at each stage.

  Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin and not nationality. The nine ethnic origin categories monitored by this Department are those used in the 1991 census, which did not include an Irish category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the annual savings are to date, including administrative costs, arising from the replacement of invalidity benefit by incapacity benefit; and what estimate he made of the savings which would arise from the change. [63955]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  The original estimates for benefit savings from the introduction of Incapacity Benefit and revised estimates produced in 1996

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Initial savings estimates (September 1993)

  415

  1,185

  1,720

  —

  Latest available savings estimates (November 1996)

  280

  790

  1,350

  1,830

  Notes:

  1. No further estimates have been made and it is not possible to quantify the effects on administrative costs.

  2. Actual savings figures arising from the replacement of Invalidity Benefit by Incapacity Benefit are not available as it is not possible to say whether an individual found capable of work following application of the all work test would have been found capable under the old Invalidity Benefit medical controls.

  Source:

  DSS. All figures cash prices.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people between the ages of 20 and 25 years do not have the required national insurance contribution record to qualify for incapacity
  493
  benefit (a) under the current system and (b) under the changes proposed in Support for Disabled People (Cm 4103). [63949]

  Mr. Timms
  The main change proposed is that people should be required to have paid National Insurance contributions on earnings equivalent to 25 times the lower earnings limit in one of the two tax years preceding their claim, rather than in any tax year.

  The latest available figures show that there are about 2,470,000 people aged 20 to 25 who have not paid the contributions in any tax year necessary for entitlement to Incapacity Benefit under the current system and about 2,530,000 who have not paid the contributions in the two most recent tax years for entitlement under the proposed system. It is not known how many of these would actually claim Incapacity Benefit.

  Notes:

  1. The information refers to the number of people without the required National Insurance contributions in 1997 (the most recent information available). The qualifying tax years for the new condition are therefore tax years 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Source:

  DSS: Lifetime Labour Market Database which contains a 1 per cent. sample from the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS) taken at February 1997.

  Widows' Benefits
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the current average SERPS enhancement to the widow's pension and to widowed mother's benefits is for those whose husbands have remained contracted into SERPS; and what the average widow's benefit is for contracted-out occupational pension schemes. [63951]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The average additional pension paid to a widow, resident in Great Britain, whose husband had never contracted out of SERPS is £10.75 per week.

  Where the husband contracted out of SERPS at some point in his working life, the average additional pension paid is £21.70 per week.

  The average additional pension for all widows resident in Great Britain is £16.09.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample of the Pensions Strategy computer system at 31 March 1998.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claimants there have been since July for(a) state pension, (b) state pension with a SERPS enhancement, (c) contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, (d) incapacity benefit and (e) widow's benefit. [63953]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.494

  Benefit

  Number of claims July-October 1998

  Retirement Pension

  194,000

  Retirement Pension with SERFS1

  97,000

  Jobseekers Allowance2

  1,100,000

  Incapacity Benefit

  316,000

  Widows Benefit including Widows Payment3

  13,000

  Widows Pension/Widowed Mother's Allowance included in above4

  10,000

  1 Exact numbers not known but about half of all Retirement Pension claims have SERPS entitlement

  2 A claim for Jobseeker's Allowance has to be made before it can be established whether the contributory element of Jobseeker's Allowance is payable. To date no figures are available for the number of individuals who are paid the contributory element of Jobseeker's Allowance.

  3 All widows can claim the £1,000 Widow's Payment Widows.

  4 Widows Pension or Widowed Mothers Allowance entitlement is examined after consideration of the £1,000 payment. The figures quoted are those where there is prima facie entitlement to Widows Pension or Widowed Mothers Allowance.

  Source:

  Central Data Unit

  National Insurance
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what date those who have been underpaid as a result of the shut-down of the new national insurance computer will receive the full payments to which they are entitled. [63954]

  Mr. Timms
  All customers who are receiving interim or emergency awards of benefit will automatically have their entitlement reviewed. Any arrears due will be paid in full. The NIRS2 system is supporting the majority of business processes and once full functionality is available review of the cases affected will commence. It is not yet certain when this work will be complete.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have, as a result of the shut-down of the new national insurance computer, been underpaid by(a) 1 p to £1 per week, (b) £1 to £10 per week and (c) £10 to £100 per week. [63952]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available until all the affected cases have been reassessed. This reassessment is expected to commence in the first quarter of 1999.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total cost of running the New Deal for Lone Parents from July 1997 to 25 September 1998 has been, broken down by Employment Service regions; and how much of this was spent on(a) advertising, (b) personal advisers and (c) other Employment Agency services. [63950]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Phase 1 of the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) started on 21 July 1997 and ran until the main national rollout of the programme commenced on 26 October 1998. It was delivered in four areas by the Benefits

  495
  Agency and four areas by the Employment Service. Phase 2 commenced on 6 April 1998. There was a period of overlap between Phases 1 and 2.

  The Benefits Agency ran the NDLP in Phase 1 only between 21 July 1997 and 25 October 1998. There are no separate figures for the Benefits Agency advertising costs for Phase 1.

  The cost of the Advisers in the four Benefits Agency areas for that period was as follows:

  £

  Adviser costs

  North Cheshire

  241,337

  North Worcestershire

  233,776

  Sheffield

  248,253

  Cambridge

  339,469

  The Benefits Agency did not have a separate allocation for Employment Service Programmes but were able to refer people to the Employment Service.

  Expenditure details are not available in the same format for the Employment Service for Phase 1 of the NDLP between the period 21 July 1997 until 31 March 1998. However, the Employment Service's financial allocations for their regions for Phase 1 for 21 July 1997 to 31 March 1998 was as follows:

  £

  Running costs

  ES Programmes

  London and South East

  262,676

  85,100

  Wales

  208,132

  67,429

  West Midlands

  145,824

  44,203

  Scotland

  103,225

  33,442

  Phase 2 of the NDLP extended the service to all lone parents who made a new claim for Income Support whose youngest child was aged at least 5 years and three months and those with younger children who put themselves forward. There were costs involved with the preparation of this phase of the programme which fell in the 1997–98 financial year. Expenditure details on Phase 2 of the NDLP in the 1997–98 financial year were not separately captured. However, the Employment Service financial allocations during that financial year for Phase 2 was as follows:

  £

  Running costs1

  Northern

  58,235

  Yorks and Humberside

  80,665

  East Midlands and Eastern

  79,004

  London and South East

  296,497

  South West

  64,648

  Wales

  58,854

  West Midlands

  83,187

  NorthWest

  116,862

  Scotland

  84,034

  The Employment Service captured actual expenditure for the period 1 April 1998 to 30 September 1998 for the combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the NDLP. Separate
  496
  expenditure for the two distinct strands of the NDLP is not available. The regional breakdown of this is as follows:

  £

  Running costs1

  Northern

  204,327

  Yorks and Humberside

  297,436

  East Midlands and Eastern

  270,455

  London and South East

  987,706

  South West

  375,845

  Office for Wales

  305,076

  West Midlands

  333,279

  North West

  518,405

  Office for Scotland

  344,028

  1 From 1 April 1998 Employment Service is recording expenditure details in respect of NDLP under the headings of Paybill, General Administrative Expenditure and ES Programme expenditure. The Paybill details do not show the costs of Advisers as a separate item and would include the costs of Adviser managers and clerical support etc.

  The vast majority of publicity costs surrounding Phase 1 of NDLP were paid centrally and fell in the 1997–98 financial year. These amounted to £384,553. There would have been other much smaller local publicity costs for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of NDLP and these would be contained in the expenditure/allocation details shown above.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents with children of school age were receiving income support in Oxfordshire on 1 December. [63647]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Peter Mathison to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 14 December 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many lone parents with children of school age were receiving income support in Oxfordshire on 1st December.
  The available figures are included in the attached table.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number

  May 1998

  Lone Parents with children of school age in receipt of Income Support in Oxfordshire

  4,000

  Notes:

  1. Lone Parents are defined as single people with dependants who are not in receipt of a disability or pensioner premium.

  2. School age children are taken to be aged between 5 and 18 years inclusive, and it is lone parents who have at least one child within this range who are included. However, these lone parents might also have children younger than school age.

  3. The information has been provided by the Analytical Services Division 1 of the DSS using the postcode's for Oxfordshire. The figures are provisional and subject to change.

  4. The definition of Oxfordshire used is based on version 1 of the 1998 postcode directory.

  5. The figures provided relate to receipt of Income Support as at May 1998 and have been taken from the Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 1998 which is the latest available.

  6. Figures are based on a 5% sample and therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  7. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Income Support (Pensioners)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library the report on research into why some pensioners do not claim income support. [63703]

  Mr. Denham
  Research to understand why pensioners do not claim the Income Support to which they are entitled was begun at the end of last year. The fieldwork is now complete and a report is being prepared. Preliminary findings from qualitative research were published in June 1998 and a copy was placed in the Library. Full results are due next year, and publication will follow as soon as possible. The report will also be placed in the Library.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) total expenditure and (b) expenditure by programme by his Department in Scotland on areas covered by the exceptions under (i) D.5 of Head D and (ii) F.1 of Head F in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. [63799]

  Mr. Timms
  Schedule 5, Head D.5 of the Scotland Act relates to Parliament's role in promoting energy conservation. This Department is conscious of the need to conserve energy, but does not directly incur expenditure in doing so, following the letting of its estates contract to an outside contractor, Trillium, in April 1998. Trillium are currently developing a number of spend-to-save measures.

  Schedule 5, Head F.1 of the Scotland Act lists social welfare matters which are excepted from the reservation of Social Security. All these matters in Scotland are currently the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and this Department has no responsibility for expenditure on them. They are identified in the Act to make it clear that they are not included within the definition of Social Security.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the offices or agencies under his control which will be subject to L.2 of Head L in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998; how many people are currently employed in these offices; and what equal opportunities practices are adopted in these offices. [63800]

  Mr. Timms
  This Department consists of a Headquarters business unit and a number of Executive Agencies; the Benefits Agency, Contributions Agency, Child Support Agency, Information Technology Services Agency and War Pensions Agency. In total, there are 9,434 Departmental staff in Scotland.

  The Department is committed to providing equality of opportunity for all staff, in all of its business units, in all locations. This commitment is set out in the Department's Equal Opportunities policy statement which was revised and issued to all staff in September. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Equal Opportunities practices are integral to the work of the Department, both in terms of employment practices and service to customers. Examples include Equal Opportunities training for all staff, establishing consultative/development staff groups, a network of Harassment Advisers in each business unit, and implementing a range of "family friendly" policies such as career breaks and alternative working patterns.
  498
  In addition, the Department uses the Employment Service's "positive about disabled people" symbol, conducts disability awareness sessions for staff and has completed staff disability surveys using the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition of disability. An increasing number of buildings occupied by the Department now fully meet the requirements of the DDA, and the impetus will be maintained by our private sector partner, Trillium, as they continue to upgrade the buildings.

  Correspondence
  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 dated 27 October to the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency regarding a constituent (ref. 6432). [64008]

  Angela Eagle
  The Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency replied to the hon. Member on 11 December 1998.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of cases reviewed under the Benefit Integrity Project have resulted in claimants(a) losing their entitlement, (b) having the level of their entitlement reduced and (c) having the level of their entitlement increased; [63507]

  (2) how many complaints have been lodged by disability living allowance claimants as a result of decisions reached as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project, in each month since its introduction; [63508]

  (3) how many people in receipt of disability living allowance have been reviewed under the Benefit Integrity Project since its introduction. [63506]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 14 December 1998:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many people in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) have been reviewed under the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP), what percentage of cases reviewed under the BIP have resulted in claimants (a) losing their entitlement, (b) having the level of their entitlement reduced and (c) having the level of their entitlement increased, and how many complaints have been lodged by DLA claimants as a result of decisions reached following a BIP review for each month since its introduction.

  Since its introduction 149,054 customers in receipt DLA have had their claims examined by the BIP. Benefit was removed in 8.13% (12,118) cases, reduced in 13.03% (19,424), and increased in 2.26% (3,373). In 76.58% (114,139) of cases entitlement was unchanged.

  Statistical information about the BIP is published on a monthly basis and is placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Where a customer is dissatisfied with the outcome of a BIP review, or simply dissatisfied with a decision, their normal course of action would be to request a review or appeal. There have been 22,689 reviews and 5,925 appeals received. Complaints are recorded

  499
  only where a customer is dissatisfied with the standard of service they have received. Records of customer complaints about the BIP are available from June 1998 only and are as follows:

  June: 121

  July: 127

  August:179

  September: 159

  October: 111

  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the Benefit Integrity Project in generating cost savings and reducing the level of benefit fraud. [63509]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 14 December 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what assessment he has made to the impact of the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) in generating cost savings and reducing the level of benefit fraud.
  The current estimate of benefit expenditure savings from the Benefit Integrity Project are: £8m in 1997–98, £30m in 1998–99 and £35m in 1999–2000.
  The purpose of the BIP is to identify and put right incorrectness in the payment of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). The Benefits Agency carries out investigations into cases of suspected fraud in DLA. 1,929 cases, including 75 cases generated by BIP, were referred up to 31 March 1998. None of the cases generated by BIP have been referred for prosecution.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Benefits Agency (New Milton)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the provision of Benefits Agency services in New Milton. [62318]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for Peter Mathison, its Chief Executive. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Desmond Swayne, dated 14 December 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will review the provision of Benefits Agency services in New Milton.
  There are no plans at present to review the services provided by the Benefits Agency (BA) to the residents of New Milton. However the Agency is always seeking to ensure its services in line with the modern delivery of services expected by Ministers to support their Welfare Reform Programme, the District Manager for Solent and Forest, John Cullen, based in Southampton would be pleased to receive your suggestions on the service we currently offer our customers in New Milton.
  Whilst there is no specific BA outlet at New Milton there is a Public Caller Office at Lymington which is co-located with the Employment Service Jobcentre (ESJ) and which offers a full BA enquiry service. The main BA processing site for the area in which New Milton is situated is at Totton. There are also ESJs situated at Hythe and Ringwood.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sea Anglers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how anglers' landings are taken into account for quota management purposes when anglers' catches are unknown; [63361]

  (2) which EU Member States impose restrictions on sea angling; [63360]

  (3) how much fish was caught by sea anglers in (a) January to June 1997, (b) June to December 1997, (c) January to June 1998 and (d) June to September 1998 or other periods in 1997 and 1998 for which figures are available. [63359]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: European Union regulations on annual total allowable catches and quotas require that all landings be counted against a Member State's share of the total allowable catch for each quota stock. It is for each Member State to decide how its quotas are managed. We do not have detailed information on the management arrangements operating in other Member States although we understand that some have imposed restrictions on sea angling.

  The Ministry does not collect information on catches made by vessels engaged in recreational angling. For the purposes of quota management in the UK all vessels used to convey pleasure anglers are, irrespective of their length, grouped with under 10 metre commercial fishing vessels. When therefore fisheries for individual stocks are closed to the under 10 metre commercial fleet by means of statutory prohibition orders, all vessels used to convey anglers fishing for pleasure are also prohibited from landing fish. Closures are imposed when the total available quota allocation for a particular species has been taken.

  Zinc Bacitracin
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has undertaken with(a) the manufacturers of zinc bacitracin, (b) poultry breeders and (c) farming unions about the European Commission's proposal to withdraw authorisation of zinc bacitracin; and if he will make a statement. [64030]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a number of communications from Forum Holdings Ltd. and are fully aware of their concerns. Copies of the Commission's proposal have been sent informally to the major interested parties and a formal information letter was sent to interests including poultry breeders and farming unions on 11 December.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consistency of the European Commission's decision to withdraw authorisation for zinc bacitracin and three other veterinary medicines with the precautionary principle of the Commission's guidelines for its implementation; and if he will make a statement. [64026]

  Mr. Rooker
  Zinc bacitracin and the three other antibiotics covered by the proposed suspension are authorised as zootechnical feed additives for growth promotion and not as veterinary medicines. The proposal was made because of evidence assessed by the EU
  501
  Commission's Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition that the use of certain antibiotics for growth promotion contributes to the overall selected pressure for resistant bacteria. The Government have received advice from the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food and from the Veterinary Products Committee which recommends the phasing out of certain antibiotic growth promoters. This advice confirms the principles laid down in the Swann Report in 1969 that antibiotics which may impair the efficacy of prescribed therapeutic antibiotics used in human medicine through the development of resistant strains of organisms should not be authorised for growth promotion.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the animal welfare implications of the proposed European Union ban on the use of zinc bacitracin; and if he will make a statement. [64033]

  Mr. Rooker
  An abrupt suspension, as originally proposed by the European Commission, would have been likely to cause considerable health and welfare problems for livestock. That is why we argued successfully for an extension which permits us to introduce the ban with effect from 1 July 1999, allowing producers some time to adapt to the loss of zinc bacitracin.

  Eggs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of(a) the number of intensive poultry units in England and (b) the average number of birds found within such units. [63375]

  Mr. Rooker
  The figures obtained from the June Census returns do not provide sufficient detail to determine the number of intensive poultry units in England. In England and Wales, there are 23,000 farms with laying hens but not all of these will be cage production and indeed the vast majority have fewer than 100 birds.

  It may be of interest to look at the current breakdown of shell eggs packed by type of production system. This is:

  cage eggs—82 per cent.

  free range—14 per cent.

  bam/other—4 per cent.

  This is from an estimated UK annual production (in 1997) of 9,540 million eggs.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take measures to prohibit the use of the term 'farm-fresh' eggs to designate those eggs which originate from a battery system. [63378]

  Mr. Rooker
  The terms 'farm fresh', 'naturally fresh' and 'country fresh' may be used to describe eggs produced under any system. The word 'fresh' is reserved for eggs of Grade A quality, which is the highest standard of freshness and cleanliness laid down in the Regulations. The words 'farm' and 'country' are not considered to be misleading, as nearly all eggs are produced on farms of one kind or another or in the country.

  I am aware that consumer research, undertaken by welfare organisations, has indicated that some consumers are under the impression that this reflects the method of production. No legislative action is currently proposed
  502
  and any changes would have to be discussed in Brussels. I am aware, however, that the egg industry and supermarkets themselves are addressing this consumer concern.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with supermarkets concerning the descriptions applied to eggs offered for sale to the public. [63377]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  EC legislation governing the marketing of shell eggs specifies which exclusive terms can be used to indicate type of fanning (but exempts organic/biological farming). These optional descriptions are 'free range' eggs; 'semi-intensive' eggs; 'deep litter' eggs; 'perchery' eggs (barn eggs) and 'eggs from caged hens'. All these marketing terms are optional. Producers or marketing outlets can therefore use these terms if they wish to clarify the method of production for consumers, providing the minimum production criteria set out in the marketing legislation is met.

  As far as other descriptions are concerned, there is an obligation that neither the pictures nor terms used on egg packs are misleading. Trading Standards officers of local authorities have the power to act if this is the case.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to resist the withdrawal of authorisation of any veterinary medicine unless he is satisfied that the alternative products available on the market are at least as safe for(a) animals and (b) humans; and if he will make a statement. [64027]

  Mr. Rooker
  No veterinary medicine is authorised for use unless it satisfies stringent statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. Safety includes the safety of treated animals and humans.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the weight of antibiotics used annually in farming; what is his policy in respect of this application; and if he will make a statement. [63381]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not kept centrally. However, industry sources indicate that a total of 756 tonnes of antibiotics, including 99 tonnes of growth promoters, were supplied to users including the farming industry and keepers of pets in the UK during 1996.

  We are very concerned to ensure that human health is not compromised by the use of antibiotics in livestock production. To that end we have supported a proposal by the European Commission to suspend the use of four antibiotic growth promoters that are related to antibiotics used in human medicine.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the offices or agencies under his control which will be subject to L.2 of Head L in
  503
  Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998; how many people are currently employed in these offices; and what equal opportunities practices are adopted in these offices. [63795]

  Mr. Morley
  As regards cross-border authorities, a list of these cannot be specified until appropriate subordinate legislation is made under the Act.

  The State Veterinary Service (SVS) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has 15 offices in Scotland and employs 81 veterinary and animal health staff. These staff are covered by the Ministry's policy of equality of opportunity for all staff. The Ministry's network of Equal Opportunities Officers includes two Equal Opportunities Officers with Responsibility for matters arising for SVS staff in these grades.

  The Veterinary Laboratory Agency employs 26 staff at its Lasswade Laboratory. These staff are covered by the Agency's equal opportunities policy which has been developed within the framework of the Ministry's overall policy. There is an Agency Equal Opportunities Officer with responsibility for matters arising for these staff.

  Recruitment Procedures
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the recruitment procedure for staff of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [63045]

  Mr. Morley
  None.

  Sukler Cow Premium Scheme

  £

  1996

  1997

  County name

  Total amount paid

  Average payment

  Total amount paid

  Average payment

  Avon

  817,708.89

  2,962.71

  846,665.20

  3,078.78

  Bedfordshire

  342,329.18

  3,356.17

  305,756.27

  3,184.96

  Berkshire

  493,323.69

  4,043.64

  528,281.19

  4,294.97

  Buckinghamshire

  1,559,600.98

  4,828.49

  1,575,034.41

  4,921.98

  Cambridgeshire

  864,716.23

  3,588.03

  823,903.90

  3,566.68

  Cheshire

  923,735.48

  2,624.25

  883,144.26

  2,620.61

  Cleveland

  285,923.17

  4,332.17

  280,376.92

  4,248.14

  Cornwall1

  5,657,474.18

  4,939.21

  5,799,582.77

  5,019.65

  Cumbria

  8,123,383.26

  5,180.73

  8,237,040.46

  5,273.63

  Derbyshire

  2,708,731.83

  3,531.59

  2,815,413.85

  3,738.93

  Devonshire

  9,550,124.38

  4,244.50

  9,860,264.87

  4,374.56

  Dorset

  1,314,384.42

  3,723.47

  1,275,537.94

  3,603.21

  Durham

  3,447,213.04

  5,032.43

  3,370,057.32

  5,052.56

  Essex

  648,986.79

  3,004.57

  649,168.13

  3,121.00

  Gloucestershire

  1,983,408.21

  3,666.19

  1,929,540.39

  3,696.44

  Greater London

  137,589.58

  5,982.16

  134,237.47

  5,836.41

  Greater Manchester

  565,217.46

  2,557.55

  608,821.62

  2,780.01

  Hampshire

  1,712,842.47

  3,849.08

  1,680,922.77

  3,873.09

  Hereford & Worcester

  4,031,984.63

  3,376.87

  3,941,045.78

  3,354.08

  Hertfordshire

  605,694.71

  4,769.25

  589,708.71

  4,680.23

  Humberside

  1,540,481.66

  4,043.26

  1,481,576.96

  3,993.47

  Isle of Wight

  312,302.95

  3,548.90

  274,307.36

  3,386.51

  Kent

  1,518,867.29

  3,768.90

  1,500,005.22

  3,916.46

  Lancashire

  2,191,582.68

  3,652.64

  2,241,523.47

  3,662.62

  Leicestershire

  1,573,181.33

  3,347.19

  1,609,849.16

  3,326.13

  Lincolnshire

  2,512,748.25

  4,636.07

  2,467,927.66

  4,503.52

  Merseyside

  97,755.70

  4,655.03

  112,906.80

  4,704.45

  Norfolk

  2,345,188.84

  4,450.07

  2,378,729.72

  4,701.05

  Northamptonshire

  1,535,787.45

  4,490.61

  1,510,322.88

  4,764.43

  Northumberland

  8,727,126.90

  10,183.35

  8,689,438.08

  10,222.87

  Nottinghamshire

  803,129.63

  3,187.02

  735,287.11

  3,063.70

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the exact number of letters he received from Labour hon. Members on problems facing the United Kingdom agricultural industry in the three months prior to 11 November. [61659]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: In the period 12 August to 11 November inclusive, MAFF Ministers received 1,894 letters from hon. Members. Many letters dealt with multiple subjects. To verify the exact number of letter from Labour hon. Members that raised problems facing the UK agricultural industry would require each one to be checked individually; the information could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total payments were by county in 1996 and 1997 under (i) the arable area payments, (ii) the suckler cow premium and (iii) the sheep annual premium schemes of the CAP; and in each case what the average farm payment was in each county. [62885]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following tables give the information requested. Payments are attributed to the country of the claimant's main holding. These figures represent payments by MAFF, in England, in respect of 1996 and 1997 claims—not the payments which were made in those years. For 1996 arable area payments, the figures update those previously published. These were given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 30 July 1997,Official Report, columns 327–30.
  505

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  £

  1996

  1997

  County name

  Total amount paid

  Average payment

  Total amount paid

  Average payment

  Oxfordshire

  1,431,569.33

  4,559.14

  1,471,970.79

  4,794.69

  Shropshire

  4,000,423.39

  4,329.46

  3,823,304.39

  4,192.22

  Somerset

  3,583,650.84

  4,100.29

  3,776,390.67

  4,276.77

  Staffordshire

  1,928,621.67

  2,852.99

  2,031,455.26

  2,948.41

  Suffolk

  1,048,109.63

  3,867.56

  1,002,944.29

  3,742.33

  Surrey

  809,720.81

  4,152.41

  823,606.14

  4,289.62

  Sussex East

  1,195,159.88

  3,395.34

  1,230,568.66

  3,651.54

  Sussex West

  1,014,847.62

  4,470.69

  1,018,354.06

  4,566.61

  Tyne & Wear

  263,719.58

  5,382.03

  249,685.89

  5,201.79

  Warwickshire

  1,182,907.33

  3,295.01

  1,164,995.89

  3,426.46

  West Midlands

  264,421.77

  4,068.03

  265,056.47

  4,077.79

  Wiltshire

  2,135,086.48

  5,849.55

  2,015,091.62

  5,613.07

  Yorkshire North

  6,699,597.18

  4,297.37

  6,722,334.23

  4,416.78

  Yorkshire South

  813,138.42

  3,764.53

  798,726.67

  3,877.31

  Yorkshire West

  1,713,963.17

  2,294.85

  1,726,977.86

  2,977.55

  1Cornwall figures include the Scilly Isles

  Arable Area Payments Scheme

  £

  1996

  1997

  County name

  Total amount paid

  Average payment

  Total amount paid

  Average payment

  Avon

  4,709,856.56

  11,774.64

  4,632,220.50

  11,580.55

  Bedfordshire

  19,600,435.19

  33,053.01

  19,213,927.00

  32,510.87

  Berkshire

  11,992,117.78

  44,746.71

  12,021,801.07

  44,857.47

  Buckinghamshire

  17,744,157.31

  27,467.74

  16,903,137.49

  26,085.09

  Cambridgeshire

  60,573,233.24

  28,464.87

  57,731,621.09

  27,425.95

  Cheshire

  7,418,313.97

  7,850.07

  6,971,443.50

  7,231.79

  Cleveland

  5,355,734.45

  25,026.80

  4,499,510.69

  21,324.70

  Cornwall

  11,978,012.05

  6,927.71

  11,904,647.11

  6,865.43

  Cumbria

  4,652,279.00

  4,949.23

  4,518,377.54

  4,791.49

  Derbyshire

  10,083,321.95

  12,812.35

  9,666,631.18

  12,236.24

  Devonshire

  19,333,953.12

  7,233.05

  19,477,317.41

  7,095.56

  Dorset

  17,653,073.25

  24,758.87

  16,692,638.94

  23,248.80

  Durham

  13,681,610.76

  20,729.71

  12,314,045.64

  19,240.70

  Essex

  59,628,462.58

  39,515.22

  56,679,741.35

  37,736.18

  Gloucestershire

  26,201,454.51

  26,736.18

  24,857,058.62

  25,494.42

  Greater London

  1,446,717.13

  22,257.19

  1,417,200.50

  19,960.57

  Greater Manchester

  1,500,373.83

  10,640.95

  1,449,198.90

  9,994.48

  Hampshire

  34,669,172.17

  43,996.41

  33,025,543.28

  41,178.98

  Hereford & Worcester

  29,685,160.76

  14,894.71

  28,474,164.83

  14,272.76

  Hertfordshire

  21,346,141.77

  44,471.13

  20,537,261.29

  42,875.28

  Humberside

  61,090,717.76

  29,555.26

  57,441.627.46

  28,033.98

  Isle of Wight

  2,880,123.33

  21,985.67

  2,800,164.38

  20,145.07

  Kent

  36,810,840.88

  34,958.06

  35,217,874.64

  33,255.78

  Lancashire

  5,285,404.17

  11,174.22

  5,081,869.22

  10,676.20

  Leicestershire

  32,095,569.54

  29,177.79

  30,480,109.55

  27,709.11

  Lincolnshire

  103,834,550.37

  30,802.30

  98,202,508.72

  28,883.09

  Merseyside

  2,608,065.32

  15,075.52

  2,566,230.93

  15,275.18

  Norfolk

  66,179,308.31

  23,018.89

  64,646,116.24

  22,698.78

  Northamptonshire

  37,552,734.08

  41,725.26

  34,858,568.52

  38,517.76

  Northumberland

  28,920,316.75

  34,388.01

  25,244,332.53

  29,945.83

  Nottinghamshire

  29,463,123.16

  29,316.54

  27,586,567.83

  27,367.63

  Oxfordshire

  38,289,565.52

  41,483.82

  36,115,566.98

  38,750.61

  Shropshire

  25,231,785.80

  15,750.18

  23,107,332.22

  14,560.39

  Somerset

  14,388,826.16

  11,622.64

  13,775,003.03

  10,967.36

  Staffordshire

  14,970,014.94

  17,971.21

  14,189,836.22

  16,872.58

  Suffolk

  56,350,044.61

  26,923.10

  54,053,967.15

  25,999.98

  Surrey

  4,218,972.44

  20,381.51

  4,023,335.98

  19,530.76

  Sussex East

  9,598,132.74

  21,472.33

  9,494,715.79

  20,776.18

  Sussex West

  15,019,837.84

  30,281.93

  14,560,043.49

  28,000.08

  Tyne & Wear

  2,892,173.94

  26,055.62

  2,578,807.20

  23,658.78

  Warwickshire

  24,320,196.54

  27,668.03

  23,062,985.22

  26,178.19

  West Midlands

  1,668,292.57

  17,560.97

  1,577,044.57

  16,777.07

  Wiltshire

  36,319,698.82

  35,364.85

  34,866,404.61

  33,525.39

  Yorkshire North

  62,744,381.17

  19,937.84

  60,399,843.43

  19,229.49

  Yorkshire South

  13,001,288,98

  24,301.47

  12,261,439.91

  23,355.12

  Yorkshire West

  7,172,345.27

  18,677.98

  6,782,993.64

  17,437.00

  506

  507

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  £

  1996

  1997

  County name

  Total amount paid

  Average payment

  Total amount paid

  Average payment

  Avon

  626,274.48

  1,875.07

  536,008.17

  1,675.03

  Bedfordshire

  364,281.84

  2,412.46

  298,036.70

  2,069.70

  Berkshire

  379,386.98

  3,084.45

  333,566.54

  2,900.58

  Buckinghamshire

  1,366,539.78

  3,010.00

  1,196,749.51

  2,641.83

  Cambridgeshire

  350,487.67

  2,246.72

  298,430.30

  2,116.46

  Cheshire

  1,459,010.04

  2,448.00

  1,282,084.04

  2,180.42

  Cleveland

  299,262.84

  2,877.53

  260,347.12

  2,433.15

  Cornwall

  4,340,592.80

  2,844.43

  3,788,393.50

  2,609.09

  Cumbria

  20,419,757.10

  5,763.41

  18,704,776.89

  5,333.55

  Derbyshire

  3,432,484.91

  3,114.78

  3,039,474.30

  2,814.33

  Devonshire

  13,173,439.65

  3,276.16

  11,607,071.67

  2,997.69

  Dorset

  1,372,756.59

  2,624.77

  1,216,767.41

  2,428.68

  Durham

  4,909,834.61

  5,052.42

  4,377,307.38

  4,701.73

  Essex

  444,932.55

  1,934.49

  390,624.55

  1,808.45

  Gloucestershire

  2,514,595.60

  2,622.10

  2,162,417.79

  2,320.19

  Greater London

  5,219.07

  1,304.77

  4,762.71

  952.54

  Greater Manchester

  572,751.11

  2,878.15

  521,129.40

  2,863.35

  Hampshire

  948,885.53

  2,497.07

  839,428.38

  2,312.47

  Hereford & Worcester

  7,911,597.17

  2,922.64

  6,844,905.84

  2,708.71

  Hertfordshire

  291,545.39

  2,626.54

  249,888.98

  2,449.89

  Humberside

  841,132.58

  1,942.57

  715,045.21

  1,706.55

  Isle of Wight

  211,043.49

  2,198.37

  188,506.17

  1,984.28

  Kent

  3,184,720.06

  3,331.30

  2,751,932.40

  3,044.17

  Lancashire

  5,854,129.93

  3,702.80

  5,324,015.98

  3,454.91

  Leicestershire

  2,342,144.22

  2,815.08

  1,978,875.59

  2,533.77

  Lincolnshire

  1,437,636.75

  2,482.97

  1,224,996.47

  2,227.70

  Merseyside

  43,200.66

  2,057.17

  35,513.08

  1,972.95

  Norfolk

  963,724.18

  2,707.09

  839,604.00

  2,476.71

  Northamptonshire

  2,359,497.65

  3,309.25

  2,025,172.77

  2,876.67

  Northumberland

  11,622,434.29

  8,440.40

  10,554,322.40

  7,720.79

  Nottinghamshire

  598,930.55

  2,348.75

  515,877.50

  2,261.27

  Oxfordshire

  1,299,529.56

  3,116.38

  1,152,876.42

  2,832.62

  Shropshire

  6,548,560.79

  3,628.01

  5,713,876.73

  3,266.94

  Somerset

  4,472,607.23

  3,422.04

  3,913,116.34

  3,064.30

  Staffordshire

  1,938,797.88

  2,118.90

  1,666,866.88

  1,874.99

  Suffolk

  471,582.51

  1,702.46

  395,560.34

  1,475.97

  Surrey

  430,166.53

  1,807.42

  360,258.52

  1,637.54

  Sussex East

  1,810,204.75

  3,170.24

  1,591,357.01

  2,888.13

  Sussex West

  769,940.95

  2,519.15

  682,823.10

  2,299.07

  Tyne & Wear

  74,064.49

  3,086.02

  57,635.64

  2,505.90

  Warwickshire

  2,011,979.80

  2,718.89

  1,736,385.58

  2,411.65

  West Midlands

  136,872.93

  2,319.88

  121,304.26

  2,056.00

  Wiltshire

  1,323,788.80

  2,995.00

  1,119,461.94

  2,652.75

  Yorkshire North

  14,711,206.88

  5,901.80

  13,224,077.56

  5,318.99

  Yorkshire South

  531,892.32

  3,056.85

  477,954.90

  2,844.97

  Yorkshire West

  1,652,352.27

  2,643.76

  1,464,135.44

  2,494.27

  Turkeys
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has in respect of the sale of uneviscerated turkeys. [62924]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: Farm fresh turkeys give consumers a choice and the Government would like to see traditional production of this product continue.

  The Ministry will be issuing for public consultation a consultation document recommending that small off-farm poultry meat slaughterhouses should no longer be exempt from licensing. These proposals will not affect the exemption for small-scale on-farm production of traditional farm fresh turkeys.

  Pesticides
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a possible tax on pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [63452]

  Mr. Rooker
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has made no representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter.

  Research Programmes (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the research programmes and (b) the activities undertaken in Wales and funded by his Department, and the total estimated

  509
  annual expenditure on each in 1998–99; and what proportion of this funding will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales when it has been established. [63480]

  Mr. Rooker
  Decisions on the placing of research contracts are based on the scientific quality and value for money of research proposals and not on the geographical location of contractors. The Ministry expects to pay some 510
  £125 million for research in 1998–99, spread between contractors throughout the UK. Some £7.8 million of this sum will be paid to Welsh contractors, but Wales will benefit from all relevant research regardless of where it is carried out. Post-devolution, it is intended that the Ministry will retain responsibility for the budget for R&D carried out in England and Wales. The National Assembly for Wales will be consulted about priorities for R&D and these will be reflected in the programme of work commissioned.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
Lord Trevor Lord Trevor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

United Nations: Funding
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what measures they intend to pursue reform of the United Nations and an early resolution to its funding crisis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, as the Prime Minister told the General Assembly in September, all parts of the United Nations need proper accountability to go with secure funding, better management and more co-ordination in their activities. We continue to support the United Nations Secretary-General's package of reforms aimed at making the United Nations more modern and effective, and to press the European Union's proposals to put United Nations finances on a sound and equitable basis.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. However, I find its contents extremely disappointing. I remind the Minister that the words of my Question that the Government should,
"pursue reform of the United Nations and an early resolution to its funding crisis",
are precisely lifted from the gracious Speech. What measures do the Government have in mind to achieve that? Will they be able to persuade the United States to pay up any part of the 1.6 billion dollar deficit that the United States owes the United Nations? Surely, unless the Government come forward now with constructive proposals, they will be guilty of circulating diplomatic hot air—rhetoric, but no substance.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have been extremely assiduous in pressing the question. It was raised with the United States and other parties to the G8 meeting which took place earlier this year in Birmingham. It was raised three times under our presidency of the EU and most recently by the Austrian Foreign Minister as president of the European Union in a letter to Mrs. Albright on 17th November 1998 on behalf of the EU. That letter urgently pressed on the United States the necessity of paying its arrears. The European Union is also taking an active role in discussions in New York on tougher
1226
disincentives for member states with outstanding dues. Her Majesty's Government are pursuing the matter at all levels, both bilaterally—as I have had occasion to tell the House before—and through other means available to us such as the G8 and the EU.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can my noble friend say how long the United States has been in arrears with payments to the United Nations? What steps did the previous government take to try to remedy the default on payments?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend is right. This is hardly a new problem. I cannot give the exact date of when the problem began, but it has existed for a considerable period. As I have told the House previously, the United States has not moved so far into arrears to attract the sanctions under Article 19. That would mean that the United States had moved two years into arrears. However, the United States is now responsible for 60 per cent. of the total arrears. The matter is urgent. It is being pressed by Her Majesty's Government wherever we can and through other organisations as well.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, in view of the considerable personal warmth that exists between the head of our Government and the head of the United States Government, would it not be productive, in addition to the official channels, to make sure that the next time there is a cosy dinner this item ought to be on the agenda between two of the courses?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I was able to tell the House a few moments ago, the matter was raised at the G8 earlier this year. It was also raised by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in a speech he made to the General Assembly in September this year.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that it is not just a question—
Lord Judd: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I believe it is the turn of this side. I am sure there will be plenty of time for the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in a moment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I certainly wish to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Does my noble friend agree that in the context of the Government's commitment to an effective United Nations—for which adequate financing is obviously essential—it is disturbing to read what the Secretary-General said in his recent speech to the National Assembly in France? He is reported as having said that he was concerned by the trend towards regional action without UN authorisation which seemed to indicate a return to spheres of influence rather than

1227
shared global responsibility. He suggested that all such action should be authorised by the Security Council. Can the Government reassure us on the point?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the UK's position perfectly clear when he spoke in September of this year at the General Assembly. He urged proper accountability upon the United Nations, secure funding, better management and more effective co-ordination. I believe that proper accountability and effective co-ordination adequately reflect Her Majesty's Government's position on the whole of the United Nations acting co-operatively together.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the Question is far too important simply to clock up speakers and letters sent. It is disgraceful and very disappointing that 50 years and more after the last war the United Nations is still in the palsied state that it is. If another letter is to go to the American Government, perhaps they can be reminded of the enthusiasm with which their elders and betters established the United Nations so many years ago.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is an extraordinarily serious position. The European Union tried to address it in the proposals put forward in 1996 which comprehended a more stringent application of the Article 19 provisions for those falling into arrears. It is important to remember that the problem is not solely focused upon the United States. Because the United States is such a large contributor to the United Nations, in overall terms the United States owes a huge amount of money—indeed, more than 60 per cent. of the arrears. But the fact is that currently 140 states are in areas with their United Nations dues. It is a serious problem across the board which has to be addressed. Her Majesty's Government are doing their best to do so.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, while reform of the United Nations is being discussed, is the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council under consideration? Is the Minister aware, for example, that the two main parties are in total opposition to each other on the elimination of nuclear weapons? The General Assembly is heartily in favour of the elimination of nuclear weapons; the Security Council, with this Government's support, is not in favour, despite the manifesto commitment.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we believe that the General Assembly should be more focused in its agenda. I do not believe that that will necessarily be an easy task, but it is something the Government would like to see. We should also like to see enlargement of the permanent and non-permanent parts of the Security Council. We support permanent
1228
seats for developing countries in Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa as well as for Germany and Japan.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what allowances, if any, will the Government make for the views of the new United States Congress? What indications, if any, do they have that the new Congress may take a different view?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an important question in the debate on how to take forward the issue with the United States. Unfortunately, we have not seen sufficient commitment from either part of the American Parliament, if I may put it that way. It is too early to say whether the new Congress will make any real difference. However, we believe it important that Her Majesty's Government, through every means possible, such as the G8 and acting with our colleagues in the European Union, encourage the new Congress, together with the Administration, to work together more constructively in order to make real progress on this important issue.

Prisoners: Educational Provision
2.46 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the provision of education in prisons and young offender institutions.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government have made education a top priority. Educating prisoners is a key element of the Prison Service's plans for developing constructive and positive regimes which make a cost-effective contribution to the reduction of reoffending. We want to see a Prison Service which gives prisoners the skills needed to turn them away from crime and to open up employment opportunities. That is why we have provided £226 million over the next three years to deliver our manifesto commitment of constructive regimes, including education.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging reply. Given the crucial importance of remedying this educational deficit if prisoners are to have a hope of a job when they get out, will the Government redouble their efforts, perhaps through such schemes as educational targets for staff and educational incentives for inmates? Will the Government do still more to facilitate the work of the voluntary sector, noting the superb work done at the Feltham Young Offenders Institution by the Society of Voluntary Associates (SOVA) who tell me that given more resources they would happily move out into the less transient populations of mainstream prisons where of course the needs are just as great?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what the noble Lord says is absolutely right. I met representatives of SOVA in the past few weeks. They do admirable work,

1229
as do their colleagues in the voluntary sector. The present story is lamentable. Of all prisoners, 67 per cent. are below or at level one in numeracy, which is very modest indeed; and of young offenders and juveniles—the noble Lord specifically refers to them in the Question—82.4 per cent. do not get above level one.
The noble Lord makes a good point, I suggest, about targets. We intend that, by the year 2001, 50 per cent. of prisoners with six months or more to serve in prison should achieve level two competence in basic and key skills. So we have targets in mind; and we intend to deliver.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the saddest things about the previous government was that they reduced the total amount of money that went to education in prisons? Can he give some clearer evidence than he has given so far today that that trend is being reversed? To be told that the amount is going to new regimes is one thing, but to be told that the money is going to prisons is another.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the extra amount that is going to prisons as a result of the money obtained by the Home Secretary from the CSR settlement is £660 million. The figure that I gave for constructive regimes was £226 million and rather more than £10 million in the first year for the enhancement of educational provision.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, through the Arts Council of England, subsidises writers to work in prisons and that that can have a stimulating effect on education generally? Will he encourage this trend?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was aware of that, significantly, as a result of a specific Question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies. Following that question I did a little more research and found that the writers in residence schemes worked well. I was able, I hope to her pleasure, to provide her with some further material relating to the success of such schemes.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that recent reports have highlighted the high level of illiteracy among young offenders? Does he agree that at least custody provides an opportunity to give them intensive remedial teaching to equip them to live successfully within the community?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it can provide those opportunities, but one must reflect on the fact that in this country, notionally, children are educated compulsorily at public expense from five to 16. It is a rather depressing thought that children who have been so expensively educated still end up in the prison or young offender system with such low levels of numeracy and literacy. I believe that the work of
1230
Mr. Blunkett and the Department for Education to improve the educational standards of young people is of great importance.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the fact that 50 per cent. of people in prisons reoffend compared with 12 per cent. in military prisons, will the Minister see whether any lessons can be learnt from that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that there are any general lessons to be learnt from the military prison system for the vastly disparate 66,000-plus who are in the rest of the regime. In particular, I do not believe that any helpful lessons can be learned for women prisoners in the prison estate.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to pursue what he said from the Dispatch Box on 10th December, at col. 1026 of the Official Report, concerning the importance of co-ordinating the work of the Home Office and that of Mr. Blunkett in raising standards in prisons just as in the schools?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did say that at the Dispatch Box. My noble friend Lady Blackstone and I had an immediate meeting to see how we might co-ordinate our dual responsibilities. We intend to set ourselves particular targets and have already arranged to meet not later than six months from now to see how far we have got. These are not idle offers.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether part of the strain on the education system in prison arises from the fact that there are more 15 and 16 year-olds in prison now than before in spite of the previous government's building plans for local authority secure accommodation and the fuss that the Labour Party made about that matter when in opposition?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we did make a fuss because it was a disgrace—and it was a right fuss to make. There was a modest increase in local authority secure accommodation but it was overtaken by the number of young persons who were being sentenced to custody. We ended up with a net deficit. But this is not the occasion on which to say who did what over the past 18 years. We have to get on with the task and that is what we are doing.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a high percentage of dyslexic people in prisons and young offender institutions and that there is a need for specially trained remedial teachers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do. I confirm that specific directions are to be sent out to all prison governors by the end of February of next year so that every prisoner on an induction course when entering a custodial establishment will be specifically screened for dyslexia.

Grammar Schools: Ballots and Standards
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the balloting system for grammar schools is consistent with their aim of raising standards in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, increasing parental involvement in education is an important aspect of our drive to raise standards. Enabling parents to make a choice about future admissions arrangements to grammar schools is part of that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is the noble Baroness satisfied that the very complex—some would say unfair—system of balloting which allows votes for those who are automatically eligible and for those who are eligible only if registered, which includes parents of children under compulsory school age who may well leave the area before their children reach the age of 11, is fair? Does she agree that that will cause not only great concern to parents of children in the grammar schools but also disruption to pupils and staff? Can she justify that as "raising standards"?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government have heard the criticisms by the Conservative Party about the arrangements for ballots but consider that these are sensible arrangements that allow those parents who are most likely to be affected by a change in the admissions policies of grammar schools first to sign a petition and then to vote. As to standards and disruption, I am absolutely clear that teachers in grammar schools are more professional than the Question implies. I have no hesitation in saying that they will be able to cope perfectly well with a ballot inviting parents to express their views about admissions policies and that the excellent education that they are providing for many pupils in such schools will continue.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I speak as president of the Grammar School Association. In spite of the admiration that she shows for grammar school teachers, does the noble Baroness consider that a policy that subjects schools to five-yearly ballots is governed more by ideology than the interests of education? I refer to the Answer given to my noble friend about the improvement in educational standards. Is it not ideology rather than education that governs the policies that the noble Baroness advocates?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I utterly refute that. This is all about providing an opportunity for parents to exercise choice about the form of secondary education that they prefer. That seems to me to be democratic and utterly appropriate in the circumstances. Moreover, as I said only last week, it is democratic since the electorate
1232
was consulted on this matter following an election manifesto commitment to consult parents on their views about admission policies.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the noble Baroness said last week that a school would have 20 months in which to prepare for going comprehensive. Does she agree that the minimum size of a good comprehensive school is at least five, and preferably six or eight, forms of entry? How does the noble Baroness envisage that within 20 months a building programme can be planned, the allocation of resources made and the architectural plans arranged to give those non-selective children the education that they deserve in buildings that are ready to admit them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not accept the assumptions that lie behind the question of the noble Baroness. The average grammar school in this country has about 800 pupils. Some 40 per cent. of comprehensive schools have fewer than 800 pupils, so many comprehensive schools operate perfectly effectively with school rolls that are lower than the average for grammar schools. There need be no reorganisation of the kind to which the noble Baroness refers.
Lord Tope: My Lords, will the Minister explain why parents of key stage 1 pupils in a primary school will be eligible to take part in a ballot while parents of key stage 1 children in an infant school will not? Is that fair?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have gone through the issue of what is an appropriate group of parents to vote on ballots on countless different occasions, including when the Bill was going through this House. The Government believe that they have devised the most sensible and fair system of balloting which could possibly be achieved. We have been criticised by my noble friend Lord Hattersley on the one hand and by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the other. I suspect that that means that we must have got it about right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the average size of grammar schools is not 800 pupils. I hope that the noble Baroness will look again at those figures. In fact, a large majority of grammar schools have only four forms of entry which, as my noble friend said, means that they are not sufficiently large to be viable as comprehensive schools. Will the noble Baroness tell the House how standards will be raised if those fine schools are removed?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I must contradict the noble Baroness. First, I have in front of me the figures which are provided by statisticians in my department which show that the average grammar school has 800 pupils on its roll. Secondly, I do not believe for a moment that standards will fall. Those schools are not to be abolished; they will continue.

Christie Hospital, Manchester: Funding
3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that present funding for the Christie cancer hospital in Manchester is sufficient to meet the present demand of people requiring cancer treatment at that hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, in May 1998 an additional £500,000 was allocated to meet the increasing demand for radiotherapy services at the Christie Hospital. Discussions are now taking place with the local health authorities on the level and funding of chemotherapy services at the hospital. A review of specialist cancer services across the north-west region is nearing completion and will make recommendations about the level of service provision at all three of the regional cancer centres.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. She stated that this is the second time this year that the Christie Hospital has had to reduce vitally needed services because of the financial situation. The Government have already declared that cancer is the primary illness to be tackled. Is there not, therefore, something wrong in view of the fact that those services are being cut? Should not the financing arrangements of specialist hospitals such as the Christie Hospital and others be made directly through the department itself and not left to the whims and quirks of the local area health authority, which may act quite differently?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise that my noble friend is an extremely effective advocate of the services of the Christie Hospital. The whole House will recognise the quality of those services. It is not a matter of services being cut. Rather it is an issue of more and more patients being referred to cancer units in the north-west, despite the fact that a new unit has been opened recently at Preston.
However, I agree with my noble friend that it is unsatisfactory to have hand-to-mouth funding and to be dealing with those issues as and when they arise. That is why I hope that the regional survey of cancer services will allow for more coherent planning in the future. The Christie Hospital has a national and international profile for research and development, which is funded separately. But given that the vast majority of patients come from the north-west region, as is the situation with other specialist centres in the country, current funding arrangements can be made appropriately. We must just make sure that they are.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Christie Hospital is clearly a major cancer centre which is currently lacking resources. Is the Minister aware of the estimate given by Professor Karol Sikora of the World
1234
Health Organisation and the Hammersmith Hospital that more than £100 million is needed to implement in full the 1994 Calman-Hine proposals which were designed to ensure that there were high quality cancer services across the country? Does the Minister agree with that estimate?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I certainly agree that we need to build on the implementation of the Calman-Hine framework for improving cancer services. The Government are committed to that work. As part of that implementation we have been publishing evidence-based guidance on common cancer sites. Guidance has already been published on breast, colorectal and lung cancer. We shall see guidance relating to gynaecological cancer in the spring. We are already building on the substantial funding that is provided to health authorities for cancer services by making available extra funding: some £20 million since 1997 to improve breast cancer services and an additional £10 million to improve colorectal cancer services. We have the prospect of even greater investment when the announcements are made regarding the New Opportunities Fund.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as I lead a campaign to raise some £25 million for the Christie Hospital, of which we have already raised about £16.5 million. What role does the Minister believe that private funding of that nature—appealing to the local business community and individuals—should play in providing the high quality and excellent standards that the Christie Hospital intends to provide?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I applaud the noble Lord's efforts in that area. There is a fine tradition within the health service of local support and fund-raising, enhancing and providing even higher quality standards of care, particularly in the areas of environment and additional equipment, which has taken place throughout the history of the health service. We wish to see that encouraged. It is exactly that sort of partnership with charitable and local interests that we intend to build on in the New Opportunities Fund programme.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the extremely detailed Answer which she gave to my first Question. Does she agree with me that one of the worst aspects of this stop-go programme which Christie's has had to undertake is its effect on forward planning for future treatment? It is almost wrecking any prospect of real improvement. As the Minister said, the Christie Hospital is one of the best centres of excellence in the world in relation to the disease.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I certainly agree that stop-go funding is not satisfactory. I believe that the trust understands that if the situation persists it may be necessary to open additional beds to make sure that chemotherapy patients receive the treatment they need.

1235
I understand that an application has been made for emergency pressure funding to do that. We are also looking at ways in which the ambulance service can provide transport for radiotherapy patients who cannot otherwise travel to and from the hospital.
I accept absolutely that we need to provide a sensible regional framework in which the hospital can plan ahead although I should say to my noble friend that, particularly on issues such as communications with patients and providing the most efficient services possible, the hospital must also look internally at what it can do to improve services.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the pensions Green Paper.

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 7(4) of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 in respect of several fisheries. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee for Privileges be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the committee:

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Campbell of Alloway,

L. Carter,

L. Cledwyn of Penrhos,

L. Henley,

L. Glenamara,

B. Jay of Paddington,

L. Mowbray and Stourton,

L. Nathan,

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

1236

L. Weatherill,

V. Whitelaw,

L. Wigoder;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own Chairman; and
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on any sub-committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider personal Bills and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Astor of Hever,

L. Hogg of Cumbernauld,

L. Meston,

L. Templeman,

L. Wilberforce.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Burnham,

L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

L. Hayter,

L. Monkswell,

V. Oxfuird,

B. Thomas of Walliswood.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill continues the reform of youth justice which we began in the Crime and Disorder Act, and introduces much-needed protection for witnesses and the victims of

1237
crime. I know that all noble Lords look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, which is to be made quite soon, particularly bearing in mind his expertise as a serving police officer for many years. I believe that he is presently superintendent in command of a Slough district.
We are committed to the reduction of crime and the fear of crime. If we are to achieve that ambitious goal, which I am sure that all noble Lords share, we must take effective action to deal with young offenders. Our primary aim is to prevent offending by children and young people. However, when they break the law, meaningful punishment is necessary to help young people to take responsibility for their actions, to make amends for their crimes and reparation to their victims and to return to the law-abiding community.
Part I of the Bill introduces a new sentence for young people convicted for the first time; that is, referral to a youth offender panel. The panel will agree a contract with the young offender, which will involve reparation to the victim and measures to tackle the causes of offending. The youth court will set the contract's duration. If a contract cannot be agreed or is broken, the young offender will be returned to the youth court to be sentenced for the original offence.
Panels will include at least one member of the local youth offending team as well as lay members of the community. The parents of offenders under 16 will be required to attend and the parents of older offenders will be encouraged to do so. Victims may attend if they wish. That new disposal therefore provides an opportunity for a great many young people to ensure—this is critical—that their first conviction is also their last.
Part II of the Bill fulfils our commitment to provide greater protection for complainants in rape and certain other serious sexual offence trials. It implements recommendations of the report, Speaking Up For Justice, to encourage and enable witnesses to give evidence who face real difficulty in doing so, whether through disability or intimidation. That report was subject to widespread consultation and was, I believe, widely welcomed.
Chapter I of Part II helps to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society have access to justice. Far too many cases involving the most vulnerable victims have been abandoned, or not even begun, because the victim cannot adequately give his side of the story. Other witnesses are afraid to come forward, or at least reluctant to do so, because they fear reprisal.
Under Clauses 16 and 17, special measures will be available for various witnesses—other than the accused—to help them to give their best evidence. Witnesses will be eligible for those special measures if they are under 17, or if they have a mental or physical disability or disorder, or if testifying would scare or distress them so much that their evidence would be impaired. There will be a presumption that complainants of sexual offences are eligible unless the court is satisfied that that is not necessary.
The court will determine in each case whether, and what, special measures should apply. Clauses 22 to 29 set out protective measures which may be authorised:
1238
first, putting up screens to prevent the witness seeing the accused; secondly, using a live television link to give evidence; thirdly, clearing the public, and occasionally the press, from the court room; fourthly, removing wigs and gowns; fifthly, using pre-recorded video evidence-in-chief; sixthly, using video-recorded cross-examination; seventhly, allowing intermediaries to help disabled witnesses to communicate with the court and, finally, enabling disabled witnesses to use other communication aids such as, for instance, alphabet boards and speech synthesisers.
Chapter II of Part II is designed to protect children and complainants in certain sexual offence trials from the trauma of being cross-examined in person by their alleged attacker. All noble Lords will have been deeply dismayed at the court room ordeals endured by the victims of Milton Brown and Ralston Edwards. They were subjected to prolonged and humiliating cross-examination by their attackers in person. That cannot be right.
Some have argued that it is best left to judicial discretion to prevent any repetition. In cases involving sex, violence or cruelty, defendants are already barred from personal cross-examination of child witnesses. The Government firmly believe that it is necessary to extend that prohibition to certain other serious offences involving child witnesses and to complainants of rape and certain other sexual offences. We owe a duty to the victims of those distressing crimes to ensure that they are not victimised afresh when they come to court. Clauses 33 and 34 are designed to fulfil our duty which, in the past, has not been fulfilled. The Bill also empowers the courts to impose such a ban in relation to other witnesses and in other cases.
We intend that those provisions will not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial. Defendants who are barred from personal cross-examination will be able to instruct a legal representative to do that work on their behalf. Where defendants refuse a lawyer, the court can appoint one if that is in the interests of justice.
Chapter III puts limits on the circumstances in which the defence in a sexual offence trial may use evidence of the complainant's previous sexual history. Under Clause 40, no such evidence or questioning will be admissible on the question of whether the complainant consented to sex unless that evidence or those questions relate to a specific incident within 24 hours of the alleged offence or are necessary to rebut prosecution evidence. On the question of whether the defendant believed that the complainant was consenting, evidence of sexual history will be admissible, provided that it relates to specific instances of fact and that the main purpose of introducing it is not to discredit the witness.
I know that some of your Lordships, and some outside this House, have misgivings about some aspects of the provisions. The Bill does not exclude all evidence of previous sexual behaviour, only irrelevant evidence. Taking rape as an obvious example, a complainant's previous sexual behaviour, whether one of wild abandon, tedium or total abstinence, is simply not relevant to the question of whether there was consent on

1239
the occasion in point; nor should it render a complainant less worthy of belief or less deserving of the protection of the law.
Chapter IV of Part II and Schedule 2 to the Bill reform current rules on reporting restrictions to give clearer protection for certain witnesses. Clause 43 extends current restrictions on the identification of alleged child and juvenile offenders and witnesses to apply from the moment a complaint has been made and to be enforceable throughout the United Kingdom.
The current restrictions on identifying alleged rape victims will be extended to alleged victims of certain other sexual offences and be made enforceable throughout the United Kingdom. Under Clause 45, the court may also order restrictions on the publication of details which might allow intimidated witnesses to be identified.
Chapter V of Part II relates to the competency of witnesses, creating a simple new presumption that everyone is competent to give evidence in court if they can understand the questions put and give answers which the court can understand. The Bill provides for adult witnesses to give evidence unsworn in certain circumstances.
Finally, Chapter VI amends the law on drawing inferences from a suspect's silence to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Murray. In future, no inferences may be drawn from silence under questioning at a police station where a suspect has not been given the opportunity to see a solicitor.
Perhaps I may make two comments at this stage about the passage of the Bill. First, we are approaching this with a genuinely open mind. If your Lordships table amendments that are consistent with the theme and philosophy of the Bill, I undertake to give each one decent consideration. I have said that in the past, and we were able to do it, particularly in respect of the Human Rights Bill, the Data Protection Bill and the Crime and Disorder Bill. As I see the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in her place, perhaps I may say that we were able, for example, to have extremely constructive discussions with representatives of the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society which she brought about. Improvements were made to the Bill in those particulars.
Secondly, I repeat what was stated by my noble friend the Leader of the House by letter; that it is our intention, if your Lordships are agreeable, on any Bill of substance, following Second Reading and before Committee, to give all noble Lords and advisers the opportunity, should they wish it, to have discussions with officials and/or Ministers as is thought appropriate in order that questions may be answered informally in order that errors or misunderstandings on either side might be removed. I hope that your Lordships will take advantage of that opportunity because this is an extremely important piece of legislation.
If we can stop today's delinquents becoming tomorrow's recidivists, we will have done a good job for society, for prospective victims, and in terms of
1240
preventing the endless waste of human life and resource which is seen by anyone who regularly visits prisons, as I do.
We believe that the youth offender panel is an imaginative tool for the criminal justice system. It can step in at the time which virtually all criminologists and penologists know is so critically important, right in the early stages; in other words, it can put first-time offenders back on the right track.
We cannot deliver justice unless victims and witnesses are willing to report offences, to give evidence in court and to have decent, imaginative support, for their needs, troubles and worries. But we have not fulfilled our obligations to a large number of witnesses in the past, regarding them as appendages—sometimes rather inconvenient appendages—to a system which has been focused too much on the criminal trial and not sufficiently on the needs and decent requirements of witnesses and complainants.
We are therefore seeking not only to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial, but to recognise that no right is absolute and that other people have co-terminus rights which need careful regard.
This measure is designed to run in conjunction with the recent White Paper and with the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in your Lordships' House yesterday. We want all our citizens to have equal access to justice. That means that victims and witnesses are entitled to have the care and respect that they deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.23 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, the first part of the Bill adds another piece to the mosaic of youth justice which is being assembled following the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It deals with a new process by which certain young offenders may be referred by the youth court to a youth offender panel. As an aside, perhaps I may say that the Bill takes many clauses to achieve its simple aim. It is strange to see so much detail incorporated in a statute. I asked a knowledgeable source what the reason could be and was offered one possible explanation. It was that in the Crime and Disorder Act more of a broad brush was wielded and that the Home Office, in its usual conscientious way, sent out guidance, only to be accused of legislating by guidance. Perhaps this time no chances were being taken. I do not know whether that is a correct explanation. I leave it for the Minister to inform the House or otherwise.
Youth offender panels will be set up by the local youth offending teams, numbering between 150 and 200 in all, throughout England and Wales. They are currently being piloted. This part of the Bill will not apply in Scotland where there is already a separate system of children's hearings which has previously been commended to the House. Those of your Lordships who had the privilege of knowing Lady Faithfull will recall that she frequently referred to the Scottish practice in debates on criminal justice issues.

1241
Four of the pilot teams are in London. In order to inform myself in advance of the debate, and in co-operation with the Inner London Probation Service, I had an opportunity this morning for a discussion with the manager of the youth offending team in West London. These teams consist of representatives of all the relevant local services: social workers, probation and police officers, and education or health staff. They are genuinely multi-agency in composition. When a youth court decides to make a referral order under Clause 1, following conviction for the first time of a young person not less than 10 nor more than 18 years of age, a panel will be set up to prepare a programme in the form of a contract designed to reduce the prospect of reoffending. Those present at the panel are expected to be the offender and his or her family, if available; the victim and friends or family, if willing; a police officer; a member of the youth offending team, probably drawn from the social services, and, most importantly, the magistrate who conducted the proceedings who may be a stipendiary magistrate, or the chairman or a member of the bench of lay magistrates.
Reparation is intended to be a central feature in the process. Details of programmes to influence the offending behaviour of the young person are set out in Clause 8. The first requirement is to make financial or some other form of reparation to the victim. Other provisions are designed to achieve reintegration into the law-abiding community, and to take responsibility for the consequences of his or her offending behaviour.
These are ambitious objectives, but early and appropriate intervention in what may develop into a criminal career is, in the Minister's description, an "imaginative tool". I accept that description and think it is an apt one. However, it would be unrealistic to expect that the objectives will always be met. Some, perhaps many, of the young people will inevitably relapse into further offending and make further court appearances. But referral to a youth offender panel represents a constructive alternative to entering on a cycle of persistent offending, which has been one of the most serious, harmful and widespread of all criminal justice issues.
The characteristics of youth crime—or the "blight" of youth crime, if that is not too strong a word—are only too well known. Within the family, if there is one, they are parental criminality, poor parental supervision and family conflict. At school, if they attend, there is widespread truancy and disruptive behaviour, in some instances leading to exclusion. In the community, there is disorganisation and the availability of drugs. As regards the individual, the characteristics are his or her temperament; alienation; early involvement in problem behaviour; lack of any occupation; no qualifications or skills; no work experience; and unemployment or low income. Finally, and perhaps most important of all, there is a lack of victim empathy. This is common among young offenders, especially persistent young offenders.
The relevance of that last factor—lack of any empathy with victims—takes us back to the youth offender panels. Their success or failure, I submit, should not be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which they do or do not prevent offending. The focus
1242
should equally be on what can be done for the victim or relatives of the victim, who are so often overlooked in public responses to crime.
I turn to the latter part of the Bill which includes significant new measures to provide better protection for witnesses and victims. For too long, vulnerable people have been unable to achieve protection through the courts. That may be because they are uneasy or fearful about giving evidence. Children, rape victims and witnesses with physical or mental disabilities are only three examples of categories that call for special protection.
I should perhaps have declared an interest earlier. I am president of Victim Support. I have had the privilege of working in that capacity for many years. It is a large, voluntary organisation which, last year, offered help to more than 1 million people who had suffered from criminal offences ranging from burglary to the murder of a relative.
The Crown Court Witness Service, provided by Victim Support in every Crown Court in England and Wales, has in the past year helped nearly 100,000 victims or witnesses who have attended criminal trials, including approximately 2,500 children under the age of 14. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who is due to speak in the debate, and to the House in general, that Victim Support owes a great deal to his predecessor as Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, for the encouragement he gave in the establishment of the Crown Court Victim/Witness Service. One of the last public engagements that Lord Taylor fulfilled before his early retirement on the grounds of ill health was at Newcastle Crown Court at an event organised by Victim Support.
Much remains to be done, especially in extending victim/witness services in the magistrates' courts. Victim Support is currently working in co-operation with other organisations and on court-based initiatives in some 130 magistrates' courts. Full national coverage is needed and I believe it is now within reach. The funding is under discussion with the Home Office. I hope that the Minister—whose heart 1 am sure is in the right place on this issue—will take the message back and say that we keenly await an early and favourable decision.
In conclusion, this Bill, and the emphasis it gives to reparation in Part I, and the special measures including screens, television links, video recorded evidence and other facilities in the latter parts, should make a substantial contribution towards furthering the interests of victims of crime. Of course, the rights of the accused in a criminal trial are also of high importance. But in view of the time—there is important business later today—I shall leave that aspect of the Bill to others better qualified to speak about it than myself.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, it is a great delight for me to follow the two noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Windlesham. They care so passionately about our criminal justice system, as do many of us in your Lordships' House.

1243
The White Paper, No More Excuses, included a range of proposals to improve the effectiveness of the youth court in preventing offending by children and young people. I am delighted that this is the principal aim of the youth justice system. For that reason, it will certainly carry the support of this side of the House.
Last Monday, in a supplementary to a Starred Question, I said that it cost more than £75,000 for each of the 15 to 17 year-old male offenders in custody. Yesterday saw the publication of Wasted Lives, a research project conducted by NACRO, which I now chair. I am delighted that the previous chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, is sitting opposite me. That report also had the support of the Prince's Trust.
With 2,500 young offenders in custody nationally, the total cost of their offending is at least £190 million. That figure is supported by KPMG, who looked at the costing in terms of this particular process. The message in the report is clear and simple. Early intervention means fewer crimes, fewer victims and less work for the courts and prisons. I do not think many of us can disagree with those principles.
I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill. Almost all criminal justice agencies have identified causes of many youth crimes. It has its roots in severe family and educational problems. Disadvantaged groups are still to be found disproportionately among the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, those who have never worked, those who are stopped and searched, those who underachieve in schools and many families which shuttle between penal and mental institutions and their homes.
Part I of the Bill is an imaginative development which will have a number of advantages over the current youth court procedures. The purpose, in terms of the juvenile offending teams and the special panels, has been spelt out clearly. The provision requires youth courts to refer the majority of juveniles who appear in court for the first time and who plead guilty to a youth referral panel. The young offender and his or her parents would be required to attend the panel. Others, such as a teacher, could do so if that were appropriate, and victims would be able to do so if they wished.
The youth panel and the young person would have to draw up a contract which would involve the young person in appropriate activities, such as reparation to the victim or the community, and in work designed to tackle the cause of offending. If the young person did not comply with the contract, he or she would be returned to court to be sentenced for the original offence. If he or she completed the contract successfully, paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 of the Bill provides for the offence to be spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. So far so good.
First, as one who has sat in a magistrates' court for a long time and also in the youth court, perhaps I may say that in the more formal proceedings of the youth court today the young offender and the parents often fail to understand fully what is happening, and the legal procedures can hinder the process of getting young people and parents to speak and contribute fully to the
1244
discussion. The proposed panel would be better able to involve the young person and the parents fully in discussing the offence, its impact on the victims and the steps that should be taken to make amends and to ensure that there is no repetition.
Secondly, when victims wish to be involved, the procedure would enable them to do so. Experience of restorative justice—for example, with cautioned young offenders in this country or in New Zealand's family group conferences—shows that in appropriate cases face-to-face meetings with the victims of crime can have a salutary effect on young offenders and that many victims appreciate the opportunity to bring home to the young person the degree of distress that the offence has caused them.
Thirdly, in a panel setting the drawing up of a contract can concentrate on the best course of action to prevent reoffending, including attention to the welfare needs of the young person and his and her family such as family counselling, educational measures and help in relation to drug abuse. While courts can invoke welfare-related measures—for example, when passing a supervision order—they can only do so when the offence is regarded as sufficiently serious to warrant such a sentence. As a result many young people appearing in court for the first time miss out on welfare intervention which could help to steer them away from further trouble.
Fourthly, the provision for the offence to be regarded as spent if the contract is completed successfully will provide a positive incentive to the young person and a constructive outcome, enabling him or her to make a fresh start without the stigma of a criminal record. This seems to me to be the most significant approach to youth crime and must be welcomed.
Of course, we have some very detailed reservations and I shall certainly take up the Minister's offer that we shall be able to discuss these between Second Reading and the Committee stage.
Perhaps I may explain one of our main reservations. It relates to the nature of sanctions for failing to keep a contract which has been agreed in a non-court setting and is therefore not subject to the full limits of proportionality which normally apply in sentencing. It is true that the referring youth court would have taken proportionality into account in specifying the length of the contract, but the intensity of programmes of intervention of the same length can vary a great deal.
It does not seem right that a failure to abide by a contract agreed in a non-court setting should be subject to the full range of youth court penalties, including custody, especially as the referring court must have decided that the original offence did not merit custody before making the referral to the panel. We will therefore seek to amend the Bill on this point in Committee.
Many of us would like to go further than the Bill in dealing with young offenders through non-criminal procedures rather than in criminal courts. That is the case in Scotland, where most young offenders are dealt with in welfare-based children's hearings. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is

1245
to contribute on that particular point. Such orders can have a tremendous influence on young people. It is also the system in many European countries where young offenders are dealt with in civil family courts rather than in criminal courts as in this country. However, the provisions in Part I of the Bill are a welcome if small step in the right direction.
Perhaps I may commend the report, Wasted Lives, which I mentioned earlier. It should be bedtime reading for all members of the youth referral panel. It identifies six key points that need to be addressed. The most significant risk factors are absence from school; friends involved in offending; family conflict; unstable living conditions; and other family members involved in crime. The average number of risk factors for each offender is six. More than half of the juvenile offenders questioned by researchers in the report had some contact with the social services, usually as a result of family difficulty. Almost one-third were described as being in children's homes and one-quarter claimed to have been in foster care. Around half of those interviewed came from a violent family background. Almost all of those interviewed had experienced long absences from school. These are the issues which we certainly need to address in different settings.
The second point in the Bill which interests us is the protection of witnesses. I commend much of what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had to say on that point. There should be wider use of live video links; screening witnesses from the defendant's view; excluding specified people from court during witnesses' evidence; removing wigs and gowns; using video recordings for evidence-in-chief and, in some cases, using video recordings of cross-examination and asking a witness questions through an intermediary. These are all sound judgments and ought to be supported.
However, there is a strong case for strengthening the protection of child witnesses, vulnerable or intimated witnesses and the alleged victims of sexual offences. There is no doubt that in the past the trauma of giving evidence has led to the collapse of all too many cases involving serious offenders who have walked free as a result. It has also often inflicted a double trauma on victims who have already suffered greatly as a result of serious offences. In many cases members of minority ethnic groups have been subjected to sustained harassment, intimidation and violence. The fear of reprisals against anyone giving evidence has made it difficult for prosecutions to be brought with a reasonable chance of success. Therefore the Government should be applauded for their determination to tackle those particular problems. Equally, we hope that some judges will refrain from stupid comments on rape cases which can do a great deal of damage to the confidence of the community in our courts.
Finally, I need to tackle two issues which have been brought to my attention. These matters relate to people who have mental health problems. There is a need to look very carefully at Clause 31. That ensures that, where it is thought to be necessary, the judge will give a warning to the jury that the use of a special measures direction should not prejudice them against the accused. However, there is also potential for a special measures
1246
directive to prejudice the jury against a witness by giving his or her evidence less weight than if it had been given it without the aid of a special measure. That is likely to be particularly true of people who have mental health problems, given the stigma and discrimination that they often face and the stereotypes that members of a jury are likely to hold.
At this stage I do not wish to comment on the right to silence. But in conclusion I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the statistics on race and the criminal justice system. I refer to the Home Office publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I would not wish to repeat the gross over-representation of black people in our penal institutions, but suffice it to say that we would certainly wish to ensure that the outcomes of the youth justice panel are ethnically monitored and publicised on a regular basis. There is no excuse not to do that at this time.
3.48 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I have been a police officer for 18 years, serving, first, with the Metropolitan Police and now in the Thames Valley as a superintendent in command of the Slough and district police area. I am very proud to have had an association with both these organisations and I am grateful to my own chief constable for allowing me to speak here today, mindful of the requirements of police regulations that a police officer should not play an active part in politics. While arguably as anxious a moment as any I have experienced while on duty, I hope to be sustained this afternoon by the quiet encouragement which this House offers to maiden speakers and to which I have often been a silent witness.
The Explanatory Notes issued with the Bill make reference to three principles to be applied by youth offender panels: restoration, reintegration and taking responsibility, which are collectively referred to as "restorative justice". This, I believe, is as significant a statement of intent as that contained in the Crime and Disorder Act, which defined the principal aim of the youth justice system as being,
"to prevent offending by children and young people".
Significant and welcome, it contrasts with the experience of many that, while the existing process of youth justice revolves around the offender, offenders rarely have to account for their behaviour and there is little community or victim focus. The process is, too often, slow and expensive, concentrating on punishment and blame rather than repairing the harm which has been caused.
Since 1997, our force has applied the principles of restorative justice as the standard response to early offending among young people and in particular when cautioning young offenders as an alternative to court proceedings. Traditionally, a police caution involved little more than the admonishment, by a uniformed police officer, of a young offender, in the presence of his parent or guardian. In applying the principles of restorative justice, many such cautions are now delivered as part of what is called a "community conference". This relatively new approach has in fact

1247
ancient roots—the model having been adapted from the Whanau conference first practised by the Maori people. It involves bringing together victim, offender and others affected by the offending behaviour, with a trained police facilitator guiding them through a discussion of how the crime occurred, how it has affected their lives and how the harm caused can be repaired.
The conferences provide victims and others with the opportunity to confront the offender, to express their feelings, ask questions and have a say in the outcome. Facilitators need considerable skill in managing the intense emotions which can arise. Central to their task is to keep the focus on what the offender did and how his unacceptable behaviour affected others, rather than whether the offender is a good or bad person. By making this distinction between the unacceptable behaviour and the potential for good in the person, the conference offers the possibility of social reintegration. Enough shame is required to bring home the seriousness of the offence, but not so much as to humiliate or exclude.
There is already some evidence that conferences, if planned and implemented well, can satisfy victims to a greater extent than the traditional justice system, with victims considering justice to have been better delivered and offenders held more accountable. Victims also reported a greater sense of healing and were found likely to receive more compensation than that ordered by the courts. There is, however, much evidence that victims are often more satisfied with symbolic reparation than material compensation. Only 6 per cent. of victims who attended a conference left fearing that they might become victims again, compared with almost a fifth who went through the courts; 74 per cent. received an apology from the offender, as compared with 14 per cent. in the court system; and 79 per cent. of offenders felt ashamed of their actions, compared with 66 per cent. who attended court.
There is also some emerging evidence that this new approach can lead to lower rates of repeat offending. Perhaps I may end my speech by giving your Lordships one example. On 1st May 1998, two 13 year-old boys broke into an unoccupied building in Slough where a new mosque was shortly to be built. Before leaving they turned on a gas supply and, shortly afterwards, an explosion and a fire occurred. While fire fighters struggled to control the blaze, the main ceiling collapsed and the safety of a number of officers was at risk. The two boys were arrested and admitted their part in the incident. From contact with other agencies, it was evident that both had a number of educational and domestic problems which were contributing to their offending behaviour
In October, I took part in a community conference attended by those boys, their mothers, other members of the family, fire officers (including one who had been present on the night) and three trustees of the mosque. We frequently exhort young offenders to accept responsibility for their actions but rarely do we require them to confront so directly, as these two boys did, the consequences of what they have done. For the boys this was at times profoundly uncomfortable, but it was also
1248
the beginning of a process of strengthening their network of support and guidance. And what of the victims? Many had feared that the motive for this crime was racism or religious intolerance and it was not until this meeting with the two boys that the anxieties of the Muslim community were assuaged.
Community conferences are a new and evolving approach to justice and we must be careful not to claim too much too soon. But there are encouraging signs that they can be an effective intervention within the criminal justice system. I do hope that the youth offender panels will play their part in further developing this potential.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, it is a very great pleasure for me to thank the noble Earl for his contribution and to congratulate him on a really fascinating maiden speech. I know that the noble Earl's enthusiasms include music and historic buildings, but it is his life's career since university as a policeman, starting on the beat and now rising to the extremely responsible post of superintendent, that fits him particularly to contribute to the Second Reading of this Bill.
Any noble Lords who have read the White Paper upon which the Bill is based and have wondered what the word "mediation" means in the context of the legislation have now had a very good example from the noble Earl. Indeed, he has illustrated it beautifully. I wonder whether the Minister knew that the roots and ethos of the Bill are, in fact, to be found in the Maori culture. The noble Lord is shaking his head. I believe that the noble Earl has told him something that he did not know—and that is quite something. I am sure that we are all very glad to have heard the noble Earl. We hope that the constraints of his profession will not prevent him joining our discussions again—and as soon as possible.
Like the noble Earl, I should like to speak briefly on Part I of the Bill. I have two specific questions for the Minister. It seems to me that the system proposed is, to use the Minister's own word, "imaginative" and that it should be practical. However, I say that with one proviso; namely, that the right people can be attracted to serve on the youth offender panels and that they are properly equipped to do the job.
Some features of the Bill—I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who knows both systems so intimately may agree with me—have in fact been well proven over the years in the long-standing children's hearings system, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. Of course, it is clear that this is a very different arrangement from the Scottish system and that it is set in a very different legal context. I note with some relief that Part I of this Bill steers well clear of the knotty problems which, despite a good deal of recent amendment and updating, still beset children's panels north of the Border.
The separation of the function of the court and of the panel works in Scotland, although it does so differently. I believe that it will work under this Bill. Both schemes

1249
share one very important element: the atmosphere that can be created at a panel meeting as opposed to in a court. That can involve a two or three-sided discussion, and looking together at what the offence was, who was hurt by it, why a price has to be paid for offending, what that price should be, and how the child or young person can best be led to alter his or her behaviour in future.
A third important benefit of this scheme is, I believe, missing in Scotland. The procedure proposed will be absolutely clear and simple to understand for a young person, for parents and for anyone else involved. If you are a young, first offender and choose to accept the sentence of referral to a panel, you and your parents, where appropriate, will know and understand precisely what will happen. You will be asked to discuss with the panel members what you have done wrong; you will know and understand that the panel will, with you, draw up a list of certain things you must do or must not do over a period, which has already been set, of between three and 12 months; and you will sign a contract, an agreement. If you stick to that agreement, that will be the end of it as long as you do not get into trouble again. If you break the agreement or decide not to sign it, you go back to the youth court.
That procedure should be simple to understand for all concerned, but of course whether it succeeds depends largely on how the panel does its job. It depends on the skill of the members of the panel in identifying from what they see and hear the likely root causes of the offence. Is the cause lack of parental supervision, the keeping of bad company, truanting, drugs, drink, or lack of a job? The success of the procedure depends on the skill of the panel in identifying the sort of programme that has the best chance of changing that particular young person's bad behaviour. Would being kept away from a particular peer group help or hinder? Would being kept at home at certain times help or hinder? It may do either. Would meeting the victim help or hinder? Would a particular course at school or college help? Those are very difficult matters. They require not just commonsense, but knowledge and skill, as the many noble Lords who have been magistrates, or who are magistrates or judges, know very well.
Can the Minister give us some idea of how the Government see the panel members being recruited and trained? Each panel will consist, as he said, of one member of the relevant youth offending team and two others. How will those others be selected? We are told in Clause 6(4) that it will all be defined in regulations. I suggest that we need to know a lot more than that. From where will panel members be drawn? Will people be asked to volunteer? How will they be vetted? Will training be compulsory? What will be the time commitment? These are not the usual routine questions about the nature of proposed regulations in a Bill; they are questions that go to the heart of this scheme—questions about the people who will, quite simply, make it succeed or fail.
Panel members in Scotland find this work hugely satisfying, but they have to be special people with special knowledge and skills. Can the Minister let us into the Government's thinking on this matter? The framework of the scheme seems so promising, but to
1250
assess its chances of success we need to know more about the people who will operate it. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us.
My second question arises from the note which some noble Lords have received from the Law Society, which welcomes the aims of Part I and is reassured that legal advice will be available in the essential early stages at the police station and at court, where a decision has to be made about the correct plea. I wonder whether, at any time after referral to the panel, a young person or his parents may or may not be entitled to seek legal advice about, for example, agreeing the nature of reparation to a victim or the amount of a fine.
Keeping the court and the panel separate make it desirable that lawyers should stay away, out of the system, but I know that in Scotland, where the legal profession never has a place at panel hearings, there is anxiety now that this conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights and that it will cause a problem under the new Human Rights Act. Can the Minister tell us whether his assurance on the front of the Bill that its provisions comply with the convention means that lawyers will or will not be capable of being involved in the panel procedure? It is a very interesting scheme. I look forward to hearing other speakers, to the Minister's reply and to the later stages of the Bill.

Business
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the Pensions Green Paper, I remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether the Green Paper will be available? Apparently it is not available in the Printed Paper Office at this minute.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we are rather astonished on this side, but I shall certainly look into it.

Pensions Green Paper
4.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on pensions, as part of our modernisation of the welfare state.
"All our reforms are driven by the central principle—work for those who can, and security for those who cannot. Welfare reform is well underway. We have launched the New Deal, and announced the

1251
Single Gateway to the benefits system. We are modernising the tax and benefit system to make work pay, with a new Working Families Tax Credit underpinned by the national minimum wage. We have begun to tackle child poverty, with the biggest ever rise in child benefit. We are reforming the Child Support Agency and we have introduced a national childcare strategy. We are also reforming the legal aid system and student finance.
"Over the past few months I have set out proposals for wide-ranging reforms to disability benefits, along with reforms to modernise bereavement benefits. And, today, I set out far-reaching reform to ensure that the pensions system meets the needs of the next 50 years.
"A pension is the most important asset people have, more important even than buying a house. That is why we want to put pensions on a sound footing, where every individual is guaranteed a decent income in retirement, where people can rely once again on secure and effective private pensions. We are delivering security for today's pensioners—and peace of mind for tomorrow's.
"We are already providing security for today's pensioners: VAT on heating cut to its lowest possible level; a winter fuel bonus; help with bus fares; free eye tests; and higher pensions. With this new Labour Government Britain's pensioners are £140 a year or more better off. Real security for today's pensioners.
"And, for future pensioners I am publishing our proposals in a Green Paper, which sets out a new insurance contract between the state and individuals. It is a new public-private partnership for better pensions. Copies are available in the Vote Office and a summary of these proposals is being sent to every Member of this House.
"Why do we need to change? There are three overwhelming reasons for reforming pensions. First, if we do nothing, one person in three could, by 2050, be retiring on income support. Under the current system, you can work hard all your working life and still retire on an income so low that you will depend on benefits for the rest of your life. Secondly, many middle and higher earners want to save more, and should save more, but have lost faith in the pensions system because of the scandal of pension mis-selling. Up to 2.5 million people, including nurses and teachers, may have been sold the wrong pension and have had their peace of mind in retirement shattered. This Government, unlike the previous government, have not turned a blind eye to their plight. We have already toughened up the regulation of personal pensions and taken firm actions to ensure that those who lost out get proper compensation. And for those who do not have an occupational scheme, too often there is not a good place for them to put their savings. Thirdly, the current system gives a poor deal to the millions of mothers and carers who have career breaks and find that they are penalised.
"The principles driving our reforms are clear. Everyone who can save for their retirement has a responsibility to do so. In turn, the Government have
1252
a responsibility to provide security in retirement for those who cannot save enough. Today, I am announcing a radical new pensions policy. It is radical because it guarantees a decent income for all pensioners. For the first time ever, a lifetime's work will not lead to dependency on means-tested benefits in retirement. Our reforms create a new insurance contract combining the price-linked basic state pension with a minimum income guarantee that we will aim in the long run to increase in line with earnings. It is a contract that rewards thrift and savings instead of penalising them. It is radical because for the first time it helps mothers to get a decent pension despite career breaks. It is radical because it will for the first time give carers a right to a decent pension. It replaces SERPS with the new support and a new state second pension to help those on low and middle incomes. It is radical because it builds a completely new privately funded pension that is simpler to understand and has lower charges. These proposals will put the trust back into pensions.
"I turn, first, to the minimum income guarantee. Today I can announce that we are building a new insurance contract between state and individuals. In the past the basic state pension has been the sole focus of the Government's deal with pensioners. The basic state pension will remain a universal, contributory non-means-tested benefit. But the basic state pension alone cannot provide, and has never provided, everyone with a decent income in retirement. This Government will do better. In future, there will be a new contract. The state will guarantee that anyone who retires in poverty will receive a minimum income guarantee well above the current level of income support—beginning at £75 for a single pensioner and £116 for a pensioner couple. We expect that minimum income guarantee to rise in line with earnings.
"The complaint I hear more than any other from the pensioners I meet is that the country gets wealthier but they do not share the gains. That is something this Government will remedy. Today I can announce that our intention is to give the poorest pensioners the chance to share in the rising wealth of the country. Consistent with proper management of the country's finances, our aim is that over the long term the minimum income guarantee should rise in line with earnings. We are also consulting on the best ways of changing the rules so that we reward savings even more.
"I turn now to second-tier provision. People, after a lifetime in work, should not have to rely on the minimum income guarantee in retirement. We want to ensure that they can do better than that guarantee. We want to ensure that low earners in work on less than £9,000 a year and people whose work is interrupted to look after children or sick relatives, as well as moderate and higher earners, have a higher income than the guarantee. So we need to do more. Low earners in work currently depend on SERPS for a decent pension. But SERPS is income or earnings related. If you earn little, you get little. SERPS does not give sufficient help to low earners.

1253
"So today I can announce that we will replace SERPS with a new scheme, a SERPS Mark II—the new state second pension. This will deliver a dramatic increase in the value of pensions. The new state second pension will be worth at least double what SERPS currently pays for people earning less than £9,000. Up to 5 million people stand to benefit. Under the current system, a person earning £6,000 a year would get £13 a week from SERPS, but will get £46 per week from the new scheme—£33 a week extra. That is real security for today's low paid.
"We also promised in our manifesto that we would do more for people caring for children, or for sick or disabled relatives, and for people who have worked but now cannot because of disability. So today I can also announce that we will end the unfairness where someone who gives up waged work to care does not have the chance to build up a second pension. This means that a mother, who takes two years off work to look after her two young children, will no longer lose out on her pension. Our reforms will for the first time provide security for 2.5 million carers, by helping them with pension contributions, enabling them to build up a second pension as of right. They will be credited into the new state second pension. Parents of nearly 200,000 disabled children and some 1.5 million people with a long-term disability and interrupted work record will also gain from this proposal.
"The problems of the current system do not just affect those who earn less than £9,000 a year. Too many people earning more than £9,000 get a raw deal. Our plans will change that. Middle earners will get more help. And they and higher earners will have decent products in which they can invest. That is why our long-term ambition is that everyone earning more than £9,000 should be in a secure funded private pension.
"Stakeholder pensions will be attractive because they will be more secure. Independent trustees will ensure that the rights and interests of scheme members are put first. They will be cheap. On average personal pension charges can eat up to 25 per cent. of your savings. Under stakeholder pensions we expect a substantial reduction in charges as a result of simpler regulation. They will be flexible. If a member does not contribute for a period—for example, a mother who is at home bringing up children—no charges will be levied that eat up savings. Similarly, if you change jobs, you will not lose out. Stakeholder pensions will also be of higher quality. We will protect consumers by building quality into the system. We will require all stakeholder pension schemes to meet specified benchmark standards. They will be simpler to understand. Pensions are complicated. Private pensions are often a nightmare to understand. We intend stakeholder pensions to be simpler and more transparent.
"Our proposals for stakeholder pension schemes will give up to 5 million people who today are without a funded second pension the chance to build up a secure, decent income for their retirement. Everyone earning between £9,000 and £18,500 will
1254
receive better pension rights. The Government expect to spend £500 million a year on increased payments for those who join funded schemes. For many, this will make joining a new stakeholder pension scheme more attractive. Someone earning £12,000 a year could increase their stakeholder private pension by almost £1,000 a year in retirement. And, once stakeholder pensions are up and running, we will reshape the system to make private-funded pensions the only sensible option for those above £9,000.
"I strongly believe that those incentives are fairer and more effective than increasing compulsion. I do not think it is the Government's job to make life harder for the person on £12,000 with two children and a mortgage to pay. I want to help middle earners, not penalise them. But I do want them to know where they stand. So I also want to provide another kind of incentive for people to save.
"Today, I can announce that, for the first time, we will provide an annual pensions statement for every working person in the country. It will set out how much private and state pension people are likely to get on retirement. Everyone will know where they stand. And they will know in black and white the consequences of them not saving more. We will work with employers and the pensions industry to make the statement as effective as possible.
"Other options for reform have been urged on us. Some have suggested that we introduce compulsion for all. Some have suggested privatising the whole system. We have looked closely at those proposals. Today I want to tell the House why those options would not work. We already compel more than 20 million employees to save now. So the question is, should we compel them to save even more?
"For low earners, no amount of extra compulsion will help. They simply cannot afford the amounts they would need to save. So anyone who backs compulsion for all has to justify that kind of burden on low earners. I am not willing to do so.
"There are some groups, however, such as the self-employed, who could afford to save more and are currently not saving enough. We are consulting on letting the self-employed join the new state second pension in return for their contribution. We believe it is not right to compel them before stakeholder pensions are properly established. But we will keep under review the case for compulsion once stakeholder schemes have a proven track record, if people fail to save what they need.
"Others have urged us to privatise the whole system. That would be no help for millions of low earners who could not afford to save enough. It would cost £150 billion, even after the costs of disruptive changes to the tax system. The last government's plans would have meant massive up-front costs, the loss of tax relief and the abolition of the state pension. Alternatively, some have suggested using private schemes that would take money from the private pensions of middle and high earners to give money to the low paid. That is not practical. Nor do I think that would be acceptable. Our proposals are, by contrast, manageable, affordable, and workable.

1255
"By extending individual pensions, and by a better combination of the state pension and the minimum income guarantee, we will provide better pensions and also reduce significantly the share of state spending on pensions in the long run.
"The overall amount spent on pensions will go up, but private pensions will take an increasing share. Instead of 60 per cent. state and 40 per cent. personal provision, that will become 40 per cent. state and 60 per cent private. The reason that this is important is that people live longer—often for 30 years after they retire—creating new demands on the welfare state, such as long term care. Our plans will mean we can afford to tackle those challenges.
"Our radical new contract for pensions will ensure security for those who cannot provide for themselves, and encourage those who can save for their retirement to do so. It will lift many more working people, mothers and carers off means tested benefits. Our plans will help low earners find security for the first time in retirement. They will give a boost to middle earners, with a new secure private pension and money to invest in it. And they will help everyone—no matter what they earn—by proving better regulated and more secure private pensions. Good news for today's pensioners, peace of mind for tomorrow's.
"I commend these proposals to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House would wish to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. I must declare an interest, as I am chairman of a company pension fund.
The Statement and Green Paper have been long awaited. They were originally promised in the first part of 1998. The Government have at least managed to produce a Statement inside 1998. It is extremely complicated and important. Its process of gestation has involved the sacking of a Secretary of State and the resignation of a Minister of State. Quite extraordinarily, the latter part of the Statement largely consists of a rebuttal of their views. Indeed, that is something that in many respects was not expected or even leaked to the press in advance.
The theme that those of us on this side of the House have been following is that the Government have been consistently undermining the contributory principle and moving more towards means-testing. To a considerable extent, the Statement and Green Paper move in the same direction. In one respect, it is not so much a question of means-testing benefits; the contributions also will be very much income-related. At present, people who have not yet retired pay on a so-called pay-as-you-go system for those who have already retired. In addition, they make contributions to their own pensions. As I understand it, people who have not yet retired and who are above the income levels that the noble Baroness mentioned will in addition contribute one way or
1256
another—perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us whether by some form of taxation—to the pensions of others who have not yet retired.
It is not clear that the Statement or Green Paper do anything for existing pensioners. Will the noble Baroness make it clear that the basic national insurance pension will, as the Statement said, remain and be means-tested? So far, the Government's commitment extends only to the present Parliament. Will the noble Baroness make clear whether this is to be taken as a statement for all time as far as the basic national insurance pension is concerned?
It is noticeable that the Statement makes no mention of future uprating of the national insurance basic pension. Is it the Government's intention that uprating shall continue in future, as it has for many years past?
A number of aspects of the Statement are welcome. I may not have understood this correctly, but the position with regard to carers extends only to those who take up caring on a basis that interrupts their normal working lives. Am I correct in thinking that that arrangement does not extend to full-time carers in a single-earning family? The proposal does not apparently cover all carers. My understanding is that those who care part-time on a temporary basis, then resume work, account for only 16 per cent. of the total. Is it the case that all carers will benefit from the Government's scheme?
The Government refer to an annual pension statement. How will that work? We know only too well that pensioners who have recently retired under a defined contributions scheme have suffered badly because of the fall in the stock market and annuity rates. Some pensioners can expect barely half the amount they might have expected a year ago. If the Government are to make an annual pension statement, apparently telling people what they may expect in 20 years, given that such variations can occur in the space of one year, how will the Government produce a statement having any significant value? Will the Government guarantee in the far future they are forecasting that they will ensure in some way that people receive the pensions shown on their pension statement?
As to the so-called "stakeholder pension", it was generally supposed that that would be a government stakeholder pension. It now seems that it is a private system. In addition, it would replace SERPS. I am not entirely clear how that will work. The noble Baroness referred to it in an impromptu remark that does not appear in the Statement as "SERPS Mark II".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I made that reference in connection with the state second pension, not the stakeholder pension.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as I say, as regards the stakeholder pension, we appear to be talking about simply an enhancement, with greater regulation—that, of course, is welcome—with regard to the private provision of pensions. The Statement makes a number of assertions with regard to the fact that people will receive double what they would have received under

1257
SERPS. Are we to understand that there will be a greater subvention, and, if so, how will that work? Will it work by way of rebate or in some other way?
The most important point is that all of this concerns the future. We are told that it will be some time before the stakeholder pension is up and running, or indeed that the provision for those on incomes below £9,000, or between £9,000 and £18,500, will come into operation. Can the Minister give us some undertaking as to when that is likely to come into operation? In particular, can we be sure that the extra amount which people will pay in will ensure that they receive a pension—having made the sacrifice of paying in—which will be higher than the level of a means-tested benefit at the relevant time? That is a crucial point because the indications are that one would have to have a high pension indeed before that is likely to be the case. We have debated on many other occasions the problems as regards prudence and the ability to save.
This is a highly complicated Statement which we shall want to pursue in much greater detail. I hope that it will be possible for your Lordships to debate the matter when we have had more time to assimilate precisely what is involved in the Statement.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches can give the Statement a rather less grudging welcome than it was given by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Indeed, there is much in it that we welcome warmly. However, there are certain respects in which it does not go far enough. We would have liked a somewhat more ambitious scheme.
I start by mentioning the proposals in the Statement that we particularly welcome. We strongly welcome the minimum income guarantee as a way of ensuring, without excessive expense, that everyone will have an acceptable basic pension on which to live in retirement and will not have to rely on income support as at present. We believe that, certainly at first sight, the replacement of SERPS by the state second pension is an ingenious idea and a good one which will get over some of the previous problems of the interface between those on basic pension and those earning just a little over the lower earnings limit who would have had difficulty in building up anything adequate in SERPS or through a stakeholder pension. We therefore believe that that measure is to be welcomed.
We again warmly welcome the idea of improved provision for those who are unable to take paid work because of their caring responsibilities. We also warmly welcome the introduction of the stakeholder pension. It is clearly desirable that the Government should use their muscle to negotiate acceptable terms with the providers of stakeholder pensions which will enable the contributors to obtain much better terms for their pensions than would be possible if they were to take out individual pensions, with all the charges that they involve. Clearly, the Government can ensure that the terms on which stakeholder pensions are granted involve the minimum necessary level of costs. We also welcome the idea of accreditation for occupational pensions.
1258
I now mention some criticisms. First, we think that the Government should have gone fully, rather than partially, back to the pre-1988 system under which an employer can require an employee to belong to a scheme if it is accredited. We believe that the mis-selling disaster of the late 80s and early 90s was almost entirely due to the deeply mistaken action of the Thatcher government in allowing unrestricted opt-outs. Where there is an accredited scheme, because of the contribution which the employer makes it is frankly almost impossible for an employee to be better off outside that scheme. We therefore think that in general there should be a right for an employer to insist, in the employee's own interests, that the latter be a member of the occupational scheme.
Secondly, we think that the availability of stakeholder pension rebates should go up to the upper earnings limit and not stop at £18,500. This is intended to be a benefit for middle earners and what is called the "upper earnings limit" is really fixed at a level which certainly could not be said to be anywhere remotely near the "fat cat" level. We think such a measure would be an improvement as it would give people better rebates to invest in stakeholder schemes if the availability of the rebates went right the way up to the upper earnings limit and did not stop, as now, at £18,500.
We believe that the Government have "chickened out" of the essential element in stakeholder pensions, which is a compulsion to take one out. One can see problems in the marginal area; namely, that people who are earning a little over £9,000 should not be compelled to switch into stakeholder pensions, particularly when their incomes are variable and they sometimes earn less than £9,000. But for anyone above, say, £12,000, it would clearly be very much in their interests to switch into a stakeholder pension. We believe they should be compelled to do so because—this is a vital element—we think that employers should be required to contribute to stakeholder schemes, along with employees. Unless there is compulsion on employees to contribute, that simply is not possible. Clearly, enormous pressure would be exerted not to take out stakeholder pensions by employers on employees if that meant that an extra burden would be placed on the employer. However, we believe that all employers should either have their own occupational pension scheme or be required to contribute to an employee's pension scheme, whether a stakeholder pension or a personal pension. We believe that that could be phased in over a period of, say, five years without there being an unacceptable burden on employers who find that their non-wage costs increase.
We note that the Statement largely ignores the self-employed who are merely going to be the subject of consultation on further planning. We believe that every self-employed person should be required to have their own stakeholder pension, once he or she rises above a certain limit of earnings. Certainly, the position of the self-employed at the moment with regard to national insurance is highly anomalous. We believe that the position of the employed and the self-employed should be brought closer together. One element in that would

1259
certainly be the requirement for the self-employed—again, those earning above a certain limit—to take out a stakeholder pension.
We realise that this is a complex scheme. We shall have to consider it with considerable care and in much more detail than we have been able to do so far. We believe that it offers many improvements over the present scheme. To that extent, we give a warm welcome to it and congratulate the Government on coming up with some sensible and ingenious ideas in the scheme. However, it has not gone far enough and the various elements I mentioned are matters that we wish the Government had taken on board.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his comments and accept the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. First, I wish to apologise to the House in regard to the Green Paper. I asked my noble friends to check on the situation: apparently, the Stationery Office could not deliver it in time because a skip was parked in the way. Unfortunately no one managed to tell the Printed Paper Office. However, the Green Paper arrived at around 4 o'clock so I apologise to your Lordships. I realise how exasperating it must be, with a complicated and detailed Green Paper, if people do not have enough time to read it properly.
Although I wish to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I start with some wider remarks. We all accept that the partnership with the private sector has produced a pensions success story for those in secure and well paid jobs. That is undeniable and people have benefited from it. However, the lowest earners now cannot afford a pension because they do not have the income. Those in unwaged work are at the moment ineligible for pensions and those with a broken work record cannot have continuity of pensions provision. Of those who are self-employed, half are not covered by a second pension. Those who have moderate earnings and have taken out a personal pension have been hit by high charges. They have a well founded mistrust of the whole enterprise. So there is currently much that needs to be addressed, particularly for those who are low paid, self-employed, have intermittent earnings or are carers.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was generous in his recognition that the main thrust of the Green Paper seeks to provide security and opportunity for pensions provision for the low paid. For those who are well paid, there is no problem; they can afford to save and they do so. Perfectly proper tax privileges are associated with that.
The problem is that those who most need a decent pension to float them off poverty in old age are those who can least afford to pay for it. That is what we seek to do by a SERPS Mark II through the state second pension.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether we were moving to means-testing. No, on the contrary. The second state pension, SSP, will lift hundreds of
1260
thousands of people off means-tested benefits in their old age. If we did nothing, between one in two and one in three of all people now in work would find that when they retire in 2025 they will be on a means-tested benefit. Hundreds of thousands of those will now be floated off that by a second state pension. Those who need to remain on a means-tested benefit with the minimum income guarantee will find that the safety net is far more generous than currently. It is a safety net that we expect and aim to raise in line with earnings.
The noble Lord asked about funding costs. As noble Lords will see in the Financial Memorandum attached to the Green Paper, the initial cost is about £100 million a year. As he will know, with pension schemes the full cost builds up slowly over time. We expect there to be an additional cost of around £5 billion by the year 2050. To put that in its context, the noble Lord probably knows about the new inter-generational study comparing the US with the UK. What really matters is whether one is in a decent, adequately paid job, whether inflation is under control and whether productivity has been enhanced. If that happens and as a result the country's growth is secure, pensions can be well afforded. The inter-generational study estimated that deficits of that order could well be funded within modest expectations of economic growth.
The noble Lord asked whether we were committed to not means-testing the state old age pension. I can only repeat what was said in the Statement: it will remain a universal, non-means-tested benefit. It will therefore rise at least in line with prices, but if we add the income guarantee, we expect the total package to rise in line with earnings, as resources allow.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The phrase is qualified by the use of the expression "over the long term". What does that mean?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it means that we expect it to rise as earnings rise. In other words, we expect it to be a forecast. What we cannot do—and what I am unable to do at this stage—is to guarantee that every year it will be actuarially increased by whatever the earnings gap was the previous year. We expect it to rise broadly in line with earnings. There is no commitment to the equivalent of the Rooker-Wise amendment. The Chancellor makes those decisions and the expectation is that it will rise in line with earnings in the long term.
The words are clear in the Statement: we expect—the aim is for—the minimum income guarantee to rise in line with earnings so that pensioners will share in the general and increasing prosperity of the country. That is in the Statement and has been repeated today.
The noble Lord then asked about carers and whether they will be covered. All carers who are recipients of ICA, who are caring for people who have AA or DLA and who qualify for home responsibilities protection, or who are carers of children under the age of five will be credited into the scheme. In broad terms, the carers will receive about £1 a week in pension for each qualifying year of caring. There will be no limit on the number of

1261
years of caring which are treated in that way. I believe that that answers the noble Lord's question. In other words, a carer need not have been in the labour market if he or she has been caring throughout the whole of his or her working life. Under those conditions such carers would receive an appropriate credit. However, of course, in practice most carers are likely to be in and out of the labour market with rather more fluidity than that.
The noble Lord asked about full annuity rates. As he knows, those full annuity rates reflect the market and the market's expectation of medium to long-term interest rates. We know that the best guarantor of those is a low rate of inflation and tough control on inflation.
The noble Lord asked how the stakeholder pension would replace SERPS and in what ways it would be different from SERPS. The stakeholder pension will probably bring into its orbit the top two-fifths of current holders of SERPS, with the bottom three-fifths holders of SERPS likely to go into the state second pension. The stakeholder pension will be different from SERPS. First, it will be funded. Secondly, people can add to it as and when they wish to, including putting in other savings, possibly putting in an ISA or whatever is appropriate. If people are unemployed for up to five years, they can continue to pay in, perhaps through their savings or through a contribution from their spouse. It will be a money-purchase scheme, so it will be linked to the equity market which could and should in time give a good return. It may attract employers' contributions above and beyond the national insurance rebate. So in all those ways we believe that the stakeholder pension should, in the longer term, offer a better deal, above SERPS, for most people with earnings over about £9,000 to £12,000.
Finally, the noble Lord asked whether people would get a pension and whether we guarantee that the pension—I presume he means the state second pension—would be higher than a means-tested benefit? That would be true provided people had a full working credit, a full working record, but clearly their entitlement to the state second pension will depend on the number of working years. If they have only a modest number of working years, they may still be dependent on means-tested benefits, as now.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about compulsion and why we were not going back to the pre-1988 situation in which employers could require employees to become members of occupational schemes. That has been considered. As this is a Green Paper, it is a point that can be made again as part of a consultation exercise. However, most of us recognise that occupational pensions may not always be the most suitable pension package, particularly for temporary staff, contract staff, part-time staff or mobile staff. For them, a stakeholder pension may be a more appropriate alternative. We are determined that employers in that case, particularly small employers who may not have a decent occupational scheme, shall ensure full access to a stakeholder pension for their employees.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also asked about the self-employed. He is right that currently at least half of all self-employed people are not in any pension scheme.
1262
They can be vulnerable. We know that a proportion of self-employed people are very prosperous, but many others, about two-fifths, are on very modest incomes. Effectively, they pay themselves to do work with an average income of only about £8,000 to £10,000 a year. We are consulting on whether they should become eligible for the state second pension with appropriate adjustments to national insurance contributions as a result. But, for many, their business may be their best retirement pension and we do not want to imperil their cash flow by requiring them to make compulsory contributions at the expense of the survival of their business.
It is a difficult issue. As I am sure would the noble Lord, we would like to see all self-employed people with a secure old age. It is not immediately clear that compelling those who are on very low self-pay to pay into a pension is the right way to ensure that. However, we are consulting on the matter. If there is consensus that that is the way we should go, we shall.
I hope that your Lordships will welcome the Green Paper. Apart from a minimum income guarantee safety net which is more generous than we have had in the past, we suggest offering those on an income of £9,000 a year a state second pension which would be twice as generous as they would currently receive on SERPS. Anyone between the lower earnings level and the £9,000 figure would receive a flat-rate state second pension as though they were earning £9,000 a year. So there is a significant increase in pension provision for those between the lower earnings limit and £9,000; and a more generous scheme which gradually tapers out between the £18,500 and £20,000 figure.
Secondly, we are ensuring a stakeholder pension to make good the gap between on the one hand occupational pensions, which are relatively less flexible, and the insecurity and risk of personal pensions on the other.
Finally, in the Green Paper we are ensuring that those who remain within the more traditional occupational pension will have the flaws of the 1995 Pensions Act—I put it another way: the amendments which the noble Lord did not accept at the time—reviewed in terms of regulation, consideration of a central discontinuance fund, consideration of the minimum funding requirement, and the like, and increasing the strength of the role of trustees, including putting a pensioner on the board of the larger pension schemes.
I hope that your Lordships will welcome the Statement which proposes a more generous safety net, a good lift out of poverty for those on low earnings, an increase in pensions for those on moderate earnings and better regulation for those on higher earnings. I think that we have done something here that is really important and valuable to our people.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I am sure the Minister will be the first to agree that this is a detailed and complex Statement. Therefore I must not be accused of being begrudging if I approach it cautiously, in particular, as, to coin a phrase, the devil is in the detail.

1263
I have had the detail put in front of me in the form of a Green Paper only a few moments ago. I know that the Minister has tried hard to be as frank and honest with the House as possible. But many doubts and questions must linger in our minds until we have had time to discuss matters more thoroughly and to think over the implications of some of the remarks she made.
Perhaps I may give one or two examples. Let us take the earnings link. I am glad that the Government have recognised the strength of our argument that to uprate a pension in line with prices, and not with earnings if those are leaping ahead of prices, is to condemn that pension to a slow death. So we are glad to know that the minimum pension guarantee is to be linked to earnings. Its uprating is linked with the movement of average earnings. However, the noble Baroness must forgive us if we are a little less than over the moon because she qualified the Statement with phrases such as "our aim is" and "we expect to". There is no exact chronology, and no exact commitment on a large number of these matters.
The fact then remains that the basic state pension—we are told that it remains a universal non-means-tested benefit—is not to be uprated in line with earnings but may be with prices. In other words, it is intended deliberately that it shall wither on the vine and disappear; and we shall be left only with the means-tested pension. That is one of the Government's aims. I am sure that the Minister, who is an honest and honourable person, will accept that that is what will happen.
My second worry in a number of queries is about the "stakeholder" pension. The word is somewhat dazzling. It sounds so noble. We all have a stake in the community, and that kind of thing. But what exactly what does it mean? I am still not clear how it is to be financed. I agree with the Minister that those who have a good occupational pension scheme are lucky people; and that firms should be encouraged to cover their employees with such a scheme. We always said so in drawing up the original SERPS policy. If the scheme is to be a form of occupational pension scheme for those who do not happen to enjoy one at present, presumably the employer and employee will share the funding. Is the noble Lord anxious to interrupt me?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very reluctant to interrupt my noble friend. However, she has taken four minutes out of the 20 minutes allowed for all Back-Bench questions and answers. I must ask her to come to an end.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I am just explaining why some of us will be cautious in our reception. Others have had a good fling and I do not see why I should not do so as well. It is not my fault that you limited us to 20 minutes.
I wish to know how the proposal is to be funded. If it is to be funded, as Margaret Thatcher always visualised people funding their contribution to personal pension
1264
schemes, by generous rebates from the national insurance fund, you are undermining the finances of the fund on which SERPS depends.
I have one final query. We are told that there is to be an annual pensions statement. Can there therefore be a statement of clear choice to put before the people of this country: keep alive the state pension scheme on a pay-as-you-go basis, and tell people what they would have to contribute to obtain a defined benefit. We are not told that the stakeholder pension will be a defined benefit.
I leave those questions with the Minister with the promise that I shall return again to the matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. I realise that other noble Lords wish to speak.
Apart from many other achievements, my noble friend was responsible in 1978 for introducing SERPS. The difficulty with SERPS, as we know, is that because it is earnings-related, those who earn the least receive the least. That is why with the state second pension we seek to rebalance very heavily in favour of those earning under £9,000 and, more generally, those earning under about £12,000 or £15,000 a year.
My noble friend's specific question on the old age pension was why we were not effectively linking that with earnings. If we did so, those who were poorest would receive nothing because it would come off their means-tested benefit. Those who were more generously off, including, I suspect, most Members of your Lordships' House, would gain every penny. I do not believe that that is necessarily the most appropriate public expenditure.
My noble friend's second question was how the stakeholder pension was to be funded. The stakeholder pension will be available to those employees for whom an occupational pension is currently not available. It is primarily an alternative to a private pension. It will be financed by more generous rebates, and, we hope, also by employers' contributions. Research suggests that between one-third and one-half of employers say that they are willing to contribute to a stakeholder pension. It will be based on affinity groups. It will be cheaper, better regulated and within the framework of trust law, unlike personal pension schemes now. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that the Green Paper meets a real problem in the pensions world.
Finally, my noble friend asked whether the statements to go out to people will offer a clear choice between the state second pension, which is pay-as-you-go, and the stakeholder pension, which is a funded scheme. Clearly, people will have that choice. I shall ensure that my noble friend sees the papers as and when they are available. Obviously, a good deal of this will be part of

1265
the framework to be set out in legislation in due course. My noble friend will no doubt then be able to move amendments to that effect, should she so choose.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, while everyone agrees that any incentive for a second pension is welcome, can the Minister explain when either the stakeholder pension fund or—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, how much of the Statement did the noble Lord hear? He was not here at the beginning of the Statement.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I apologise for that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord should intervene when he was not here for the Statement.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, has asked the question that I would have asked. First, is it the case, as the answer suggests, that the stakeholder pension will be compulsory and will have to be provided either by the employer or the employee or both? Secondly, where the sums are under £6,000 a year, from where will the money come? I assume that the money is to come from the national insurance contributions—yet another compulsory contribution. Thirdly, how will the ISA compete with the stakeholder pension?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there is no greater compulsion in what we propose than under the existing arrangements, except that there will be more and it will be better. At the moment, anyone who is in work who pays national insurance contributions if his earnings are above the lower earnings limit can either use his rebates to enter a private pension scheme or come within SERPS. That basic structure remains. But for those national insurance rebates we shall offer a better quality scheme, whatever the income, and a more generous scheme, particularly for those who earn less than £18,500 a year. Stakeholders will be subject to as much or as little compulsion as with any other pension scheme that is now on the market. If one is in work and pays national insurance, one pays for one's pension.
As to the relationship with ISAs, stakeholder pensions are not in competition with them. The ISA may be a more appropriate savings vehicle. For example, one could put one's ISA money into a stakeholder pension if one wished particularly during periods of unemployment. We see these as complementary products in the marketplace.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, the noble Baroness and I have worked so long together on this issue that she will know with what pleasure I rise to welcome the recognition that the responsibility for caring, which I remind noble Lords is given willingly and with love, works against the ability of carers to provide for their own old age. Enabling carers to share in rising prosperity is proof that the Government recognise the
1266
enormous economic contribution that they make and the loss of income that they suffer as a direct result of their caring. This is good news since carers are in the lowest income group and in future they will find themselves in a more beneficial situation. That, together with the national strategy for carers on which the Government are working, will make a real difference.
I also welcome the emphasis on telling people where they stand because the mysteries and complexities of pension provision create huge difficulties. Will my noble friend assure the House that in addition to the consultation programme that I am sure she will undertake with carers' organisations and those for people with disabilities, she will involve them in providing information about the new situation? Carers are notoriously reluctant to claim anything. It is extremely important that we let them know that the new provisions are available to them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend was able to be here and to make a contribution. She has done so much to bring the situation of isolated carers out into the light so that we recognise the quality of their unwaged work. For the first time, we are now able to do that. At the moment, people can get credits on their basic old age pension, but they cannot take them into SERPS. As a result of what we propose today, they will be able to take those credits into the state second pension. We expect about 2.5 million carers to begin building up credits from the inception of the scheme, which we expect to be in April 2002. By the year 2040, at least 4 million people, mainly women, will have their pensions augmented by the carer's provision. We expect the gain to be almost £50 a week in today's terms, which represents a very significant increase. Carers who have given up the opportunity to work will not port poverty into their old age.
My noble friend asks whether we will be able to work with the voluntary organisations to ensure that carers have full knowledge of all the options open to them. I am very happy to confirm that not only do we want to do that, but we need to work with those organisations, particularly the Carers National Association, to make sure that carers know what they are entitled to get and that they claim it.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
5.4 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, I start by saying that the board strongly supports the reforms to the youth courts set out in Part I of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill. In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, drew attention to the pioneering work on restorative justice by Thames Valley Police.

1267
That work has been led by the noble Earl's chief constable who is making a distinguished contribution to the work of the Youth Justice Board.
The creation of the new referral order will provide an opportunity to undertake positive interventions to prevent offending with those youngsters who appear before a court for the first time and plead guilty. At present it is difficult, if not impossible, for youth courts to develop individually-tailored packages of interventions designed to stop offending.
By using the new referral order, the youth courts will be able to get the new youth offender panels to agree detailed programmes for change with young offenders and their parents. The embodiment of those programmes in a contract means that young offenders will have to face up to their responsibility for the harm that they have caused to victims. They will be committing themselves to change. Often this is difficult for some young offenders. There will be opportunities for victims to play a part in this process if they wish. Some victims will find it helpful, as I believe the experience on restorative justice within Thames Valley has shown.
The new contracts are no soft option. Clause 8 of the Bill makes it absolutely clear that youth offender contracts are likely to have many demanding provisions. The contracts can last up to a year. If youth offenders decline to reach agreement or fail to stick to them, they can be sent back to the courts for sentencing. That is as it should be if the new arrangements are to maintain public credibility.
It is right that the new arrangements should start with young offenders who appear in court for the first time and plead guilty. But if they are successful, as I expect them to be, we should not shy away from extending them to other young offenders. I welcome therefore the provision in Clause 2 that gives the Home Secretary power to extend referral orders to a wider group of young offenders at a later stage.
The Youth Justice Board welcomes the Bill's provision for the leading role to be played by youth offending teams in the work of youth offender panels and the drawing up and supervision of youth offender contracts. These teams are an important part of the new local infrastructure in the fight against crime. They are being piloted in nine parts of the country now and by April 2000 they will be fully operational across England and Wales. The board will produce national standards for the teams and devise arrangements for monitoring and inspecting their performance.
The managers of youth offender teams will be critical to the success not only of the youth justice changes in this Bill but of the wider youth justice reforms under the Crime and Disorder Act. As local areas make their appointments in the coming months, we hope that they will give their managers a high status and direct access to local authority chief executives and other chief officers so that the services and measures needed to stop youth offending locally are provided. For its part, the Youth Justice Board has decided that there should be a national training and development programme for all the
1268
managers of youth offender teams. We shall make sure that that training adequately covers their duties under the Bill.
I now comment on Part II of the Bill, which is concerned with protecting vulnerable witnesses. In doing so, I draw on my experience as a director of social services and of leading a number of inquiries into children's homes and a long-stay hospital for people with learning disabilities. I have had to sack staff after inquiries into the sexual abuse of young people and people with learning disabilities. Those inquiries had a lower standard of proof than a criminal court, but it was often difficult to get people to take seriously the evidence of children and those with learning disabilities. Too often I have seen the same culture of disbelief in the criminal justice system. The painstaking investigations of police officers and social workers can too often come to nothing because of the insensitivity and rigidity of the criminal justice system.
There are particular shortcomings in respect of sexual offences. A significant proportion of rapes and indecent assaults are committed against children. The Home Office has estimated that half of those convicted of rape are convicted of raping a child aged under 16. We know that many paedophiles go undetected for a long time and abuse large numbers of children. Evidence by the charity, Kidscape, in 1995 suggested that each paedophile abused on average about 240 children before being caught. It is also worth bearing in mind that one in three children who reports sexual abuse is under the age of eight, but prosecution in such cases is 5 per cent. or lower.
There has been a disturbing decline in the number of successful prosecutions for sexual offences against children, as Home Office statistics have shown; for example, in 1985, there were 633 offences of gross indecency with children under 14 notified to the police and a 42 per cent. conviction rate. In 1995, the number of offences doubled to 1,287, but the conviction rate plummeted to 12 per cent.; all this in a period when it should have been easier for the courts to use video evidence from child witnesses.
It is nearly 10 years since the Pigot Committee made its recommendations on the admissibility of video-recorded evidence to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, when he was Home Secretary. But despite legislative action on some of the Pigot recommendations, the criminal justice system has been slow to adopt those important reforms. A Home Office Police Research Group Report in 1996 found:
"There now appears to be considerable reluctance on the part of judges to allow video interviews to be used".
I am only too aware of the impact on an abused child of having to give evidence in a hostile court environment. Imagine what it must be like for a 10 or 11 year-old who has been sexually assaulted to go over that experience again in court and then not be believed at the end of it. If properly implemented by the courts, the measures in Part II of the Bill will go a long way to improve the situation of child witnesses, particularly the provision on admission of video recorded interviews as evidence in chief.

1269
I know that some in the judiciary do not consider that these measures are necessary and believe that the courts have all the powers they need to intervene to protect vulnerable witnesses. I ask those judges who hold that view to look very seriously at the evidence I have set out of court performance in the past decade and to consider honestly whether the evidence suggests that abused children have had fair treatment as witnesses. Too many offenders have gone free and too many children have suffered unnecessary trauma as a result of the shortcomings of the criminal justice system. Raped women's previous sexual history has been allowed to be trawled inappropriately through the courts.
The measures in Part II will put beyond doubt Parliament's determination that vulnerable children and others who have been abused should be given adequate protection by the courts but without detriment to the rights of defendants. For those changes to work in practice, however, they will need to be supported by effective training programmes that all judges attend to ensure that the will of Parliament is applied in practice.
Some authoritative voices concerned with the protection of children would go further than this Bill. Sir William Utting, for example, made more radical proposals in his 1997 report of the review of the safeguards for children living away from home. However, I believe that the Government have struck the right balance with the measures on vulnerable witnesses in this Bill, provided that the courts use them properly.
Part II of this Bill is about fairness: fairer treatment of abused children; fairer treatment of people with learning difficulties and of women who have been raped. Those groups have often been poorly served by our criminal justice system and that is why organisations like Victim Support, of which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is a distinguished president, have given these measures such a warm welcome. I hope they have the full support of this House.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: My Lords, there is much in this Bill for which to be grateful. If your Lordships had any doubt about that, I feel sure that it would have been dispelled by the lucid and compelling speech which we had the pleasure of hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, whose informed experience will undoubtedly enrich our future deliberations.
I hope that I shall not be thought ungrateful if I confine my remarks to two sets of provisions which cause me serious misgivings. I fear that neither will cause the Minister surprise. They are both to be found in Part II in Chapters II and III. One of them is headed,
"The protection of witnesses from cross-examination by accused in person",
and the second is headed,
"Protection of complainants in proceedings for sexual offences".
At the risk of stating the obvious, I remind the House of the background. We are dealing with a situation in which a defendant, usually, but not always, a man, is accused of what may be a very serious offence against a complainant, who is usually, but not always, a woman. The situation is by definition one in which the defendant
1270
says that he did not commit the crime. Therefore, there is a trial in order for the court or the jury, and no one else, to decide whether the defendant did commit the crime.
If convicted, the defendant is likely, if it is at all a serious crime, to go to prison for a very long time because the courts take a serious view of offences such as that. It is plainly right that everything which can reasonably be done to encourage victims to disclose genuine complaints should be done. It is plainly right also that everything which can reasonably be done to minimise the trauma of attendance at court and giving evidence should be done. I suggest that no one questions those propositions for one instant. I certainly do not.
But the paramount concern in that context must be to ensure that the defendant enjoys a fair trial, recently described as the birthright of every British citizen. No doubt the Minister is right to say that that is not an absolute right, but he went on to say that there were others who have rights coterminous with those of a defendant. I suggest that at a criminal trial no one has rights coterminous with those of the defendant because it is he alone who is at risk of being punished by the state.
Clause 33 imposes an absolute prohibition on any person charged with a sexual offence from himself asking any question of a complainant with regard to the offence charged or any other offence. That is usually not a problem. The defendant is offered criminal legal aid, which is almost always free, and the vast majority of defendants, as one would expect, take advantage of it.
The situation with which we are concerned arises only when a defendant has chosen to act in person, perhaps because he distrusts or dislikes lawyers, as many people no doubt understandably do, or perhaps because he thinks he can do the job better himself.
As I have said, that is usually not a problem. Indeed, there are only two cases in which there has been a problem and both have been mentioned by the Minister. In the first, the defendant was named Ralston Edwards. That case, which was, I believe, about two years ago, received very wide coverage and there is no doubt that the defendant abused his right as a defendant representing himself. He dominated, humiliated and abused the complainant in a way that was utterly abhorrent and totally objectionable.
The case received wide coverage and that may have given the idea of emulating this feat to the second individual involved, Milton Brown. He indulged in the same behaviour. The trial judge made great efforts to control the trial and the defendant's behaviour but felt that he lacked the powers to be as robust as he would have wished and was doubtful as to whether the Court of Appeal would support him if he acted in the robust way that he would have chosen.
The defendant was convicted and appealed unsuccessfully. In the course of giving judgment, the Court of Appeal indicated, in what I hope were clear and unambiguous terms, that judges had full power and authority to take command of a situation such as this and prevent the unacceptable treatment of a complainant by using screens and a number of other methods

1271
discussed in some detail in the judgment. The court made plain that it would support a judge who acted in a robust way unless, of course, an injustice was shown to have resulted. That was in May 1998. There has been no repetition and there are no other instances of what it is here sought to prohibit. I submit that it is surely wise to wait and see if a further remedy is needed before depriving judges of the discretion to control proceedings in their courts—fortified by that judgment—in the way that they think best.
I suggest that the proposed provision has two dangers: unjust conviction and unjust acquittal, both almost equally undesirable. There is a risk that juries may wrongly convict because they have not heard the complainant cross-examined. There is a risk that juries may wrongly acquit because they will feel that the defendant has not had a fair crack of the whip. That danger is not cured by Clause 37, which enables the court to appoint a legal representative chosen by the court to cross-examine the complainant. Of course, it is fine if the defendant, who has been obdurate and intransigent up until then, has a conversion on the road to Damascus and becomes co-operative and communicative with the legal representative appointed without his wishes. But if he maintains his position, persists in his desire to cross-examine the complainant himself and declines to give instructions to the legal representative, the latter's task becomes impossible. The legal representative will not know which parts of the complainant's evidence he should be challenging and he will not know the case that he is intended to put. It is difficult to know what the warning to the jury under Clause 38 will achieve unless it is a simple encouragement to acquit. So, on that point I have misgivings.
I have similar misgivings about the provision in Chapter III. I am sure that your Lordships will know that Dame Rose Heilbron, who brought unrivalled experience of dealing with crime and family matters to the task, chaired an advisory group on the law of rape about 20 years ago. She and her group made a recommendation, which was accepted and enacted as Section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, applicable to rape trials. The provision states that, except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial by or on behalf of any defendant about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than the defendant.
That strikes one as a good and well-designed provision. What more is needed? To answer that question, one must look at paragraph 9.64 of the consultation paper Speaking up for Justice. That states that the working group reported overwhelming evidence that the present practice in the courts is unsatisfactory and that the existing law is not achieving its purpose.
If there is such overwhelming evidence, the consultation paper is noticeably reticent in giving the details. It refers to some research carried out nearly 10 years ago which shows that 75 per cent. of applications made under that section succeed. That may mean that
1272
applications are lightly made and lightly granted, but it may equally mean that applications are cautiously and prudently made and properly granted, in the main.
There is a great deal of anecdote about this, but if one is to add to the mountain of it, I can tell your Lordships that at a Judicial Studies Board seminar for judges who specialise in this field, the suggestion that this provision was disregarded provoked a vocal expression of strong disagreement. The simple truth is that on an issue of whether a complainant consented to sexual relations with the defendant, the fact that the complainant has behaved promiscuously on other occasions outside the window of 24 hours before and after the commission of the offence may well—I emphasise "may well"—be relevant. So, to recognise is not to open the door to abusive, insulting, irrelevant cross-questioning, which, in any event, is likely to repel any decent modern jury, but to recognise what many sensible decent jurors would consider a question that may be relevant in some cases.
The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 restricted the questioning of complainants in such cases. Parliament went on to provide that the questioning or evidence could be allowed if the court were satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to exclude it. That is provided for in Section 275(1)(c) of that Act. In other words, Parliament gave the Scottish judges a limited discretion to be exercised in the interests of justice. It is a melancholy reflection on parliamentary confidence in the judiciary of England and Wales if they are to be denied a similar, very limited and carefully defined discretion.
I hope that the Minister, who has promised to be open minded and has been so in the past, will be willing to think again on both these points.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it is now my turn to follow some brilliant speakers. I also have the honour of following the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who was chairman of the Parole Board when I was a member—and a very distinguished chairman he was, too. I should also like to mention the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I listened with great interest to all that he had to say and I shall read his speech.
I must disclose an interest in the Bill. For 20 years I was a member of the lowest tier of the judicial system, the magistracy, dealing with both adults and juveniles. I was a chairman for some time. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I was present below Bar but could not get into the Chamber while he was speaking. I retired from the Bench when I had to move house. I am pleased that I have not been involved in the Bill because it appears to be very complicated and full of repetition. It is so difficult to understand that I fear for those magistrates who must try to implement what is undoubtedly intended to be good and worth while legislation.
Prevention is always better than cure. Part of the Bill is related to the prevention of crime. The way in which parents bring up their children creates adult men and women. If parents allow their children to engage in

1273
crime, we shall have more and more criminal men and women. Sometimes parents go to court and try to deny the charges brought against their children. I remember only too well a father appearing for the fourth time with his son who was committing burglaries. Indeed, the father had pushed the son through the lavatory window in order to burgle. When the son appeared before me for the fourth time, I asked, "Mr. Brown, what are you doing here again?". He said. "Well, your Majesty, I am trying to keep him out". The father somehow thought that I would be pleased to be called "your Majesty". How wrong he was. If the referral system had existed in those days, we might have kept that young man on the straight and narrow path. It would have been a gamble, but with a father who pushed him through windows in order to burgle it would have been difficult for him to grow up "straight".
I turn to parental advice and the way in which parents bring up, drag up and push up their children, and to local authorities and schools. I dealt with many young people when I was a member of a Bench on the outskirts of London. There were five courts sitting five days a week and it was difficult to keep a proper balance between all the juveniles in the area. It was a good area and on the whole they turned out to be reasonable people. I wish to make a serious comment about the publicity aspect, which has not yet been mentioned. So many parents take great pleasure in going to work following their child's court appearance and bragging about it. They say how clever little Tommy was to have stolen so much money, videos or whatever. If the child's name appeared in the local press the parents would be even prouder. Therefore, it is important that nothing about such a court case is reported. The Bill makes it clear that reports of such cases in the press should not be allowed.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Windlesham say that there were to be four youth offender panels in London. I had not appreciated that. Who will the members be? We have heard that they will comprise a social worker, a policeman and various others, but it is important that local people should know exactly who the members are because they will have great influence on the children who are sent before them. The panels are an excellent idea and have operated in Scotland for some time—not with universal success, but perhaps we shall be able to improve on the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, spoke of reparation. I know that the victims of burglary or theft—you name it and I can tell you about it—cannot bear to see those who have committed the crime. The defendants dislike being forced to go to court and to say they are sorry—of course they are not and they pretend—so the requirement for that kind of reparation is wrong for children.
There is a great deal in the Bill that is right, but there is much unnecessary repetition. I suggest that there is a lack of sound common sense, which is all that we had to go by in my day. I wish the Bill well. When it is implemented it will, with luck—and luck will have to be on our side—be of great benefit to juveniles in this country. I hope that it will be successful.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, first, I apologise for the quality of my delivery tonight. I have contracted a heavy cold—my father would have said that I probably drank from a damp glass last night! I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn. on his maiden speech. In my previous existence as president of the Police Superintendents' Association he was, and perhaps still is, one of my members. I congratulate him on an excellent contribution. I hope we hear from him again in the future.
I welcome the Second Reading of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill. The Government White Paper, No More Excuses, was aptly named. For years we have been turning a blind eye to crimes committed by juveniles in our communities. Caution after caution has been given by the police and the word has got around that if you offend and are unlucky enough to be caught, nothing much will happen to you. That is the worst possible signal to send to youngsters who are, quite naturally, testing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, as, indeed, we all did as youngsters. It is part of growing up.
The youth justice provisions of the Bill follow on from the ground prepared by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, giving effect to further reforms of the youth court. The new sentence of referral to a youth offender panel is not a soft option and is preferable to the continuing cautioning regime, to which I referred earlier. Anything which makes young people take responsibility for their anti-social behaviour is to be welcomed.
Talking to ordinary people in communities, as I do regularly, one sees that their complaint is not concerned with violent bank robbery, rape or murder. It is more likely to be about the fear caused by gangs of youths blocking footpaths, vandalising property, swearing or generally causing a nuisance. Indeed, the cost to the community of juvenile crime was highlighted this week in the excellent report from NACRO, Wasted Lives, which tells us, for example, that each young offender, on average, has committed criminal activity costing in the region of £75,000. If there are 2,500 youngsters in custody that is something like £190 million. So there is a financial interest in stemming this problem.
In essence, we are talking about bringing discipline into what, quite often, is an undisciplined life. Under this Bill the youth offender panel will work with the offender, as I understand it, and establish a programme of behaviour for him or her to follow. We all work better with a plan, a sense of direction and, of course, pride in achieving goals. The principles governing restorative justice are extremely important because they involve goals: for example, restoration to the victim, reintegration into the law-abiding community and taking responsibility for the consequences of offending behaviour.
I remember the shock many years ago on joining the police of having to make bed packs in the dormitory, drilling on the parade square, attending mock incidents, taking command and being required to give evidence

1275
about such incidents in the formality of the courtroom before people like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill.
I am sure that those of your Lordships who were in the services will share with me the sense of team spirit, camaraderie, pride and a sense of family that were felt. It is precisely the sense of family and in many cases the fact of family that is missing from many young offenders' lives. It is hoped that the new sentence of referral to a youth justice panel will assist in bringing about self-discipline, so desperately needed by those who stray into criminality.
In my previous life, I continually drew attention to the fact that we do not treat witnesses in courts properly. I am on record as using the analogy of a football match. We can send off a jury member or two, replace counsel or even the judge, but without the witness the game has to be abandoned. That is why it is so important that the judicial system treats witnesses fairly and values them. Many police forces—I think all police forces—have elaborate witness protection schemes in serious cases, which are costly but essential in order to see that justice is done. Justice is just as important in less serious cases. We all know the difficulties encountered by witnesses who are youngsters and those suffering from mental and physical disorders.
I have talked of the special stress of victims who have to confront their assailants in the courtroom, particularly in sexual-attack cases. If a person falls into a particular category, it is right that that is a matter for the court to decide. The special measures in the Bill will help the determination of the truth, which surely is essential to justice.
Finally, I want to comment briefly on the special plight of victims in sexual cases. As I said in the debate on the gracious Speech, the police have improved immeasurably the way in which they deal with alleged victims of sexual attack. I said then, and I say again, that I wish the same could be said of the courts and the lawyers. That is why I welcome the provision in the Bill placing limits on the circumstances in which information on the previous sexual behaviour of alleged victims can be asked for or presented to the court.
A woman is entitled to the protection of the court. Her previous lifestyle or activities not connected to the alleged offence should not make her less capable of being raped or assaulted. In my judgment, that will enhance the provision of justice.
Similarly, rare though such cases may be, surely it is right that the Bill now prevents the accused from cross-examining personally the alleged victim in certain types of cases, particularly those of a sexual nature. We have heard cases of such cross-examination being used further to humiliate and distress alleged victims, who have already been through the harrowing ordeal of the attack itself and relaying the facts to the authorities. I believe that most like-minded people will see that as a sensible move to protect the vulnerable.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said that judges now have a direction and would protect victims in future. That may well be, but it is Parliament's duty,
1276
where it sees lapses by the judiciary, to put matters right. That was certainly the basis of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. I see nothing wrong with Parliament occasionally doing the job that the judges in those cases perhaps should have done. Protection of witnesses is simply too important to be left to chance. Without witnesses, justice cannot be done. I welcome the provisions in the Bill.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I put down my name to speak in this debate for two short and simple reasons: first, to demonstrate that I can make a short speech and, secondly, to take pleasure in agreeing with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, having strongly disagreed with him last night—although I was in good company, as his judges in the High Court and the Court of Appeal also disagreed with him—and I had the support of the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane.
Turning to the merits of the provisions, I shall deal with the two points raised by my noble and learned friend. The first is the prohibition on cross-examination by a defendant in person. Rape is a terrible crime. It is a difficult crime to prosecute because two features are sometimes forgotten. The definition requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant has had unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who, at the time of the intercourse, does not consent and at the time he knows that she does not consent to intercourse or is reckless as to whether she consents to it. That introduces a subjective test as to what was in the mind of the alleged assailant.
The majority of rape cases are known as "date rapes"—that is, allegations which concern a defendant who has been on intimate terms with the complainant. It may be that they were husband and wife, boyfriend or whatever the situation was. It is oath for oath. Special rules have been provided for rape cases. First, anonymity is given to the complainant: it is not given to the defendant. Secondly, there are restrictions on questions that go purely to credibility which do not exist as regards other offences. Thirdly, the obligation to give a warning where there is no corroboration has gone. I am anxious that, by implication, we do not reverse the onus of proof.
There has been constant reference to victims of rape. That presupposes that the complainant is right and that the defendant is guilty. That is a danger which inevitably can arise because of the high acquittal rate which occurs with these offences. One overlooks that the onus of proof is very heavy. The jury has to ask itself, having merely heard in most cases oath against oath, "Has the prosecution satisfied me so that I am sure that the offence has been committed?". I have no doubt that the jury is worried by the very substantial period of imprisonment which will be imposed if it convicts. Therefore, I suggest that this prohibition is undesirable.
I suggest that it is an absurdity to say to a man who has lived with a woman for several years and who is faced with an allegation which he considers to be bogus and has been made up out of spite or whatever it may

1277
be, "You may not ask any questions of your wife or girlfriend". It is an absurdity and a denial of an elementary principle of justice. If the defendant shows that he is going to cause difficulties to the way in which the prosecution is conducted by his attitude to cross-examination, that can be dealt with quite conveniently in the absence of the jury by the judge discovering what exactly are the issues to which the cross-examination is directed and then warning the accused that he must be confined to those issues and that if he does not do so, he will be deprived of the right to cross-examine. But as long as he can cross-examine properly, there is no reason why he should be restricted. In the majority of those very few cases where the defendant is in person that occurs. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, there have been only two cases which have given rise to this publicity.
I pass to the second category of protection which is to be provided and that is an embargo on the extent to which the court in its discretion may allow cross-examination as to the attitude to sexual relations shown in the past by the complainant. I believe that your Lordships will accept that one of the most experienced practitioners in this field is the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. In the debate on 22nd June 1998, when we were considering the Home Office report, she said,
"If cross-examination by a barrister is insulting, bullying, aggressive or too long, judges can and in my experience certainly do intervene to stop it. Contrary to what has been said, in the 28 years or so that I have been in criminal practice, it has not been my experience that unnecessary or irrelevant cross-examination about previous sexual history is allowed. Indeed, judges today take the greatest care to ensure that the reasons, the nature and the extent of the cross-examination are explained before they will allow any questions of that nature to be asked. I question therefore the need for change in that respect. It is necessary in each case for the specific facts which led to the request for those questions to be asked to be explored by the court".—[Official Report, 22/6/98; col. 102.]
I invite your Lordships to an observation made in the same debate (at col. 103) by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He said:
"When there is political pressure to restrict the independence and the discretion of the trial judge, there lies danger".
I end with one final reference. I go back to the suggestion that a person be prohibited from cross-examination. I received briefing material for the debate to which I have drawn attention from Women Against Rape. It is headed:
"Re: question from Lady Byford to be debated in the Lords on 22 June proposing to remove the right of defendants accused of rape from cross-examining the witness".
The opening sentence is:
"We strongly oppose this proposal, which was also put forward in the recent Home Office report on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses … This change is not in victims' interests, nor what most victims have demanded".
It continues:
"Removing the right of men accused of rape to defend themselves would not change the way victims of rape are treated in court by barristers, who are routinely allowed to ask irrelevant questions about victims' medical and sexual history … The problem is not who asks the questions but which questions they are allowed to ask".
1278
The final sentence is this:
"The experiences, needs and demands of rape survivors rather than the agenda of opportunistic and populist politicians and the media must frame the public debate and changes in the law".
5.59 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, after the scrutiny of the Crime and Disorder Act in the last Session, it is good to be debating this Bill which puts flesh on the bones of what was approved at that time. My interest in the Bill lies in Part I and Schedule 1 and, indeed, in Chapter IV of Part II—or, to be more obvious, the youth offender panel system and the restriction on reporting, which also extends to Scotland.
I was anxious last Session to ensure that useful portions of the Scottish children's panel system were incorporated into the proposed youth justice system. I suspect that, on occasion, I sought to substitute the whole of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 into the Bill. My excuse for such over-enthusiasm is that I was a social work student in 1968 and that this legislation accompanied me down the slipway into my professional life.
I also acknowledge that the children's panels deal with children in need of compulsory measures of care for reasons other than offending. It is fair to say that that is a far wider remit than the youth offender panels will have. Therefore, I am looking at this Bill with great interest as its provisions are clearly much needed in England and Wales. I am now content with the idea that systems for dealing with youth offending within the United Kingdom can be different—it is part of being a developing, diverse and fair union-state—so long as the systems are effective. This effectiveness has to work both for the young person as well as for the victim, those affected and the health of the community of which the young person is supposed to be part.
I like the emphasis placed on referral orders being imposed on the first occasion that the young person comes before any court. In far too many cases the tendency to be reluctant to put a young person into the court system has led to them being let off too often. That sends an unhelpful message to the young person and may, in reality, be the umpteenth time that he or she has got away with it. So a referral order as part of the first appearance is positive. But I am concerned that the referral order should not be recorded as a conviction. However, I would allow the conviction to be recorded subsequently if there were further offences after the referral order has been completed. It is reasonable to allow some protection to youthful reputation if the effort is made to remedy the situation, and it is also reasonable that that should be forfeited in the event of persistence with offending behaviour.
The time it takes to get a case into court will continue to be critical. There is nothing like a rapid appearance in court to bring home the direct consequences of offending behaviour. At present this is only achieved for those appearing from custody. Here the children's panel wins hands down. A children's hearing can be convened in less than 24 hours. I recall that the Crime and Disorder Act proposes a fast track for young people but

1279
the insistence on due process, with its preparation time for the prosecution and the defence, builds in unhelpful delay. I see that delay as a deliberate inefficiency.
I acknowledge that a children's hearing can be delayed by the refusal of the child and parents to accept the grounds of referral, but that delay occurs only if the parents take up that option. Most parents accept the grounds of referral and the hearing proceeds to deal with the child's future straight away.
So a referral order has been made and the young offender is referred to the local youth offending team. That professional body will appoint one of its members to be the young person's contact. That adult will also be a member of the youth offender panel for the young person in question and will be accompanied on the panel by two lay members. The professional member will also be the supervising officer and will keep the case records for the whole of the referral order. That is surprisingly different from Scotland's system. The number of people proposed to be involved is substantially reduced and may be constitutionally at fault.
At a children's hearing the child and parents sit round the usually oval table with the three members of the children's panel, accompanied by the reporter to the children's panel and the social worker. It is the position of this latter person—the professional worker—which concerns me. At any meeting of a youth offender panel the professional worker will be reporting to the panel and then making decisions as a panel member about the offender. That is a confusion of the roles: an expert witness will be on the bench. That will be perceived as a structural weakness.
At the conclusion of the first meeting of the youth offender panel, the panel should have reached the point where it has drawn up a contract, which the young person must agree to and sign. I approve of this approach; it guarantees that the young person and his parents will be aware of what is expected of them. I believe to be correct the provision which allows the youth offender panel to be adjourned for a day or so if there is some initial reluctance to agree. This will be an opportunity for informal reasoning with the family and the young person. I just wish that the professional worker who will do that reasoning was not also going to be a member of the youth offender panel.
The opportunity to vary the terms of a youth offender contract is sensible. Variation allows the contract to be kept in focus and up to date, and to be adapted to the needs of the young person as the panel gets to know him or her and as his or her behaviour patterns develop—which they certainly will during one of the longer orders.
There will inevitably be failures and some further offences; the decision-making allowed to the panel, and the courts, seems to be sufficiently flexible to cope with a continuation of the order, or breach proceedings.
When time is up, or, as the Bill says,
"the compliance period is due to expire",
I am pleased to see that there will be a statutory final meeting to wind up the young person's involvement with the youth offender panel. That process is decidedly
1280
missing from too many community sentences generally. There is a new approach to that conclusive meeting—and one which will be quite mind-focusing for the offender. The youth offender panel must decide either that the young person has completed the contract satisfactorily, in which case a letter will be issued to the young person and the order will be discharged, or the panel will decide that the contract has failed and that offending behaviour has not been terminally abandoned, in which case the young person will be referred back to the court for punishment.
As I conclude my remarks, perhaps I may make one criticism of one feature of the Scottish children's panel system, although this probably constitutes treason for someone of my disposition. Much as I approve of the welfare approach to offending by children and young persons, I do not think that victims, and other persons affected, are well served by the informal approach taken at a children's hearing towards establishing guilt. The saving grace of the youth justice system in this respect is the initial court appearance and establishment of guilt, despite my more substantial fears about delay in dealing with offending behaviour. Having said that, I look forward to playing a committed part in the subsequent stages of the Bill.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on his speech and thank him for making many points with which I very much agree. I welcome the Bill and wish to refer to Part I, which is the section which interests me. However, the success of Part I will depend entirely on the implementation of the proposals by the youth offending teams and the youth offender panels.
My comments today are probably not relevant to what is on the face of the Bill, but are perhaps relevant to what will ultimately be in the regulations or guidelines. My experience arises from my chairmanship of the children's department of Toynbee Hall and the Stepney Children's Fund, and as a trustee of the Caldecott Foundation, which deals with very difficult and damaged children.
I should like to describe to your Lordships the defendant befriending scheme which we have at Toynbee Hall. It is different from, but extremely relevant to, the proposals before us today. The offenders who come to our befriending scheme are referred by a multi-agency panel, which is made up of professionals in Tower Hamlets who deal with children, whose job it is to decide whether the child should go to court or be given the opportunity to take part in the befriending scheme. The young person decides whether he or she wants to take part in the befriending scheme. If they do so, they will have no criminal record. They must plead guilty to the offence, but they will not have a criminal record.
The process of befriending is a one-to-one relationship. We have a team of 20 or so trained volunteers who undertake to give the young person a minimum of six hours' attention a week for six months, and there is on-going follow-up support if they need it.

1281
The object is to build-up trust between the befriender and the young person, so that the befriender is in a position to help the young person to build up a new image of himself and, having done so, to build up a new plan for his life.
Under the Home Office criteria of not reoffending within one year, we have had a better than 70 per cent. success rate. The cost, including the costs of the activities, training the volunteers and the part-time volunteer supervisor, works out at approximately £750 per young person supported.
There are two features of our scheme which I am not sure will appear in the Government's proposals. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the situation for me. First, the young person has a choice; they make a positive commitment to join the scheme. This gives them, in a sense, a certain ownership of their own future. That is very important. Will the new scheme give the young person the opportunity to make a choice? The answer will probably be "Yes. By signing the contract, the young person will make a choice." But if they simply feel that they are doing what they are being forced to do, that they have no alternative, they will participate with much less enthusiasm, and that will make it more difficult for the scheme to have the desired therapeutic effect.
Secondly—this is perhaps an even more important issue—in our scheme the young person has the opportunity to make a strong, personal link over time with a responsible older person, who becomes a friend and a mentor. The older person's objective is to persuade the young person to change his or her attitude, both to the community and to themselves, and to provide guidance on the kind of life that they should lead in the future.
Many young offenders who appear in court for the first time have been offending for quite a long time before they become known to the police. They are not necessarily just nice guys, "testing the boundaries". Too many of them, unfortunately, belong to a culture which exists in part of our society today. They believe that there is no future for them in school or employment, and so they might just as well go into a way of life which involves living on benefits, supplementing and spicing them up with illegal activities.
We are not talking merely about punishing an offender, but about changing attitudes, changing the attitudinal landscape of some young people. That is particularly hard when the family might be heavily involved in burglary and shoplifting—or whatever—and when the street culture is pulling them in the opposite direction. I do not think that reparation or punishment will be enough. Will the youth offender panel have the power and the resources to ensure that, where necessary and appropriate, a young person will have a befriender or a mentor? Will he have such a person for a sufficient length of time to enable them to develop an appropriate relationship, which will enable that befriender or mentor to influence that young person for good, to build him up and to encourage him?
If the answer is "yes", there will be a need for a lot of dedicated people who are prepared to give of their time, and a need for enough money to support them in
1282
doing their job properly. Who is going to do it? Someone will have to walk up the path with the young offender when he goes to wallpaper the house of his victim. I do not think that many victims will want to have offenders doing that, but that is another matter. Who will supervise them? Who will befriend them and act as a role model? That will probably be two different people, the person who is imposing the punishment on the one hand and the person who is becoming a friend and mentor on the other.
Youth services in most local authorities have been cut to the bone. The voluntary organisations are extremely stuck for funds—grants have been cut back drastically over the past years—and the social services are practically completely occupied now in dealing with crises. Who will actually do the job? If we want to avoid wasted lives, as a society we must invest in making this youth offender panel system work. We must invest in prevention.
I spoke, argued and fought with the previous government, but I could not budge them the slightest degree on the issue of investing in prevention. If this Government are prepared to put money into prevention, I ask noble Lords to support them.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I would like to speak to Chapter II of Part II of the Bill which tackles the issue of the cross-examination of witnesses in cases of sexual offences.
I tabled amendments on this issue during the course of the Crime and Disorder Bill and I took part in the debate on the working party report on 22nd June. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Byford for raising that debate as an Unstarred Question. I also thank her for her extensive work on the subject.
I have been in contact with many outside organisations on this matter. Some felt that I had gone much too far and others, such as Women Against Rape, that I had not been radical enough. I am grateful to Women Against Rape for its briefing on Clause 40 matters, to which I will not refer today but I have no doubt it will raise much debate at Committee stage. Today I will confine my remarks to Clauses 33 to 39.
I give a cautious welcome to the fact that the Government are attempting to tackle such a sensitive issue—cautious only in that I am always cautious by nature anyway. Any reservations I may express tonight, or questions which I may pose, are not intended to be hostile but merely to ensure that any changes wrought by this Bill meet the requirements that they are both effective and fair.
The Bill covers some radical new ground in breaching the long-established right of individuals to put questions in person to their alleged victim. It comes at a time when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has made strenuous efforts to make changes by practice direction. It is important to recognise the positive steps already taken by the judiciary to address the difficulties raised by cross-examination in cases of sexual offences. I have listened with great care to the arguments put

1283
forward tonight by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
In the debate on the gracious Speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, referred to this issue, as he has reminded the House tonight. He said:
"I only wish courts and advocates dealt with victims as sensitively as the police".—[Official Report, 2/12/98; col. 530.]
On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out that it was not quite the case that the police are all good and lawyers are all bad. Surely that is the nub of the matter. It is too simplistic perhaps to think in terms of lawyers being insensitive in cross-examination. Not all advocates are monsters—and, as ever, I declare an interest in that I am married to one. All lawyers, at whatever stage of a case, must test evidence rigorously. That is their job. Constraints upon the rights of the accused must therefore be considered in the light of the fact that not all of them are guilty.
It is also important to recognise that the treatment of witnesses has a proven direct impact upon both the level of reported crime and, subsequently, the victim's willingness to give evidence, and to continue to give evidence, throughout what can be a very traumatic trial. The cross-examination of the alleged victim therefore has to be rigorous but fair. The overall question that we will need to consider in Committee is whether the Bill provides a fair balance in the way it approaches all these matters.
I shall leave detailed consideration of the proposals to the Committee stage, but I should like to flag up two of the issues which we may need to address as a result of the mandatory prohibition in Clause 33 upon personal cross-examination of the alleged victim by the defendant. Clause 33 provides that defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences who choose to conduct their own defence may not themselves cross-examine the alleged victim of the offence. It also extends that prohibition to any other offence with which the defendant is charged in the proceedings.
The report Speaking up for Justice recommended that there should be a mandatory prohibition on unrepresented defendants personally cross-examining the complainant in cases of rape and serious sexual assault—Recommendation 58. However, it appears to me that the Bill has significantly widened the net beyond serious sexual offences to encompass "sexual offences" as defined in Clause 57—not only rape or burglary with intent to rape but also indecent assault. Presumably that means any indecent assault of whatever level of seriousness. I ask the Minister for guidance on this point. Would it mean that the prohibition on personal cross-examination would cover cases in the magistrates' court?
Clause 33(b) also puts a mandatory prohibition on cross-examination with regard to any other offence, of whatever nature, with which the defendant is charged. It will be interesting to learn the Government's thinking behind the extension of the mandatory prohibition
1284
beyond the recommendations in the working party's report. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to examine that point in Committee.
The second issue concerns the work of the lawyer who will be appointed to carry out the cross-examination when the defendant has been barred from doing this personally. Basically, how will the lawyer do the work effectively and meet the high professional standards? Clause 37 makes provision for representatives to be appointed to conduct cross-examination on behalf of, or in the interests of, unrepresented defendants. If a defendant is banned from cross-examination in person, the court will ask him or her to select a legal representative to carry out the cross-examination. If the defendant does not agree to select a legal representative, the court will have to consider whether it is necessary, in the interests of justice, for the witness's evidence to be tested. If it decides that it is, it will appoint a legal representative with rights of audience in the court to cross-examine in the interests of the defendant.
That clause follows very closely Recommendation 62 in the working party's report. However, when one reads the main body of the report, important issues are raised about how effective the role of the legal representative can be. I believe it would be helpful to the House to discuss those issues at the Committee stage. I believe that there are some circumstances in which the role of that lawyer may be so closely circumscribed that he may not be able to fulfil what would normally be considered his professional responsibilities.
All of us throughout the country have a role to play in ensuring that the criminal justice system works as fairly and effectively as possible to protect all the individuals concerned—victim or innocent defendant. I have listened with interest to those in the House who are experts in this field, from my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who has so carefully represented, inside and outside the House, the interests of victims, to those who have played a part in the judicial system. When we come to the Committee stage I look forward to playing my small part in assisting the House in further discussion of the Bill.
6.24 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am very happy to endorse the many speakers who have encouraged the introduction of Part I of the Bill and have made constructive suggestions about it. I want to concentrate on an area that has not so far been discussed. I refer to the special measures directions to be found in Clauses 19 to 32 and rules to be made under Clause 60. Some procedures there are already familiar. We already use screens on suitable occasions in the Crown Court, we already use the television link and there are many cases where the video recording of the evidence-in-chief of a child is played in court to the jury in the course of the trial. I am not absolutely certain why it is necessary to put these procedures on a statutory basis. If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is right in quoting a source that says there is judicial opposition to the use of television links, it is certainly not my experience that that is the case. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams,

1285
will explain why we need these familiar techniques put into statutory form. But I in no way oppose the proposition in the Bill.
What I wish to refer to is the provision in Clause 27 about the cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses—they will normally be child witnesses—on a video recording. I wondered whether it would be possible to deal with this at the Committee stage, but I think it is so complicated that it deserves a short Second Reading speech. I see that in one line the Law Society opposes Clause 27, but I recall that the provisions in it were recommended by the Pigot Committee and that they have been widely discussed in Parliament since but have never previously been adopted. Therefore, this is an admirable occasion on which to consider the realities of the situation in 1998.
I welcome the provision, subject to what I am about to say, because if a case of abuse of a child is to be tried and the child's evidence-in-chief is given by means of a video recording, there is inevitably a delay. The delay is sometimes far too long. But whatever the delay may be, the child, having immediately after the prosecution has been decided upon given the statement which is recorded on video, sees it for the first time when it is played to the jury at the trial. Counsel and judge will have seen it before but the jury and the child witness see it at that stage.
I have had to deal with a number of these cases. It is not surprising that a good many of the children, when asked questions, say, "It is a very long time ago. I cannot remember", or, alternatively, "Can I possibly see the video again?". And, of course, they cannot. If the Minister would be so kind and has time, I should like him to explain in outline how the provisions in Clause 27 will work and to tell us about some of the contents of the proposed rules. I see and applaud the idea that there should be piloting of this provision and that it should be phased in.
If there is any method of avoiding bringing a child to court, particularly some time after the whole thing happened, that is something I wholly favour. Such visits are not only traumatic for the child, who has had to be taken to the court on a previous occasion to familiarise himself or herself with the procedures and geography of the court, but they are time-consuming for the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred from Victim Support who have to make all the arrangements. They do that very well, but it is extremely time-consuming and it would be wholly desirable for everybody if it could be avoided—particularly for child witnesses.
I am glad that under Clause 27(6) there will have to be special reasons for a further cross-examination, after that done on video, to be allowed by a judge. The real intervention that has occurred since the Pigot Report is mentioned in Speaking Up for Justice and is crystallised in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and the rules in the code of practice made under it. That has formalised the preparation of a case. There is a timetable, which is meant to be rapid, after a committal by magistrates to
1286
the Crown Court. There is primary disclosure, a defence statement, then secondary disclosure. Only after all that is it possible for the defence to cross-examine.
Your Lordships will be amazed to know how many times primary disclosure does not appear fully to have been carried out or, if it was, the defence seems to have lost the documents or never received them. It is amazing how long it takes to get a defence statement for various reasons, and equally amazing is how long it takes to get secondary disclosure. In a case involving a child, time goes by, months pass and the defence case becomes stale—and a child's memory is very short.
I put before the Minister a shopping list. It is not one that he will take down the high street for Christmas. But as he kindly promised to talk to us all in the new year, perhaps we may discuss the list later. Cases where a video link should be used ought to be identified by the Crown Prosecution Service at the earliest possible stage and marked in some way on the file for priority treatment. After that, the CPS case officer must ensure that the police produce and the defence receive all the documents required under primary disclosure. I have heard it said so often, "The tapes have not arrived". There is no explanation, but a check has not been made by the CPS. That cannot be allowed to occur in such cases.
Then there is the defence case. Yesterday, there was an important Bill about those who are to conduct criminal case defences. Whether they be banisters or solicitors, selected or not, there should be a duty upon the advocate who is to act at the trial immediately to grasp the case given to him or her. Admirable guidance was given by the Bar Council on 24th September 1997 about preparing defence statements. I hope that guidance will be enforced and that similar rules will apply to solicitors, who have audits. There must be a conference with the client and other things as well.
If the defendant will not co-operate, the defence must waste no time in coming to the court and seeking a bench warrant to require their client to attend and confer with his or her legal advisers. That is often left far too late. There is a great reluctance by some defendants to come in. If the defendant is in prison, the Minister would greatly assist the process if he could persuade the Prison Service to give priority to appointments with legal advisers to see such defendants to prepare their defences. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware how extraordinarily difficult it is at Wormwood Scrubs, for example, for legal advisers to get an appointment to see their clients in custody pending trial, which greatly delays matters. The duty of the defence must also be to get statements from the proposed defence witnesses.
As to secondary disclosure, particularly where children are involved, one tends to get into the realm of social services or school reports. Are there to be rules about that? Paragraph 92 of the Explanatory Notes refer to such matters, which I welcome, but I suggest to the Minister that the prosecution should not wait until the defence statement to find out whether social services or educational records exist in relation to a particular child. They should acquaint themselves with those records, so that if and when there is a requirement to put them

1287
before the court and a necessity to decide whether public interest immunity is involved, they will be ready. So should local authority organisations, which sometimes are not that willing to produce documents. They have to be persuaded by one means or another. Sometimes, the defence goes fishing in those waters and, again, that wastes time—which could be avoided if the CPS were ready.
Only after all that will it be possible for the cross-examination by the defence, properly instructed and properly informed, to take place. If that is to occur on video, it must be done, if it is to be done at all, as quickly as possible. The scheme is ambitious, and I would welcome any further elucidation that the Minister can give. There may have to be more than one plea and directions hearings, and there is no difficulty about that.
As to paragraph 111 of the Explanatory Notes, I am extremely concerned that the Government envisage that either the trial judge or magistrates should not necessarily be present at the video cross-examination. It is extremely important that the defence counsel should be under the control of experienced magistrates or a judge who has a suitable ticket, because there is a tendency to dwell on a point far too long. There is also the absolute necessity, when dealing with video material, to make sure that a child who becomes tired is allowed to rest. That can only be done if the judge is in control of the cross-examination. When the Minister reflects, I do not believe that he will find it at all desirable that the court should not be in control of cross-examination.
Another point that concerns me is technical. It does not relate to cross-examination so much as the evidence-in-chief. Clause 26(3) introduces a new formula for the court to exclude evidence as being prejudicial. I had occasion in a case involving evidence-in-chief recorded on video to have a challenge about editing of the evidence, with the suggestion that some of it should be removed. At that time, the only guidance was Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which is a familiar scene for most people who administer justice. It is accompanied by an enormous amount of advice from the Court of Appeal. That has always been used. Why is the completely new formula introduced in Clause 26(3)? The only possible conclusion is that Parliament must have meant it to be a different test from that with which everyone is familiar under Section 78 of the 1984 Act. Different rules would have to be evolved and I do not believe that that would lead to the smooth administration of justice. I ask the Minister to look again at that point.
The Minister will now understand why I could not say all that in a clause stand part debate. If he can give me any help with those matters, I shall be much obliged.
6.39 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I warmly welcome the main thrust of the Bill. I was impressed with the Explanatory Notes which set out the three principles of restorative justice. I wonder whether there is scope for having a clause at the start of
1288
Part I to set out the principles or objectives of this part. We move fast straight into referral orders. Has the noble Lord considered whether some kind of introductory clause setting out these principles would be helpful in the implementation of the Act at a later date? Your Lordships' House has on occasion done that before now—against the wishes, I believe, of the former government. It may be valuable sometimes to have such an introduction to set out what that part of the Bill aims to achieve.
The Bill moves straight into referral orders in Clause 1. I seem to remember hearing my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern musing yesterday on the difference between a committee and a panel. I am glad that we have the active and vibrant words of "team" and "panel" in Clause 10. I believe that that is valuable. Perhaps because of all the committees on which I have served over the years which seemed to lead to a dead end, I am not keen on the word "committee". I am glad that the Government have chosen the words I have mentioned in connection with this youth offender work.
I was also glad to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, in his admirable maiden speech more about the Thames Valley Aylesbury Project. I referred to this a year ago when I said in a debate on 27th October, quoting The Times,
"After an 18-month trial, Thames Valley Police said that only 12 petty criminals had committed new crimes out of 350 who took part. Normally about 100 are likely to reoffend".—[Official Report, 27/10/97; col. 952.]
I felt that that was satisfactory. The document No More Excuses refers at page 17 to the Thames Valley scheme. It states that,
"more detailed research will be conducted".
Can the noble Lord, Lord Williams, say anything further about more detailed research during the past year other than what the noble Earl has already told us? I am greatly in favour of such research for a number of reasons. All that has been included in this Bill on that point is obviously welcome to me.
There has been a certain amount of discussion on regulations and guidance. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Windlesham said that he thought that there was a good deal of detail in this part of the Bill. The same thought occurred to me when I studied the Bill. I heaved a sigh of relief that all this was in the Bill and not in regulations. I then started to count how many references there were to "separate guidance" and "regulations". After counting three or four, I decided that I would not complete the task. There is a great deal of work to be done on this. When will the regulations be produced? I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will tell us that they will not be available for our discussions on this Bill. However, I should be glad to know whether any of them will be made available at a later stage.
As regards Clause 3, I am glad to see a reference to the home location of an offender. It is important that a court should take that into account. An offence may not be committed in the area where the offender resides. The offender may live 100 or 200 miles away. I am glad

1289
that in setting up the panel the court must take into account where the offender resides. I was pleased to see that provision.
As regards Clause 5, I was glad to see that "the appropriate person" is defined, where relevant, as either,
"a parent or guardian of the offender".
or the local authority. Can the noble Lord give us any idea of the proportion of cases in which the local authority will be considered the appropriate person and the proportion in which that will be considered to be the parent or guardian? What is the balance as between those categories? We have often talked in your Lordships' House about local authorities having problems as regards young people in their care.
When the noble Lord replies to the debate, will he be able to give us any information as regards Clause 6(4) and the qualifications or criteria that the Government seek for members of the youth offender panel? As subsection (4) states, I am sure that that will be specified in the regulations. However, can the noble Lord tell us anything further today about what he is looking for in that regard?
I appreciate the flexibility in Clause 7(4) as regards the reference to,
"someone capable of having a good influence on the offender".
I am sure that in most circumstances parents are the people who ought to have a good influence on the offender. However, we all know very well that that is not always the case. I congratulate the Government on referring to someone else who could be the good influence. It is good that parents are to be made responsible for their offspring. After all, parents have brought their offspring into this world and they cannot deny that responsibility, although many, sadly—usually the fathers—often attempt to do so. The more they can be made responsible for their offspring, the better. I appreciate the flexibility that has been shown in this regard.
Clause 8 is a good provision. I tried to incorporate the three principles I have already mentioned and references to similar matters in the document No More Excuses into my consideration of this clause. As regards the references to reparation and reintegration into the community, perhaps there is scope here for greater emphasis on a sense of personal responsibility. I believe that one can thus help a young offender to mature. Clause 8(2)(f) comes closest to a reference to a sense of personal responsibility when it states that the offender must "address offending behaviour". However, I believe there is scope for making a young offender adopt greater personal responsibility for what he has done. Here, again, I believe the Thames Valley practice is helpful. For an offender to face his victim, as is provided for in Clause 8(2), is of great help in conferring on him a sense of personal responsibility for what he has done. Perhaps there is scope for more of that to be written into Clause 8.
Finally, I wish to comment on two clauses in Part II. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I refer to Clause 27 which deals with cross-examination by video recording. Perhaps there is scope for the possibility of a live link, as in Clause 26(9). I went round in circles on
1290
it and I may have got it wrong, but it seems to me that cross-examination may arise from video recording in court. Would it be helpful—obviously not in the case of small children but with other witnesses being cross-examined—for it to be done via a live link so that they do not face the accused? It could be done instantaneously before the court. Perhaps that would be cheaper than the court having to adjourn for a video link.
I also wish to mention Clause 33. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I was pleased to see the prohibition on some of the dreadful distortions in the previous law, such as rapists putting their victims through the terrible trauma of several days' cross-examination. However welcome the clause, I have two questions. First, can the noble Lord, Lord Williams, confirm that it is not in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights? I hope that it is not. Secondly, should there be any flexibility for the court to permit any such limited cross-examination by the accused within limits set by the court as it considers appropriate? I notice that in Clause 35 there is discretion for the court the other way round—that is, for the court to make directions to prevent an accused from cross-examining a witness in person. I wonder whether there are any circumstances in which the court ought to have a discretion to permit the accused to conduct cross-examination under Clause 33.
By and large, this is an admirable Bill and I am glad to see both parts coming on to the statute book.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, if the debate is remembered for anything, I believe it will be remembered for the exceptional maiden speech by the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn. It is not often in our deliberations that we hear frontline experience of that kind being brought into our discussions. It is not always that one finds heavily taxed professionals able to reflect so deeply on the experience which they gain in their work and the implications for public policy. I believe that the House has every reason to be deeply grateful.
At the outset I must declare an interest, as I have done before. I am the honorary president of the YMCA in England, which works with some 70,000 young people in the course of a year. The YMCA broadly welcomes the Bill, particularly the youth offender panels, the contracts with offenders and the progress meetings. There is a general feeling among those most involved in the association that it is good to have clear procedures designed to operate with as little unnecessary delay as possible and to tailor the remedies to individual offenders. It enables them to develop a sense of identity as the basis for future responsibility.
I hope that local practitioners like those in the YMCA, with their invaluable frontline, realistic experience, can be involved in the implementation of all that. There will also be a great need for follow through after contracts are completed. What I think is often a sadness in the situation is the way that inadequate people are thrown back into society, with no real means for them to be helped to re-integrate and make a success of their lives.

1291
I hope I may be forgiven in this Second Reading debate for talking around the Bill as well as about it. The Bill comes in the context of the deep concern about dealing with the causes of crime as well as crime itself. Here I was impressed, not for the first time, by what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. It seems to me that, both in the cause of rehabilitation—which must be the highest priority of all in sound penal policy—and in the cause of good economic sense, prevention cannot be over-stressed as a priority. It is here that it is crucial for the Government to give priority, with the financial resources that can be generated, to supporting practical preventive work.
Let me give a few examples drawn from the experience of the YMCA. There is the work with the young homeless. It is a truly sobering thought to recognise that 42 per cent. of the young homeless with whom we deal in a pretty extensive programme have been in trouble with the police. Then there are the crime diversion programmes, like those in Lancaster and Woolwich, with their motor vehicle projects; or the programmes in places like Bootle, providing alternative education and training for young disaffected pupils excluded from school. There are the successful peer-led schemes dealing not least with solvent abuse. Those are the kinds of projects that need generous government support if we are serious about the causes of crime and prevention.
Then there is the vital pre- and post-release work with those in young offenders institutions. What are some of the practical manifestations of that? They are providing basic skills and vocational training; job search and employment awareness programmes; and, again, ongoing support and care after release, not least to help with training, employment and housing.
I have had the opportunity to refer to the experience I have been privileged to have in my relationship with the association in the past two-and-a-half years. I have had the opportunity on previous occasions, and I hope, therefore, I will be forgiven for re-emphasising something that has made a profound impression on me. It is the realisation that so many of those whom we categorise as young offenders are immensely lonely people, isolated and vulnerable, with none of the support mechanisms that all of us in this House take for granted in the course of our normal lives.
If I have learnt something from the years of working with the association which to me has become increasingly important, it is that if we are serious about rehabilitation and re-integration, we must walk with offenders through the process of rehabilitation. We must manifest practical solidarity with the young with whom we are dealing. Without such a positive approach, all the evidence indicates that prison becomes a damaging rather than a rehabilitating experience. Recent research published by NACRO and the Prince's Trust has underlined the point.
We are also concerned with the issue of parental responsibility. The words roll lightly off the tongue. But do we ask ourselves how adequate many parents in society are to carry out their parental responsibility. In
1292
the most deprived social areas of our country. are there opportunities to develop the talents and responsibilities of parenthood? Is there an underlying, genuine recognition that socio-economic factors do affect levels of parental support and supervision? It is absurd to pretend that there is no interrelationship between them.
If we are serious about prevention, we must give generous support for schemes which are designed to develop the skills of parenting among those who have least opportunity to develop them.
Schools have their part to play. There has been reference to that. I have immense admiration for the Minister. I have no doubt about the direction towards which he is working and the commitment with which he does so in order to tackle some of the issues I describe. I know that he will say that he becomes most frustrated about the number of youngsters in prison who cannot read or write and are not numerate. Therefore the work of the Department for Education and Employment is highly relevant to prevention. If young people do not have those skills, where is their chance to make a success of life? Therefore, the temptations to go off the straight and narrow increase.
However, I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that one of the difficulties in our education system at present is that, with all the curriculum pressures in recent years, there is not sufficient space for the character building, social policies, social training and social orientation programmes that should be taking place within schools. Perhaps I may be blunt about it. Many of us in this House look at education in terms of our experience. We take for granted the character building experiences that existed in our secondary education. But they do not exist now for many of the people who most need them. The space and resources are not available for teachers to develop those programmes. That factor has to be taken seriously as well.
In addressing the issues which the Bill is designed to tackle in the context of the administration of justice, the Government must continue to develop a social matrix, a policy in which a range of departments is brought together. If we simply rely upon the administration of justice, we shall get nowhere. The administration of justice underpins the necessary wider social policy.
In conclusion—I apologise because I have made this remark previously; and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I make it again in the future, as I am sure I shall—we cannot separate the issue of prevention from the prevailing mores of our society. If what is worshipped and applauded in our society is a kind of success related to greed, as distinct from public service, public responsibility, belonging and sharing, we can hardly complain if those living under immense pressures, with the greatest difficulties, go off the rails. Where is our authority to appeal to them? If we are serious about the issue, we have to redevelop a viable and convincing commitment to decency, integrity, commitment and solidarity in our society. On that basis—the young are often under incredible pressure—we shall have some credibility when talking about their responsibilities. But

1293
if we tell them what they should do when we appear to come from a world in which those principles do not operate, we have little credibility.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, aspirations, words and actions do not always follow each other in quick succession. On this occasion, the aspirations have been around for a long time but I congratulate the Government on coming forward with legislation so promptly after the promises made in the gracious Speech. As chairman of MENCAP, I welcomed the words when I spoke in the debate on the Address. Some few days later, transmogrified into the president of MENCAP, I welcome the action on support for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in the Bill, in particular those with a learning disability, a group already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that those form a constituency of approximately 1.2 million souls in the United Kingdom.
I am sure that fault may be found with parts of the Bill. In the interests of those who at present are denied justice because the criminal justice system presents them with barriers rather than help, I hope that we can give this measure a favourable wind on its journey to the statute book.
Having mentioned my particular concerns before, perhaps on this occasion I may summarise rather than elaborate them. Someone with a substantial learning disability, who has problems with communication, who is not streetwise and whose experiences have not given him a strong sense of his own worth is at particular risk of abuse, in particular abuse by those on whom he or she depends. The vulnerability which brings abuse also brings an enhanced risk of the abuse not being reported, not being detected, and, if reported, then frankly not being believed.
It is a basic test of a civilised society that people whose rights have been infringed should be able to secure justice through judicial process. That has not been happening. People with learning disabilities, who have suffered abuse, who have gone through agonies as a result and who when eventually they seem to see some light at the end of the tunnel, receive little sympathy and help because the criminal justice system has not been geared to meeting their needs, or even recognising those needs. No wonder they are often bewildered, hurt and—who can blame them?—angry too.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who have fought the good fight to secure better protection for vulnerable people and have helped us all to reach the point we are at today. One such person is the late Ann Craft of Nottingham University, who has had a great influence on both thinking and practice in this area. Her death in April last year was a great loss to the work in which she was involved and to her friends and colleagues. It is fitting that the Ann Craft Trust has now been set up to continue her work under her name.
Perhaps better known to your Lordships because of the regular meetings of its parliamentary group in this building is Voice under its chief officer, Christiana Horrocks. I have known Christiana over many years as
1294
a champion of the rights of people with learning disabilities in her professional Civil Service role. She is the continuing presence of commitment in the midst of all the regular changes of personnel which now appears to be the Civil Service norm and will certainly welcome the generous offer of a meeting with the department already given to us by the Minister.
In addition to its parliamentary role, Voice provides support and information to individual disabled people, their families and carers. Calls to the Voice telephone support line have doubled in the past two years. I suspect that that reflects both the increasing expectation that something should be done and the increasing frustration that justice continues to be denied.
The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill offers the possibility to process changes that will help a range of people who are disadvantaged by the way things are at present. I have no problem with this generic approach. It seems to me that, provided it delivers the required outcomes, generic legislation often has advantages, not least because it signs up more supporters to the cause of reforming criminal justice. To give evidence in court is an ordeal for many people who have suffered very personal distress, who find that the right words do not come very easily and are intimidated rather than supported by court routines, to the point of wondering whether they are the victims or are in the dock.
As to special measures for people with disabilities, I confess some discomfort about the wording that is adopted in Clause 16. In that provision reference is made to a witness who "suffers from mental disorder", "suffers from significant impairment of intelligence", suffers "from a physical disorder" but has only "a physical disability". I am at a loss to understand the distinction. I acknowledge the convention of drafting statutes in terms that are remote from everyday usage, and I respect the wisdom of parliamentary counsel in these matters. Nevertheless, I question whether we need "suffering from" which seems to imply both immediate pain and eventual cure. Neither fits the context.
I turn from terminology to procedural change. Like other noble Lords, I welcome in particular the possibility of video, live television links and screens being used for vulnerable adults as well as children. This can avoid the need for the person to appear in court and reduce the stress of exposure to the alleged abuser where a court appearance is inevitable. Video as well as a pre-visit would provide a means of preparing someone with a learning disability for a court appearance. I suppose that in the end virtual reality can become part of the process.
I assume that the court building is accessible as a necessary first step to introducing accessible court procedures. I am told that that is a rather rash assumption. I trust that the Home Office will issue guidance on how magistrates and Crown Courts can meet their Disability Discrimination Act responsibilities at the good practice level rather than just the bare essentials level. Technology and furnishings are not a substitute for personal support. That support is needed when someone is considering what help he may need in

1295
connection with a court case, just as it is needed immediately after the abuse, in the intervening period and after the case is over.
I acknowledge the long tradition of defending the interests of the accused by giving the victim as little support as possible until he or, more commonly, she appears in court, quite often to be mauled by defending counsel. I understand the rationale for that, but I do not believe that justice is either done or seen to be done by this approach. It amounts to making the vulnerable person a double victim: a victim of the abuse and then of the system. If "people" support is to be provided, the people who provide it need training. Training was a major theme of the recommendations in MENCAP's study Barriers to Justice which covered not only support staff but the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, lawyers, barristers, magistrates and judges. I ask the Minister what training is envisaged. Without training the Bill seems destined to be full of significant words but unlikely to have significant impact—strutting and fretting its hour upon the stage but then being heard no more.
I began by commenting on promptness on the part of the Government. I follow that up a little less charitably by inquiring about the timetable once the Bill has become law. When will the pilots begin? Assuming the pilots are successful, when is the full programme likely to be rolled out? Is there any risk that lack of resources may slow down implementation by impeding physical changes or acquisition of technology or training? We all know that justice delayed is justice denied.
I hope that I shall not be thought greedy if I raise one other point. When I spoke in the debate on the gracious Speech I drew attention to the marked discrepancy between the maximum two-year sentence that can be imposed when sexual abuse is tackled under the Mental Health Act as compared with the kind of sentence that may be imposed for the criminal offence of harming a vulnerable adult. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable to impose a lighter maximum sentence where the victim is a disabled person than where the victim is not disabled? Does the Minister propose to introduce measures to correct that quite unacceptable anomaly? I look forward to the Minister's response and to the rapid passage and implementation of a new piece of important legislation. It is undoubtedly overdue but nevertheless very welcome.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I add my warmest congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, on his excellent maiden speech in which his practical experience was so much to the fore. I was astonished by the admission of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that not all policemen were good and that not all lawyers were bad. It reminds me of Dylan Thomas's comment in "Under Milk Wood" that we are not wholly bad or good who live our lives out under Milk Wood. That can be said of both lawyers and police officers.
The noble Earl referred to the community conference and to its derivation which he thought was part of Maori custom. That form of dispute resolution has been
1296
adopted in New Zealand. I am reminded of a murder case in which I was involved in Oxford some years ago which involved discussion of the tribal customs of the Dinka in Sudan. They had a very similar way of resolving disputes and mediating by calling a village meeting in which the disputants were told how to behave themselves. Oxen were handed out in the proper proportions, and so on. The anthropologist from the University of Oxford who gave evidence said that the introduction of the noose and prison by the British under, I believe, General Kitchener, was regarded as truly barbaric by that tribe.
Today we are discussing youth offender panels which I believe to be very much a step forward in dealing with young people. I was party to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, when this House debated the Crime and Disorder Bill. As I said at the time, our current system of youth justice, with a youth court in which there is the traditional proof of guilt, the finding, the conviction and then the punishment, is not the best way to deal with young people. I was much impressed by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to the use of youth offender panels involving the youth and the family so that the youth has a stake in his own future and his attitude will change accordingly.
The youth offender panels referred to in Part I of the Bill are limited in scope because they can apply only to first-time offenders, those who have no previous convictions and those who plead guilty. For example, if a person has appeared before the court on a previous occasion and has been convicted and given a conditional discharge, under these provisions it is not open to the court to make an order to refer him to a youth offender panel on a subsequent appearance before the court. I am glad to note that in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 2 the Secretary of State is given power to extend the scope of youth offender panels as experience in operating those panels grows.
Therefore, I hope that the present proposals are something of a pilot scheme. They will deal only with a limited class of people because first-time offenders who plead guilty are a very small proportion of the number of people who appear in youth courts. I hope that that will gradually extend as people gain experience of that system.
I move now to Chapter I in Part II of the Bill. I welcome any provision which may be made to protect the interests of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. It is a blot upon the history of the courts of our country that witnesses have been tethered up in some remote corner of the court without any regard to their convenience or their problems.
I had hoped that the Government might take this opportunity to review compensation for victims of crime because there has been no movement to reform the alteration to the criminal injuries compensation scheme which the previous government introduced so that awards of compensation were greatly reduced. But that is perhaps something for another day.
There must be a balance between the right to a fair trial and concern for the needs of witnesses. When one strikes that balance, one must have regard to the ordeal

1297
that the defendant is suffering in having criminal charges brought against him, to the difference a conviction of guilt may make to him and to his future, and to the ordeal of witnesses who, however vulnerable and intimidated they may be—and I have every regard for their problems—must undergo that very short-term experience. It is an ordeal for both.
There is nothing new in the special measures proposed in the Bill, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, pointed out in his speech. I have personal experience of screens being erected in court. Indeed, it is now so commonplace in the Old Bailey that in some courts, there are permanent frameworks in place so that screens can readily be put up. Similarly, I have personal experience of video links, of private hearings, of video questioning, even of removing my wig and gown in an appropriate case.
But what is new is Clause 27 which refers to the cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses on video. That is new. I do not quite see the point of it. Does it mean that the cross-examination takes place in the presence of the defendant and not at a remote distance, as happens at the moment? Does it mean that it is done a fortnight or three weeks in advance of a trial? There is no difficulty in doing it, but what is the impact on the members of the jury when they see what appears to he something like a television play being broadcast and when all the evidence of a witness—examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination—is simply played to them on film? I really do not see that it is a greater ordeal for a vulnerable witnesses to be cross-examined live than it is to have a film taken of that process which can be shown to a jury at a different time.
My view is that the members of a jury are less likely to be impressed by a video film of something which has occurred on a previous occasion than by a live examination of witnesses which is taking place through a video link with a child or a vulnerable witness in another room. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will give some idea of the policy which lies behind that provision.
The cross-examination of complainants in proceedings for sexual offences is a very difficult area. Complainants may tell the truth; they may lie; they may be inaccurate in their detail; they may be plainly wrong, as happens only too often in identification cases. It may be that when a complainant makes a complaint and goes to court to support it, in the public mind, the burden of proof is indeed reversed, as was feared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It is thought that in some way the defendant must prove his innocence because a complaint has been made against him.
I suggest that the members of a jury, who are chosen by lot, and who are very firmly directed where the burden of proof lies, do not take that stance when they come to consider their verdict at the end of a trial. The noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, referred to the statistics of acquittals and how they have decreased. But juries have heard the evidence. They are not hardened professionals; they know how people live, breathe, work and talk. They are
1298
there to judge the witnesses. Are those noble Lords saying that all those acquittals are wrong? There is no evidence to that effect. If one has any belief at all in the jury system, one believes that by and large, in the vast majority of cases, juries get it right.
The fact is that the statistics for conviction in rape charges, in adult rape in any event, have decreased because of the introduction of the concept of marital rape and date rape. I do not object to that. But the fact that those types of rape are the most frequent rapes brought before the courts means that convictions are less likely. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, it is for the prosecution to prove not that the complainant did not consent but that the defendant did not believe that she consented or was reckless as to whether or not she consented. That is a heavy burden of proof. But if you are going to send somebody to prison for eight, nine or 10 years for rape, surely his state of mind is an important feature in the crime. If his state of mind is that the lady consented, however wrong-headed that may be, a punishment of eight or nine years, or, indeed, any punishment, would be quite wrong.
The suggestion that a defendant should not cross-examine a person arises out of two cases, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Lord Chief Justice, said. In those two cases, one must put oneself in the position of the judge.
Let us take the first case. That was the first time in history, about which anybody on the Bench or the Bar has ever heard, when a person who was conducting his own defence abused his right of cross-examination for days in a disgraceful way. What does the judge do? The judge must have two fears in the back of his or her mind. The first is, that if she—it was a she—interferes too much, the jury will take the side of the defendant and think that the judge is biased. The other fear is that if she interferes too much and stops this unique first-time happening, the Court of Appeal will say that the trial is unfair.
All that was put right because when it happened on the second occasion and the matter went to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal laid down the firmest guidelines in which judges can have the utmost confidence when controlling their own courts in such a situation.
This proposal prevents, for example, a husband asking his wife questions in a marital rape case. He may, rightly or wrongly, believe that if only he can talk to his wife when she is in the witness-box and say, "Now look, person to person, you consented", or, "This was not rape", he will receive a proper response from her, the response that he wants, which he will not elicit through the mediation of the middle-man of a bewigged barrister.
Similarly, a father may feel the same about his daughter. We must bear in mind that not all complaints are true. Sorting out the true complaints from the untrue complaints is the problem. A father may believe that by talking to his daughter in the witness box he can get her to admit what is in fact the truth and that the recollections whisked up from the past by a hypnotist—thoughts that she had buried—are all a load of rubbish.

1299
We have all heard of such cases. So why should he not be allowed to do it? It is a basic right that a person is allowed to question and test the evidence of a complainant against him.
As regards Chapter III which deals with the protection of complainants in proceedings for sexual offences, there is nothing new in any of the provisions, save for one matter to which I shall return shortly. All that Chapter III does is to set out good practice already followed in the courts of this country. If one is to make an application to a judge in a rape case to include the previous sexual history of the complainant, one hopes that there is a responsible and reasonable basis for making such application. It is not surprising that 75 per cent. of such applications succeed; they would not be made unless counsel appearing in a particular case felt that the complainant's previous sexual history was relevant.
The one additional matter is in Clause 40(3)(b), which refers to evidence of,
"the sexual behaviour of the complainant … alleged to have taken place at the same time as (or within the period of 24 hours before or after) the event".
If one is given permission to refer to previous sexual behaviour, it is limited to behaviour 24 hours before or after the event. This year I have been concerned in a case in which the complainant had a passionate sexual relationship with the defendant. The defendant was sent abroad to serve his country in a difficult and dangerous place. The complainant wrote passionate letters to him over a period of a couple of months saying what she would do to him when his tour of duty was over. When he came back, having had an extremely stressful time, he had some drinks in the NAAFI, and went to claim what he thought was his due, what she had promised she would do. A dispute arose between them; he was convicted of rape, but his appeal was allowed. He eventually obtained damages against the prosecuting authority for malicious prosecution.
Under this clause, such passionate letters written over several months would not have been admissible and the relationship, conducted at a distance, could not have been examined. Inevitably, there would have been a miscarriage of justice in that particular case. I am certain that there are many cases of a similar nature where one cannot confine the relationship between two people to what is happening at one time or within 24 hours of a particular incident. Experience shows that judges are alive to the difficulties of allowing evidence about previous sexual history and that such applications are successful only when they are made responsibly and with proper grounds.
There is much good in the Bill, but many of its provisions simply put good practice on a statutory basis. We shall support it. We hope that it is not trumpeted as a massive new reform to put right what the judges have got wrong, as that would simply be a public relations exercise. We shall have to develop in Committee some of the criticisms I have made.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it would be rash of me to attempt to sum up the expert debate over the past few hours. However, I should like to welcome the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, and to express the hope that his duties will allow him to contribute to future debates, not only on this Bill but on other matters.
I am grateful for the helpful attitude expressed by the Minister in opening regarding amendments, and for the publication of the new style Explanatory Notes on Clauses. I found them to be helpful, particularly as I have only just picked up this portfolio. I am sure that the memoranda are also helpful to others, not only in this House.
At the same time, I have sympathy with the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The Bill was "advertised" in the gracious Speech as a Bill to modernise the youth courts and give greater protection for witnesses. That phrase was repeated by the Leader of the House a day or so later. "Modernise" is a spin doctor's word which we have become used to. The Minister was much more accurate this afternoon—which we are also used to—in explaining that the main legislation for the overhaul of the youth justice system was the Crime and Disorder Act. This Bill adds an important new provision of referral to youth offender panels, as well as dealing with protection of witnesses in Part II.
This package flows in part from ideas which were floating about at the time of the previous government and, in particular, the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place. But, as we have heard today, ideas also come from the Thames Valley, Scotland, New Zealand and, indeed, Sudan. I am glad to see those ideas come to fruition. I entirely agree with the important aims of the Bill—the reduction of re-offending—particularly by early action in the case of first offenders.
In my constituency when I was a Member of the other place was the young offenders centre at Eastwood Park. That has now changed its role and been rebuilt. For a number of years I used to visit the centre. The most depressing part of such visits was to see the prison officers pointing out the youths on their first evening in the centre—they had been there only a few hours—they believed would be regular customers of the Prison Service for the next 10 years, even though they were there for only a few weeks. They were able to say that quite clearly; and it was quite a large proportion as a rule.
Although there is a lot of information in the Bill and the supporting documents, at the moment we know very little about the panels. The quality of the membership of the panels will be crucial to the success of the proposals. We know little about their composition, training or, for that matter, remuneration and expenses. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, asked about that. Some information will be contained in guidance and regulations from the Secretary of State, but clearly the House would like more.

1301
Part II of the Bill deals with the protection of witnesses. We all want to see the protection of vulnerable witnesses, both children and the victims of sexual offences. It is not primarily a matter of looking after the victims properly—although we would all agree that children and others deserve to be looked after better. But if evidence is to be forthcoming and convictions obtained in the courts, proper protection is important. There is clear evidence of witnesses being seriously deterred from giving evidence, which lets the offenders off. At the same time, in the interests of justice, we must accord defendants proper rights. The noble Lord and others have rightly said that it is a question of balance.
Attention has been drawn to Clauses 26 and 27 on the use of video recorded evidence. The Law Society and several noble Lords today have objected to video cross-examination outside the trial, as provided for in Clause 27. However, there is support for video interviews being used as evidence-in-chief, with the proper safeguards. It will be extremely difficult for cross-examination and re-examination to take place on video outside a trial, particularly if it is at any time before the trial. Clearly, preparations for the trial build up to the climax of the trial and if cross-examination or re-examination is conducted at some time before the trial they would take place in a "vacuum".
Attention has also been paid to defendants who represent themselves. We heard with interest the misgivings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, and others about the proposal. We heard again today about the two hard cases which gave rise to the provision, which we must examine carefully. Apart from the question of whether the provision is desirable, there is the awkwardness of an unrepresented defendant being resistant to appointing a lawyer, thereby making it necessary for one to be appointed by the court. We recently discussed that matter in the Northern Ireland context where similar provisions are being introduced in respect of terrorist organisations. I was struck again by the phrase which occurs in Clause 37(5) that the lawyer appointed by the court:
"shall not be responsible to the accused".
I realise that every lawyer's first duty is to the court, but in cases where emotions run high, as they would in this instance, the accused would be concerned if he believed that his lawyer was not "responsible to" him. I believe that that is a most unhappy phrase in the Bill.
More widely, there is a potential difficulty with the European Convention on Human Rights in refusing permission to the defendant to conduct his own defence throughout the proceedings. There is a cursory statement from the Minister at the front of the Bill, pointing out that the whole Bill complies with the convention. But that does not conclude the argument and I forecast that during later stages there will be a certain amount of discussion on it.
A great deal of attention has been paid both inside and outside your Lordships' House to the issue of victims being questioned about their previous history, particularly in sexual cases. That requires the leave of a judge, but it is thought by some, including the Government, that judges are too lax in permitting such
1302
questions. Hence these clauses, which are a criticism of the judiciary in this respect. Today we had evidence by reference, rather than in person, to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who takes the opposite view. If evidence is required, why is it being provided for in statute rather than by practice direction or other existing means which might be more satisfactory and flexible in the future? I do not believe that we can entirely solve the problem in the wording of a single statute and we may need to develop that wording. Furthermore, we will need an explanation of the rationale behind the choice of 24 hours as the restriction.
Chapter IV extends the reporting restrictions, referred to by my noble friend Lady Macleod and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. Any restriction on the press should be examined carefully. But it is right that the current restrictions should apply from the first allegation of an offence and not just from the beginning of the proceedings. However, I do not know how often newspapers reveal the names of young offenders in particular and whether the mischief needs to be dealt with.
Chapter VI limits the right to silence, which has not been widely referred to today. It follows the Murray case in Northern Ireland. I believe that different circumstances apply in Northern Ireland, but I do not want to get into that argument at the moment. Under the Bill, one can draw inferences from the silence of an accused only if it occurs after his legal representative is present. That will cut out what the accused failed to say at the time of his arrest, or when he was questioned on the spot, or immediately after the offence. Those with more experience than I would be able to judge whether words said at that time are of importance. I believe that the introduction of Chapter VI will require a change to the police caution.
Many provisions in the Bill are left for regulations, guidance and statutory instruments of one kind or another. We do not yet have the advice of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in that respect. I believe that when many important issues are to be left to statutory instruments, as is the case with this Bill and the Access to Justice Bill with which we dealt yesterday, the case is strengthened for this House to scrutinise statutory instruments more thoroughly. We have no provision to make amendments to statutory instruments—no equivalent of the Committee procedure—and we have a custom of not voting against them. Therefore, the Minister cannot rely too much on the fact that the affirmative procedure provides a parliamentary safeguard. The safeguard is fairly flimsy.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke of the Government spending money on prevention as opposed to cure. I am not sure about spending money. The financial effects of Part I of the Bill are given in the memorandum as a saving of £4.5 million, so no extra money is expected as far as Part I is concerned. In the longer term, it is hoped that the success of the Bill in reducing youth offending will lead to even greater savings. We all hope that the Bill will be successful and will lead to a reduction in youth offending, but it seems to me that the Treasury is, in the literal sense, already counting on that in making its calculations.

1303
I have skimmed over a large number of questions. I do not expect that we shall hear all the answers this evening. However, I have signalled some issues to which we shall need to return and reflect on in Committee. In general, I support the aims of the Bill and, in the light of today's debate, I believe it was extremely wise to introduce the Bill into your Lordships' House first.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the quality of the maiden speech from the noble Earl and for the reciprocation of the attitude that I put forward on behalf of the Government at the beginning of the debate: namely, that I would approach all these matters with an open mind and that I would genuinely value and welcome any opportunities to hold consultations about particular details. I am referring to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when we will have an opportunity to meet together with advisers and officials.
I hope your Lordships do not think that I do a discourtesy, but, essentially, the discussion has fallen into two parts: a discussion on Part I, which seems to be approved and welcomed generally, and the detailed questions about the conduct of criminal trials. I shall deal with the observations made and the questions asked in those two categories, if that is convenient.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, who spoke towards the end of the debate, spoke about timescale. Project management issues and the development of a training strategy are being considered at the moment by the steering group which was established after the publication of the Speaking Up for Justice report, so that report is continuing.
The noble Lord asked specifically—and it is a proper question, if I may say so—about the discrepancy in penalties available for sexual offences against patients as opposed to others. I can assure your Lordships and the noble Lord—I know he has a particular interest in this area—that the penalties for sexual offences generally are already being considered in the wide-ranging review of sexual offences which was announced earlier this year. That is why it is in that category, rather than as part of the Bill.
The noble Lord is quite right in his deep suspicion that "suffering from mental disorder" is a term of art on the part of the parliamentary draftsman. I confirm his worst and gloomiest suspicions.
The noble Lord also asked about good guidance. Again, I take his point. We recognise that we shall need to produce good practice guidance for all working in the criminal justice system. That will form part of the implementation programme. A virtue of having a Bill of this sort is that one has to have, as he said, not simply fine words, but one has to look to a monitored, structured and disciplined implementation.
A little while ago now, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked whether or not the panel should be regarded as a court. We do not look upon the panel as a court. It is the facilitator of the contract. If there is a
1304
breach of the contract, it is for the court that made the original order to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the breach has been proved to its satisfaction on the usual basis, and to decide whether to revoke the order or to deal with the offender for the original offence. If the court does the latter, then the question of proportionality, which I entirely recognise, is to be determined by the court.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked about the details of recruitment and training. Clause 6(4), as she rightly observed, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations governing qualification to be laid down, together with recruitment criteria. I entirely agree that those details will be extremely important and we propose to consult as widely as possible with all relevant, professional bodies to ensure that we set appropriate criteria.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, confirmed that recruitment is to be carried out by the local youth offending team, with the aim of encouraging the involvement of experienced youth justice practitioners, including magistrates, the police and, importantly, lay people. We shall be turning our minds to the question of national standards for the training required by panel members and those will be issued on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness also asked whether or not there would be legal representation in front of the panel. The answer is no, because it is not a court and we do not want over-formality and the over-legalism of legal representation at that time. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, allied himself with the noble Baroness's question. I can confidently restate that that is not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, specifically asked whether the young person has a choice. I say yes. That is the whole purpose of this. It is a novel step in dealing with young offenders. I entirely agree with his phrase that it gives them ownership, in part, of their own redemption.
There will certainly be a place for befrienders where appropriate. They may take a role as part of the panel, and the panel could certainly specify them to be in contact with the young person who signed the contract.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, asked whether the Bill should set out the principles of restorative justice. We have tried to imbue the first part of the Bill with those principles as part of the substructure of the Bill.
The noble Viscount asked about those who might be in care. Probably in most cases the appropriate representative of those in the care of the local authority, would be the relevant social worker.
The noble Viscount asked for any distinct news that I could give about the Thames Valley project, which the noble Earl, in his maiden speech, so helpfully described. The results are undergoing independent evaluation by researchers at the Institute of Criminology at the University of Oxford. We await that evaluation and conclusion with keen interest. When pilot projects have been set up, we have tried not to look at the headline

1305
results, which the noble Viscount mentioned, but to rely on evidence-based practice—the Home Secretary is keen on that—to find out what actually works.
I turn to the questions raised in a number of different ways about unease in court procedures, the protection of vulnerable witnesses and changes in the ability of a man or a woman to represent him or herself. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right in the question he alone raised. A change to the police caution is likely to be needed and that will be addressed separately.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked about cross-examination by video link. That is likely to be relatively rare. The advantage of it is that if witnesses are particularly distressed, one can give them a particular time when they can undergo cross-examination on video, as opposed to the endless delays that seem to consume our system at the moment.
In regard to the noble Lord's reference to his client who had the passionate letters, those would remain admissible by virtue of Section 41(1)(b). I can assure him, and any future potential clients, who are unfortunate recipients of such epistles, that they will be admissible.
There is no policy here to reduce the number of acquittals, but I think that everyone concerned with this has to ask themselves why so many allegations of rape are made, so few come to the trial process and the rate of acquittal is low. That is not necessarily wrong. I agree with all noble Lords who have said that. It is not simply what happens in court that matters, or what happened as regards the two headline cases to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred. What matters is the genuine fear that we have established—I do not think it can be doubted—that women are reluctant to go to court because they fear the consequences, not of proper cross-examination or of questioning in the interests of a defendant, but of what in the past has amounted to grotesque, humiliating bullying. If women and young children simply will not go to court, it is unjust from the individual's point of view and from that of our society.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked why a man, in the context of marital rape, should not be able to put his cross-examination individually to the complainant. A man accused of raping his daughter of six or grossly and indecently assaulting her, is presently not allowed the "right" to cross-examine. That is our law and it has been since 1991. So this is no new step. One also needs to bear in mind the pressures on the family relationship, which may be deeply distressing and intimidating even to a bona fide complainant.
So we therefore introduce the concept of the independent person designated by the court who may carry out cross-examination. He is not responsible to his client because in the normal sense the defendant is not his client. But he can perfectly ably and professionally carry out cross-examination—for instance, on the basis of the complainant's evidence; on any medical evidence that there might be and on any material which might have been provided by the defendant even though unwilling. He might have made statements to the police which would be the proper basis for cross-examination.
1306
I do not believe that we shall have more miscarriages of justice. I do not believe that there is any evidence that the prohibition to which I have referred, of a man cross-examining personally the child complainant whom he is alleged to have cruelly mistreated, anecdotal or otherwise, that miscarriages of justice have come about. I fully recognise the points put by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. I promise, as I did before, to reflect on them. But there is still in this country a very strong view, which may well be legitimately based—I believe it is—that women complainants in allegation of rape (they are not proved at that stage) will not properly be dealt with by the criminal justice system. It is not just the two cases, but the belief. I believe that our change in the law will do something to take away that belief.
Clause 38 is designed to avoid the accused being prejudiced by the fact that he is prevented from cross-examining in person. It seems to me that that is a perfectly proper protection for the defendant if the judge explains it and gives a correct direction. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred to the Scottish experience about there being a "gateway" as it were, which is the interests of justice test. Research into the effectiveness of the Scottish legislation came to the conclusion that that gateway was very widely drawn and that previous sexual behaviour evidence was admitted much more often than intended by Parliament. I am referring to the Scottish Office Central Research Unit research conclusions of 1992 as regards sexual history and sexual character evidence in Scottish sexual offence trials.
One needs to draw the distinction, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, did, between the question of consent and belief in consent. If one puts one's mind and eye to the detail of the Bill, that distinction is perfectly clearly drawn. There is no question here of altering the burden of proof; it remains intact. I know of the comments made by the organisation, Women Against Rape. Our conclusion is that it is important to protect women both from inappropriate questions and the inappropriate questioner.
Reverting to the question which I put as part two of our discussions, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, asked a particular question about video cross-examination. It will be perfectly possible for the court to direct that a witness's evidence be admitted on video and then to direct that any further evidence, which may well be necessary, or cross-examination, could be carried out on a live link. The noble Viscount asked about video cross-examination. The whole purpose of Clause 27 is to reduce the trauma of giving evidence for vulnerable or frightened witnesses. I take his point about the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, particularly his point about pre-trial disclosure. I tend to agree with him that cross-examination would not be able to occur until the relevant material had been disclosed. We would not anticipate courts making directions under Clause 27 until a plea and directions hearing had taken place.

1307
I totally agree with him that it is for the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service to focus particularly on these questions. Without any further reflection and as an immediate response, I am bound to say that his suggestion that video link cases ought to be prioritised and possibly marked in a special way, is really important. The same applies to his suggestion that judges must manage cases and give priorities for plea and direction hearings. They ought to have the power to make directions, for instance, that the defendant attends promptly for appointments. That is all consistent with the Lord Chancellor's view that we must manage cases and not let the legal system manage us.
Generally speaking, I believe those are the issues that have been raised. There was a particular question from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, as regards Clause 26(3). The test is virtually the same as that in the present test in Section 32(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. If the noble Viscount were to look at that he will see that it is virtually identical. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, suggested that we went wider than the Speaking Up for Justice recommendations. In fact, the list of offences in Clause 57 is slightly narrower than the list of offences in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
Those are the points which struck me as being of significance when we debated these matters. There is no doubt that the concept of the youth panel is capable of being a milestone in the way in which we deal with young offenders. It is critical to get at them immediately. I was pleased to note the general welcome for this concept. If these first steps are successful, the Secretary of State will be able to expand the concept, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. I agree with the thought that the noble Lord put forward. We do not want to stand still on what is bound to be, in the nature of things, a limited category of first offenders who plead guilty.
Certainly, there is a good deal of food for thought in the detailed questions raised about what I can generally describe as court and court-related procedures. I respectfully reiterate the suggestion that if Peers and advisers meet with Ministers, officials and advisers in whatever context or category is thought appropriate, we shall get a better outcome. I am quite sure that many of the fears that have been raised are capable of being assuaged. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
8.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the sixth occasion that this Bill has been brought before this House so my place, if not in history, but at least in the Guinness Book of Records, is well secured. On every prior occasion the wishes of the elected Chamber were thwarted and they were spurned
1308
in a particular way. It was the power of the hereditary veto which won on every occasion. I do not know whether we shall see that again tonight. But even if we do, all it will mean is that the Bill will become law a good deal quicker than if we had gone through the stages of this Bill in the normal way. I suppose that that would be what some lawyers call an uncovenanted benefit.
The Bill is perfectly simple. It introduces a system of proportional representation—a manifesto commitment—using a party list system. It is worth bearing in mind therefore that it replicates the system for Northern Ireland which was introduced by the Conservative Government. It puts into the European equation the scheme already adopted in both Houses in the Scotland Act and in the Government of Wales Act. We should bear that fact in mind.
I know that your Lordships will not want me to wander about the Bill any further, because I believe that I have done so on a number of previous occasions. Indeed, there cannot be anyone in the world, let alone in your Lordships' House, who does not know and is deeply interested in the intricacies of whether or not the party list should be open, simple or closed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said on an earlier occasion that it is different in Wales because it is only part of the electoral system. Exactly so: 20 out of 60. But which 20? If the general election results were broadly the same in the Welsh Assembly elections, it would be the very 20 seats and the only 20 seats that the Conservatives could possibly hope to get. So it is different; it is different, to the advantage of the Conservative Party in Wales. However, I am sure that that is just coincidental.
To assert that this is a principled rejection of a government Bill is humbug. It is most attractive humbug and attractively displayed, as I heard it described this morning on the "Today" programme by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; but it is still humbug. We know what the advantages of the system are: it provides and produces a proportionate outcome. It enables women, ethnic minorities and areas of particular expertise to be more fully and fairly represented. It avoids internal party candidates fighting each other as well as the opposition—the point made by Lord Bethell, which has never been answered. Let us not overlook the fact that voters in this country have never ever been asked to choose between rival candidates for the same party.
Finally, and most importantly, candidate A cannot be elected with fewer votes than candidate B in the same election. On every occasion when I trespassed on your Lordships' past patience I have made those points and no one has ever challenged any one of them on every occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has certainly gone on the Scottish and Welsh theme, but he has never challenged any of my propositions.
There are 60 million people living in our country. The wishes of the Chamber elected by that country have been flouted by 700 families, or their present representatives. Mr. Hague's hereditaries—that component of our legislature which he is on record as

1309
describing as "silly"—have won so far. Mr. Hague has either directed the use of the hereditary veto or he has connived in it on five distinct occasions. That is the true struggle of principle. Is unaccountable power to triumph over elected representatives and their wishes?
I do not intend to say any more. I believe deeply and unshakeably that this continued abuse of entrenched power is a very profoundly wrong thing to do.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
8.13 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to give the European Parliamentary Elections Bill a Second Reading on the grounds that it includes an undemocratic 'closed list' system providing for the selection of MEPs by party choice, an approach which would end the historic right of the British people to choose the candidates they wish to be elected, a step for which the House notes with great concern no mandate was sought or given at the last general election".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I may, first, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on his stamina. I think that two Second Readings in one day is not too bad. Perhaps we can forgive him for the brevity of his speech in introducing this particular Bill. Indeed, perhaps we may also forgive him because we know that the argument in favour of a closed list as against the open list is pretty fragile and that it is much easier to have a go at your Lordships' House than it is actually to debate the issues involved in the Bill, especially the particular issue which your Lordships have felt obliged to debate with the other place.
In moving my reasoned amendment tonight, I am actually inviting noble Lords to bring the issue to a decision now. We could allow the Bill a Second Reading and in January we could go through the various stages and insert our previous amendments, if that was your Lordships' wish, in favour of the open list. Then, some time in the second part of January—but, I suspect, no later—we would get to the moment of decision. We would have to decide whether to insist on our principled stand and, if we did, the Government would have to decide whether or not to use the Parliament Act.
I am inviting your Lordships to advance that decision by a very few weeks. If noble Lords decide to support me in the Lobbies tonight and carry my amendment, the Government would have three choices. They could, of course, drop the whole idea and go back to first-past-the-post. They could come forward with a No. 2 Bill with the open list in it—a Bill to which I would be advising my noble friends to give a speedy passage. Alternatively, as the noble Baroness the Leader
1310
of the House said to your Lordships on 18th November, they could introduce the Bill "in the next Session", which they have done,
"under the procedures of the Parliament Acts".—[Official Report, 18/11/98; col. 1360.]
So they could in fact use the Parliament Acts.
Indeed, nothing we can do will prevent the Government getting the Bill if they choose to do that. I make no complaint in that respect. I actually believe that, ultimately, the Commons should get their business. After considerable reflection, my view is that we should bring the matter to a head this evening. As Shakespeare said, in what I think one should describe as the Scottish play:
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly".
I believe that to be the position.
I accept that the Government have a clear mandate on the generality of the Bill. I shall quote from the manifesto, which I keep near me so that I do not stray into error at any particular time. I see in that document the words:
"We have long supported a proportional voting system for election to the European Parliament".
I am not disputing that and I do not ask your Lordships to do so. Moreover, I make no secret of the fact that I am not in favour of proportional representation. The fact that it may advantage my party at any particular time is, dare I say it, a very unprincipled argument. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, advanced it.
The latter is in fact an argument which is dear to the hearts of the Liberal Democrat Party. That party does not seem to understand that someone can actually have a principled belief in first-past-the post. I do. Its members seem to think—and they do so again this evening—that they are the only people with any right to have any principle. Indeed, I am glad to hear that they seem to agree to that. However, ironically, they appear to have modified their stand on proportional representation when it suits them. Perhaps I may remind them of what their honourable friend Mr. Allan said in the other place on 27th October:
"My party's position remains consistent. Our preferred option is neither a Belgian nor a Finnish model, but one closer to home—the Northern Irish model of the single transferable vote".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/98; col. 183.]
It seems that the Liberal Democrats have set aside their principled support for the single transferable vote in favour of a closed list. In the light of the Government's manifesto commitment, I am prepared to set aside my principled support for the first-past-the-post system, though certainly not in favour of a closed list but in favour of an open list. The difference is simple, yet it is profoundly important for representative democracy.
We in this country have always voted for an individual, albeit these days the individual carries a party banner, in order to represent us in Parliament. That individual has usually been chosen—indeed, almost always—by the party membership in each constituency. However, that will change next June. We will be asked

1311
to vote, and only to vote, for a party. Who the winning candidates are to be will be decided by the party; the people, the voters, will have no say, no choice.
In contrast, in the open list system, we would vote for an individual of our choice within the party list of the party of our choice. The number of MEPs for each party would be decided from the party totals in exactly the same way, but which individuals would be elected would be decided by the people who voted for the party and not by the party high command; in other words, the people's choice and not the party's choice.
I have argued the points that the Minister put forward this evening on a number of occasions. Perhaps I may review them; for example, the Northern Irish one: "You Tories used the closed list for the Northern Ireland Forum elections". Yes, we did; but that was for the forum and for the very special circumstances of Northern Ireland where we wanted as many people represented there as possible in order to advance the peace process. It has nothing to do with the Parliament. It was very specific and done for that reason only. No one, not even the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, can imagine that the circumstances in the European elections are anything like the circumstances in Northern Ireland, or that the European Parliament would have to do the kind of job that the Northern Ireland Forum was going to be asked to do. Indeed, no one can imagine that.
Moreover, I do not have to look further than the current Prime Minister for support in my case that there is no comparison. On 21st March 1996 in the other place, Mr. Blair said:
"As I am sure that the Prime Minister"—
at that time John Major—
"would agree, the solution on the election process is certainly not ideal".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/96; col. 499.]
Given those words, I should caution the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, against pretending that the closed list is ideal; otherwise his leader might hear about this contradiction.
Next we have the proposition that some candidates may be elected with fewer votes than other candidates who are not elected. But not within the same party. That is quite important. The electorate will have no trouble with this issue. They will quite understand that a candidate in a party which does not receive as many seats may not be elected yet he may have more votes than a candidate who is elected in another party. That happens at the moment in first-past-the-post elections. I shall not weary your Lordships by quoting the seats in which the second or even the third candidate in one seat gained fewer votes than the first in another seat. The electorate do not rise up in the streets about that. We have a sophisticated electorate who understand these matters perfectly well.
1312
Then there is the fact that we accepted the closed list for Wales and for Scotland. However, those Bills were about much, much more than the electoral system. They not only sought to enact clear manifesto commitments to devolve power to Scotland and to Wales; but they were also endorsed—although, in the case of Wales, just—in referendums. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, pointed out in his defence—although I suspect that it is more in mine—the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales will have a majority of traditional first-past-the-post members. Those drawn from the closed list will be a minority. That does not mean that I was particularly happy about the systems in those Bills, but they were larger Bills and addressed much greater issues than just simply the election. I warned the Government about the system they proposed, and they turned a deaf ear. In Scotland—I know not about Wales—the Government are panicking. They are proposing to spend vast amounts of taxpayers' money to try to "educate" the population on how those votes are to work.
More importantly, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, should not have reminded me about Scotland. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in another place published its report on 18th November. It was looking at what it called the "operation of multi-layered democracy". It looked, among other things, at the electoral system.
The committee voted on paragraph 91. Some members of the committee did not want the last sentence; others did. When it came to a vote two Labour Back Benchers—I do not know whether I insult them by calling them "Blair babes"—voted for the sentence to be removed. Four members of the committee voted for it to be retained. One of them was my honourable friend Mr. Desmond Swayne; two of the others were Labour Back Benchers, Mrs. Irene Adams and Mr. Eric Clarke. Just to cause a little bit of discomfort to the Liberal Democrats, perhaps I may add that the fourth person was Mr. Michael Moore, who I understand is the successor of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, in his Borders seat. They voted in favour of retaining this sentence:
"We feel that an open list would be more in keeping with the principle of trusting the people and giving them the maximum choice".
That was agreed not by the Tories on that committee—because, quite frankly, there are not many Tories on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—but by the Liberal Democrat Member and by two of the Labour Members. I shall repeat that sentence so that your Lordships can appreciate that it fully backs the case that we have made about this Bill:
"We feel that an open list would be more in keeping with the principle of trusting the people and giving them the maximum choice".
The final argument that I want to address, in order not to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is that the closed list enables a party to get a mix of candidates elected who would not be elected if it were left to the electorate. That is a funny idea of democracy. "Trust the people" is clearly an out-of-date

1313
phrase in the new Labour lexicon. It is now "the people should trust the party". Shades of 1984—the book, not the year.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. I am puzzled by the reference in his amendment to,
"the historic right of the British people to choose the candidates".
Can he tell me of one example in modern times of the electorate at the ballot box being able to choose between alternative candidates of the Conservative Party? In other words, can he give me one historic example of the electorate being able to choose other than from a Conservative Party closed list?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have discussed this before as the noble Lord would know if he had attended. The first-past-the-post system is not a "list system" in the sense that we are discussing such a system. It is a "one member, one vote, one person is elected" system. It is quite different. People can make a choice about the individual. They can decide to vote for the individual or not—as, for example, they did in Tatton.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. Choice between candidates of the same party was normal in the two-member constituencies which were common until 1950.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that. I knew that I could rely on him to come to my aid when it came to the history of these matters. That was not too long ago, but the two systems are profoundly different. I am amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for all his brilliance, does not understand the difference between first-past-the-post single-member constituencies and regional lists which will mean a number of members being elected from the one party.
I was about to come to Scotland. The members of the Labour Party in Scotland were not consulted in any way about the European list, let alone asked to take part in any one member/one vote election. A London-dominated selection panel decided. Two sitting MEPs were placed one and two, but when it came to number three—also likely to be elected—the other two sitting Labour MEPs suffered the drop; down they went to numbers five and seven. It served them right, I suppose, because they are Old Labour and they were not on message. In at number three came Kathleen Walker Shaw. "Who is she?", I hear your Lordships ask. "Who is she?", we Scots asked. "Who is she?" the Labour Party in Scotland asked. She turned out to be a GMB union official who works in Brussels. Was she Scottish? A good question. "Yes", she said, "I am Scottish; I was born in Aberdeen". Unfortunately for the young lady, along comes a by-election in the SNP-held Euro-seat of North East Scotland caused by the death of Alan MacCartney, who took the seat from Labour at the previous Euro-election. Kathleen Walker Shaw was parachuted in from London without as much as a "by your leave". But why not? She was born in Aberdeen,
1314
was she not? She was third on the list. Along comes a nasty newspaper and obtains her birth certificate. Her place of birth? Not Aberdeen; but Stafford. Poor Miss Walker Shaw is challenged. "It is all a misunderstanding", she said, "I was born in Stafford, but I was conceived in Aberdeen". Can your Lordships imagine the 'phone call? "I am having some difficulty, Mummy. I claimed that I was born in Aberdeen to give me a Scottish connection and they have rumbled it. Where was I conceived? Would that be helpful?" I ask your Lordships to imagine yourselves making that call.
Of course, the electorate gave a resounding thumbs-down to this mysterious, unknown lady who did not even know where she was born. The by-election, which was billed to be a two-horse race between Labour and the SNP, turned out to be a disastrous humiliation for Labour. The people dumped their imposed candidate into third place behind the Scottish Conservative candidate, Struan Stevenson. After that experience, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, still thinks that the party knows best.
On a number of occasions, I have drawn your Lordships' attention to the opinion of Labour Members in another place—not their Whipped opinions in the voting Lobbies, but their expressed opinions in debate. Every time this Bill was debated in another place, for every Blair babe dragooned into speaking in support, two or three more Labour Back Benchers came forward to condemn the closed list. Jack Straw defended it in a kind of a way. I am not surprised it was "in a kind of a way" because in 1985, in an article in The Times headed "What's so fair about PR?", this is what he had to say about the list system:
"Where PR is based on a list system with votes effectively cast for a Party and the winning candidates taken, pro rata, from each party's list, power passes from the individual constituency party to those who draw up the list".
That is exactly the point.
I agree with Jack Straw. I invite your Lordships to agree and to say to the Government, "We believe it should be the people's choice who represents us in Brussels not the party's choice. If you want this fundamentally undemocratic system, use the Parliament Act, and may there be lots more Kathleen Walker Shaws to haunt you". I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion That the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to give the European Parliamentary Elections Bill a Second Reading on the grounds that it includes an undemocratic "closed list" system providing for the selection of MEPs by party choice, an approach which would end the historic right of the British people to choose the candidates they wish to be elected, a step for which the House notes with great concern no mandate was sought or given at the last general election".—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I think we all admire the inexhaustible capacity of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to make an endless

1315
series of ingenious speeches on this issue. It is almost exactly 13 months since I last opened my mouth in your Lordships' House. That is partly because I was rather occupied for much of the time with the commission on the voting system for another place. But it was also the case that I rather firmly believe that when one gives up a leadership one should not be hanging around constantly jogging, or trying to jog, the arm of one's successor. One should let him get on with the job. I must say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has got on with the job magnificently and has shown great skill, wisdom and authority in this House.
There is a good deal of discussion at the moment about the need for declarations of interest. I hope I may take the opportunity to declare a non-interest. To my total amazement, I read in the Sunday Times that I was lobbying hard to be made chairman of the Royal Commission on the second stage of the reform of this House. My Lords, I heaved a great sigh of relief when I completed my work on electoral reform at the end of October. The idea that at my age, or indeed at any rational age, I should be looking for another commission within six weeks is frankly farcical. The difficulty with a total perversion of the truth in a Sunday newspaper is that one cannot correct it for seven days—seven days when falsehood has seven league boots and the truth can only limp along slowly behind it. So perhaps your Lordships will permit me to take a minute or so to set the record straight. So far from seeking that job, I would not accept it if, improbably, it were offered. But it is extraordinary what statements, without any foundation, or any subsequent evidence of shame on the part of the authors, one reads in relatively serious papers.
The Bill has had a remarkably tangled history. This applies particularly to the specific issue raised in the very unusual wrecking Second Reading amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on behalf of the Opposition. I must tell your Lordships that I am in favour of open lists. With the unanimous support of my commission, I recommended them for Westminster, and I take the same view about elections for the European Parliament. In that respect I am no different from other members of my party except that I have had to spend a lot of time studying the different open or semi-open systems applied in some other countries and in trying to see what are their effects.
My main conclusion is that in practice they make remarkably little difference. I very much doubt whether more than one, or at most two, of the 87 Euro-seats would end up in the hands of a different individual if open lists rather than closed lists had been preferred. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government would have been wise to do so on at least two grounds. First, the right to freedom of choice is important even if not all that many people choose to exercise it. Secondly, excessive power for party machines is deeply unpopular. That was perhaps the clearest single message which we received from our consultative hearings around the country. So I regret that this Government in the Commons were so stiff-necked on this issue.
1316
That being so, I deliberately did not vote in the first couple of stages in the game of ping-pong, but I decisively changed my attitude after that, for three reasons. First, it is a ludicrously narrow issue on which to have one of the biggest and longest running Lords-Commons clashes for decades. Secondly, closed lists are a minor evil. But to lose the Bill and to go on with the old distorted and totally isolating from the rest of Europe system of voting for the European Parliament would be a major evil. The legislative process is essentially based on not allowing the best to be the enemy of the good. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the fact that it is simply impossible to take seriously the sudden passion of the Conservative Party for open lists. I have long been in favour of them. I am not aware that the Conservative Party has been. On the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill, it did not seriously engage. Even at the beginning of this Bill the Conservative Party did not give the issue much priority. It has been a late flowering passion of opportunism. Well, a little opportunism has to be acceptable—it very frequently exists—but it ought to be wise opportunism. When I look at the present state of the Opposition, I am not sure that it has been that.
There is one further point on the Bill itself. I find it impossible to give any constitutional credence to the argument that the Bill is not entitled to what can be called manifesto protection. As I understand it, the argument goes like this. It is admitted that the Labour Party announced in its manifesto that it would introduce proportional representation for the European Parliament but it did not specify whether it should be by closed or open lists. It is argued that, therefore, the House is perfectly entitled to impose its will over that of the Commons on the shape of the Bill. If that central proposition is seriously advanced, it makes nonsense of the Salisbury rules, of the Addison doctrine and of every other convention which has grown up to civilise relations between the two Houses of Parliament.
Of course details of Bills are not specified in manifestos. They never are. But if that is to entitle the Leader of the Opposition, whether he be right or wrong, to dictate the shape of any Bill and to say to the Government, "You can have the Bill but you can only have it in my shape", and in the shape which has been rejected, rightly or wrongly, by the considered will of the majority in the Commons, five, six or seven times now, that is, in my view, a very revolutionary doctrine.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is apparently to blood himself this evening in a cavalry charge. In literally a few weeks it will be one hundred years since Omdurman, when the last such charge took place, so perhaps there may be a certain appropriateness. But, before noble Lords take themselves too seriously, they might recall the deflatingly elegant words of Arthur Balfour, Tory leader at the time when Conservative Peers were last getting themselves into a great state.
In July 1911 Balfour wrote:
"I regard the policy which its advocates call 'fighting to the last' as essentially theatrical, although not on that account necessarily wrong. It does nothing. It can do nothing. It is not even intended to do anything except advertise the situation. Their policy may be a wise one, but there is nothing heroic about it and all military

1317
metaphors which liken the action of the fighting Peers to Leonidas at Thermopylae seem to me purely for music hall consumption. I grant that the music hall attitude of mind is too widespread to be negligible. By all means play up to it if the performance is not too expensive".
Admittedly Balfour ceased to be Leader of the Conservative Party three and a half months after he wrote those deflatingly elegant words. But I suspect—although one never knows until the play is over—that he will stand in history higher than Mr. Hague.
Mr. Hague and the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will have their cavalry charge and the Government will have their Bill. I do not know whether the Conservative leadership thinks it will he a humiliation for the Government to have to get their Bill under the Parliament Acts. It will be only the fourth time that procedure has been used. But when one recollects what was the last occasion on which the Parliament Act was used—and by a Conservative Government—which was to force through the ridiculous, unwanted and inoperative War Crimes Bill, it hardly lies in the mouth of that party to talk about humiliation.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, when we debated this matter last on 18th November, I made the plea that it was wrong for this unelected House to oppose the will of the elected Chamber, the House of Commons, on five occasions—other than on matters of high constitutional principle. I do not think that the Bill falls into that category.
In the few weeks since we last debated the matter, I have visited my former constituency of Croydon on three occasions. On each occasion, I asked a group of old friends who was the MEP. Several of them thought that I was the MEP. The majority of them—and there are sophisticated people in Croydon, as your Lordships will expect—did not have a clue. They have no idea. That is rather bad luck on Mr. James Moorhouse, who has been an assiduous MEP. The truth is that few people know who are their MEPs.
I listened, in common with the Minister, to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on "Today" this morning. He was asked why his party under Mr. John Major had imposed a closed list system on Ulster but was against it for Europe. The noble Lord replied that the Ulster Assembly was a forum, not a parliament. In my submission, the European Assembly is much more a forum than a parliament in the sense that we understand a parliament here at Westminster. After all, in European elections we are not electing a government. Furthermore, MEPs sit in their parliament by parties, not countries. The European Parliament is much more a forum. Given that so few of the electorate know the names of their MEPs, I have reached the conclusion—rather like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—that I have perhaps changed my mind on this particular issue and that there is quite a good case for electing MEPs on the closed list system.
The closed list system will give the Conservative Party increased representation, whereas under the open list system, that party is likely to achieve few seats—and none at all in Scotland, Wales and the north of England.
1318
Tonight we have a dilemma. If the Government lose in the Lobbies, the closed list system will survive under the Parliament Acts—which might suit them very well. If the Government win in the lobbies, there may follow delay and possible confusion. Nevertheless, as a former Speaker of the House of Commons, I cannot support what may be expedient rather than what is right.
I repeat that we play a dangerous game if we oppose the will of the elected House of Commons for the sixth time. The Bill is not a matter of high constitutional principle and in effectively voting for the Parliament Act, we seriously devalue that coinage. I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill tonight and hope that others will do likewise.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on previous occasions noble Lords have criticised the closed list system and expressed their preference for the open list. I agree with them and therefore with my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
There has also been criticism that this House sent the Bill back to the other place five times in the last Session. It has been said that this, the second Chamber, must eventually give way to the will of the Commons, which will prevail in the end. I remind the House of an episode of ping-pong when that did not happen because this House was proved to be right and the Labour government of the day had to accept that was so.
On that occasion, the second Chamber successfully protected the rights of citizens. I recall the episode well because I was dealing from the Opposition Front Bench with the Aircraft and Shipbuilders Industries Bill. That Bill to nationalise those industries fell because the House of Lords persisted in rejecting Commons amendments to restore shiprepairing, a service industry that Lords amendments had taken out of the Bill. The main reason for that ping-pong and the insistence of this House was that only 12 shiprepairing firms out of about 100 throughout the country had been selected for nationalisation, using criteria that had not been uniformly applied. That part of the Bill, the Lords contended, was not appropriate in a public Bill and should receive the special treatment applicable to a hybrid Bill, enabling citizens to make their case in person, with their lawyers, to a Committee of Parliament. In the Commons, the option of referring the matter to the examiners to consider hybridity had been ruled out because the government of the day procured the suspension of standing orders with their large majority in a Division.
When the Government reintroduced the Bill in the following Session, clearly intending the use of the Parliament Acts, the Bill was first sent to the examiners impartial lawyers and parliamentary clerks. Their findings proved the Lords to be right. The Bill was declared hybrid before it had gone to either House in that Session. Then the Government withdrew the Bill. The part of a hybrid Bill deemed not to be public legislation is not subject to the Parliament Acts. Another reason must have been that the Government would have had to cope with the lengthy procedure required for a hybrid Bill.

1319
The Government decided to accept the Lords amendments. They offered a deal to the Conservatives through the usual channels: if the Lords amendments were made and shiprepairing excluded, would the Official Opposition allow the Bill to proceed through Parliament without further hindrance? The answer was "yes". A new Bill excluding shiprepairing was introduced and accepted by both Houses. There was no further argument about the nationalisation, which had been in Labour's election manifesto. Shiprepairing had disappeared from the Bill and the rights of individuals personally to present cases in Parliament had been successfully protected by the second Chamber. That protection of rights was achieved by the ping-pong procedure. In that case, the Commons came back three times and the Lords twice before the parliamentary Session ended and the Bill died. If necessary, we might have batted that Bill back five times in 1977. That would have been justified by the later events and the complete vindication of the Lords' objections to that Bill.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, it is quite clear this evening that the main issue is the right of the country to have the votes of the democratic Chamber of Parliament count. That has been expressed far better by other speakers than I can express it myself. However, I speak tonight because in the earlier, seemingly interminable, debates that we had—they were frequently repetitive—we heard constantly the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that this Bill is not supported on the Government Back Benches in principle or in detail. I rise to tell him quite clearly that I support both the principle of the Bill and its detail.
To have heard some noble Lords fulminate against closed lists, one could momentarily imagine that they were a unique device that would put the United Kingdom at odds with the civilised world and with the democratic community. Yet some 70 per cent. of the people of Europe who vote by proportional representation are represented by Members of the European Parliament, who are elected from closed lists.
Change to our electoral system is imperative. Yet the Opposition have flirted with actions in your Lordships' House which could have forced a return to first-past-the-post. That would have been one of the greatest offences to democracy, done in the name of democracy. In no other country in the European Union could a party secure 74 per cent. of the seats on the basis of 44 per cent. of the votes. Yet that is precisely what Labour did in the previous European elections: 44 per cent. of the votes secured 74 per cent. of the seats. Labour did that in 1994, and would possibly do the same in 1999 were the Opposition's flirtation with forcing a return to first-past-the-post successful. That kind of victory would be unfair, unjust, unrepresentative and undemocratic. In my opinion it is an act of great courage for a government or a party to pursue electoral justice when the short-term effect could well be electoral disadvantage.
1320
I want briefly to mention the alternative that was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on a number of occasions. While he constantly used the word "democracy" he talked about offering electors in multi-member constituencies a single vote. If he was so concerned about full electoral choice, he should have commended the Luxembourg system where for six seats you get six votes. That is a genuine electoral choice. However, to offer in a multi-member constituency of six, eight or even 10 members one vote is really not choice. It is saying that you can have one vote and one choice but 10 people will ultimately represent you. That seems to me to be the antithesis of democracy. I hope therefore that in the interests of the rights of the democratic Chamber but also that of having a proper electoral system based on proper representation, despite the Opposition's wish for their amendment to be carried to enable them to get off the hook on which they are impaled, we shall vote against their amendment and support the Government.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the amendment which is before the House this evening. My reasons for doing so are the same as those I have deployed at every stage that we have considered this Bill previously. Those arguments have not changed. Many of them have been rehearsed again tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who joined us in the debate tonight, made a point of saying that this matter is just about the narrow issue of closed lists. It is not. It is about how politics are conducted in our country, how governments are elected and how representatives represent the voters in their constituencies. It is not about games of ping-pong or even about cavalry charges. It is a central constitutional question because if how we elect our representatives is not to be regarded as a central constitutional question, one has to ask your Lordships, what is?
I wish to mention what I think have been three red herrings which have been thrown into the debate again this evening. One has been the role of hereditary Peers. It should be pointed out to your Lordships' House that without the votes of Cross-Benchers on every occasion the Government would have achieved their business. Is the moral of that story that Cross-Benchers are also to be considered for abolition on the basis that they have frustrated the Government's business?
Secondly, one might also reasonably refer to manifesto commitments. The manifesto says nothing about closed party lists, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has reminded the House tonight. Your Lordships' House can just as reasonably vote for this amendment as vote for the Bill and be in accordance with what the Government's manifesto said to voters at the previous general election. I contrast the approach adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—who was appointed by the Prime Minister to head an independent Commission to report to Parliament and to be backed up in due course by a referendum to be put to the entire people of this nation as to how the Westminster voting

1321
system should be structured—with the way in which we are being invited to deal with elections to the European Parliament.
Thirdly, the other red herring is the question of Northern Ireland. It is not the forum which we should consider in this context but indeed elections to the European Parliament, and indeed this very Bill, because in this Bill before your Lordships' House tonight is a provision which was laid before both Houses of Parliament in 1984, 1989 and 1994 by the then Conservative governments and in 1979 by the then Labour government to introduce for European Parliament elections the single transferable vote in multi-member seats. Therefore there are other forms of proportional representation which have been favoured by all parties in this and the other place and which in the context of the European Parliament elections should be considered again in my view.
I have four great anxieties about the way in which this Bill is being tackled. The first concerns what we might call robotic politics; namely, that by the nature of things where you have closed party lists the kinds of people who will undoubtedly come through the list system will not be the bits of grit that have to enter the oyster to bring out the pearl but people who by definition conform. They will not be dissenting voices; they will be the politically correct. That is the way in which centralised systems of politics work. The umbilical link—which we rightly regard as so important in our parliamentary system—between the voter and the person he elects will be severed.
The second point is that this measure crushes dissent and leads therefore to a more elitist form of politics. I think that is highly undesirable. Thirdly, it destroys conscience. This was a widely overlooked question during previous consideration of this Bill. About a month ago 17 academics, Bishops and Archbishops sent an open letter to the Prime Minister urging the Government to think again about the closed party list system. The reasoning behind their argument is that in this take-it-or-leave-it form of politics of closed lists it will be impossible in the future for a voter to be able to decide between different candidates on moral and ethical questions, on issues as diverse as capital punishment and abortion or the sale of arms and euthanasia. Those have always traditionally been issues which have been hotly debated in our parliamentary constituencies, and rightly so. We could take contrary views. But under this system you will be given a list of three or four and it will be a case of take it or leave it. If three take one view and one takes another, it will be impossible to distinguish between those views. When this point was put to the Government, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, wrote in a letter on 1st December,
"Under a closed list the voter knows exactly what he is getting—he can choose the team of candidates whose views most closely match his own. He can assess which candidates on the list are likely to he elected and make a judgment about how to vote accordingly".
What you do not know, as the Home Secretary asserts, is that you will be getting a list of candidates. How to vote accordingly will be impossible. So anyone who considers the question with any degree of discernment
1322
will realise, as the recipients of the letter have done, that this is no way of addressing what I think is a fundamental question.
My last point is the effect on voters. There is already deep cynicism and alienation under our existing electoral arrangements in many parts of our country. I have mentioned to your Lordships' House before that in the city of Liverpool, where I contested seven parliamentary elections, in one recent European by-election the turnout was 11 per cent. In the city council elections last May the turnout was 22 per cent. In one local council by-election this time last year, the turnout was 6 per cent. In other words, vast numbers of people, the overwhelming majority, are already staying away from the polling booths. We should do nothing to increase the cynicism and alienation that already exist.
I say to Liberal Democrats who supported the Government because of what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, described as "the deal" which had been made between the two parties that this will also damage the cause of electoral reform. Once new systems are introduced, if it is done without proper consideration and consensus, they can be damaging to the cause, such as that of proportional representation. There are many forms of proportional representation; the closed party list system is the worst. If I am faced with the choice of the closed party list or staying with the first-past-the-post system until something better can be devised, I would stay with the first-past-the-post, and I shall vote accordingly tonight.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I too support the amendment. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, if he attended the previous debates he must have realised that in this context we do not oppose PR. With respect to the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and Lord Weatherill, in practice the question simply does not arise of a lost Bill.
I ask your Lordships: to what honourable end shall noble Lords who are opposed to closed lists sit in this Chamber to nod the Bill through all its stages? Our function as guardian of the constitution has already been discharged to the ultimate degree. To what constructive purpose could we amend, or again insist, to delay the Bill?
As no accommodation may be had on this occasion to the point of deprivation of a basic tenet of the constitution as expounded by Burke—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill does not think much of it, but some other noble Lords do and I am one—noble Lords may think that without let or hindrance the will of another place should now be done by resort to the Parliament Acts, which enshrine the legitimacy of the amendment.
By supporting the amendment, this House neither defers to another place nor does it indulge in any form of confrontation. In effect we say: "Take your Bill on your own—but this is a matter of constitutional importance upon which we object in principle. We shall have none of it. This facet of the new style of government is unacceptable to us and to the people."

1323
The principle at stake transcends political affiliation. The oyster and pearl speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, put the point far better than I can.
I conclude by removing a misapprehension. The situation of disagreement between the two Houses bears no kinship with the War Crimes Bill. I was concerned in it, and it was whipped. I know, because I went into the Lobby with my noble friend Lord Denham. The objection was concerned with the prospects for a fair trial, an unprecedented assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction and basic questions of morality. On Rhodesian sanctions, your Lordships' House was not concerned with the derogation from our unwritten constitution, of which this House stands as the sole guardian, which is the concern of this debate.
I was given four minutes and I made it in three.
9.4 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on the extraordinary stamina he is showing today. In today's proceedings, he is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, used to be known in this House as "Marathon Man". Now it will be a marathon to see which noble Lord has the right to that title.
It is so long since we had the Second Reading of this Bill in the Chamber that not merely have noble Lords forgotten what I said, I have forgotten myself. I checked and found that I said two things: first, that I wished the Bill to become law; secondly, that I wished it to be amended. So long as those two objectives appeared to me compatible, I pursued both. When they appeared to me to become incompatible, I pursued the primary objective that the Bill should become law.
It is a matter of regret to me that it did not become law in the last Session. In the two-chamber parliament, compromise is essential. Without it, a two-chamber parliament is impossible. I have no desire to see a pantomime contest in which two groups of grown people hurl abuse at each other for refusal to compromise. So I shall merely regret the absence of compromise in the last Session.
However, as it stands now, our power to amend the Bill is nugatory. We may table and carry amendments, but the Bill is sailing under the protection of a naval escort from the Parliament Acts. That means that if there should be disagreement between the Houses it would be presented to Her Majesty bearing only those amendments which had been agreed by another place. That means we could huff and puff and amend the Bill as many times as we liked and those amendments would not be presented to Her Majesty to be made law.
Under those circumstances, it is true to say that our power to amend the Bill is neutered. So there is only one question which the behaviour of this House is capable of determining. That is whether the Bill becomes law in time for the European elections this June.
It is perfectly proper for this House to amend Bills about elections. For us, as for returning officers, it may be true that the onlooker sees most of the game. On the
1324
other hand, I do not think it proper for this House to come between the voters and an election. That is not as grave as this House rejecting a money Bill, but I think it should be regarded as a younger brother in the same family. After all, what we in this House do not have are elections. Any legitimacy we may possess is a reflected legitimacy granted to us on a precarious tenure by another place. So any representative strength is reflected from there. For us in effect to disrupt an election is, in my opinion, beyond the proper scope of our House.
I know that that election must take place because it is laid down in European law that it shall. But to call the effect of transforming the constituencies, reforming constituency associations, going through the selections again, and reappointing agencies, disruption is, I think, an accurate and mild statement. That, I think, would have the effect of creating chaos. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead reminded the House, it would reintroduce a distortion into the European Parliament as a whole. That, I think, would be a bridge too far for this House.
My objective is that the Bill should become law as quickly as possible. The question is how that should be done. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, put his speech on his Motion rather in the style in which it is done in another place. He might have attracted a bigger vote for a rather more economical Motion. In drafting Motions, it is a good rule that for every extra word one puts in one loses approximately three votes. According to that rule, the noble Lord has been positively reckless.
On the other hand, I remember a film which I saw when I was a small boy about the breaking of the sound barrier. The central proposition was that at the speed of sound the effect of the controls was reversed. When we vote on a Bill with Parliament Acts in the offing, something rather like that principle applies: if we keep the Bill alive, we kill it; and if we kill it we allow it to be resurrected. I may not be voting for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, but if it were to succeed it would not cause me profound grief.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may respectfully ask him an important question on the legitimacy of the amendment. Will the noble Earl accept that the amendment derives directly from the Parliament Acts?
Earl Russell: My Lords, as I understand it, the effect of the amendment is to allow the will of another place to have effect. I see no illegitimacy about that.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, with his usual elegant series of convolutions, the noble Earl has managed to delay serious consideration of the issues before us, and not for the first time.
The argument, which has been rehearsed before—we have been reminded of that—as between closed and open lists can be taken at two levels: in relation to these precise elections for the European Parliament; and, as I have pointed out previously, as evidence of this

1325
Government's intention gradually to exert central party control over the activities of Labour candidates for any kind of assembly or parliament. It is part of an ongoing process which we have seen illustrated in Scotland. We could have seen it in Wales. We are seeing it, as it were in gorgeous Technicolor, in relation to London.
But that is only one aspect. The other is about the coming elections for the European Parliament. On that point I find myself less enthusiastic. I feel that it is merely delaying the day when we shall have to consider whether we want to elect anyone to that body. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, reminded us of the complete ignorance of the electorate about the European Parliament, and about his own MEP—no doubt a worthy person. But is it surprising when one has a body about which the things we do know are not universally to its credit? The public knows that the parliament spends vast sums of its money on building palaces for itself in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg and on parading MEPs and officials and their piles of documents in caravan from one of these centres to another. The word "nomad" used to conjure up the idea of an Arab on a camel; now it brings to mind the picture of an MEP.
In these circumstances, does it really matter? Of course I shall vote for the amendment because in principle I object to the strengthening of all party bureaucracies and at the moment in particular the bureaucracy of the Labour Party. But, however it goes, it is secondary to the question whether the European Parliament is the kind of body that we want to control the activities of the serious parts of the European institutions, in particular the Commission. I believe that that work can be done only by members of national parliaments. A great mistake was made when we resorted to any form of direct election. The sooner we get back to a direct link between these Houses of Parliament and the Commission, the sooner the latter's record of incompetence and fraud will be made manifest in ways that the European Parliament, so-called, has signally failed to do.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I believe that at least this measure will have earned a small footnote in the record of contemporary history, in part because of the apparent paradox that a non-elected Chamber has done its utmost to introduce genuine democracy into an elected European Parliament and at the same time the elected House has done its utmost to introduce a system that is authoritarian and hands power to parties rather than electors. That in itself deserves a footnote, but there are other features that we need to explore even at this late hour.
The question one asks—it arose at once from the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—is what is the real wish of the House of Commons in this matter? Is the settled purpose, as he claimed it to be, based on the fact that it has been there five times, and now a sixth time, with large majorities in every case? I have had a look at whatever evidence is available on this matter. The only time that the House of Commons had a genuine opportunity to vote on the election system of the European Parliament was under
1326
the prime ministership of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. I am always glad to sit next to him. My noble friend put to the House of Commons on a free vote whether we should have this particular kind of proportional representation. The House voted it down on a free vote and it was not proceeded with. Therefore, we have the system that we use today. I point out that the system voted down was based on an open regional list. My noble friend, with his usual wisdom, put that before the House of Commons and it was voted down. not because it was an open list but because the House did not want proportional representation in the first place. That provides a little bit of interesting history.
What has happened since then? Has the House had an opportunity to change its mind? No. It has been a Three-line Whip throughout, yet we know that there has been no real shift of opinion in the Labour Party, certainly not among Labour Members of Parliament. No document emanating from the Labour Party can be pointed to anywhere that gives authority to a closed list system. There are plenty of documents which say that we must now have proportional representation but none says that it must be a closed list. We know that an open list is the policy of the Liberal Democrats and is supported, as I understand it, by the Conservative Party. So where is that great majority in the House of Commons in favour of a closed list system?
Then what do we find? There is the sheer embarrassment to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred, that in the midst of this really taut issue, as it now is, Labour Members on the Scottish Select Committee, on 18th November, deliberately put in words to say that they prefer the open list to a closed list and that that is a better reflection of our commitment to democracy in this country. My goodness, it is quite a story, is it not? It does not quite reflect the view of a settled will of the House of Commons as claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
There are two major questions which we must ask. First, why have the Government persisted in this extraordinary way by coming back five or six times to put forward this particular system? I shall not go into detail on the merits of the matter. We know very well that it is better indeed for the electors to have the right to choose or vote for the people whom they wish to have as their representatives. Of course they prefer that to giving that power to the party.
Who is the party? We know about that because we have been helped by noble Lords who have spoken against this measure. They have told us that the MEPs will be chosen by a committee of 11 wise men: six are members of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party; two are nominees of that National Executive Committee; and three are regional officers of the party. Goodness me, that really is power, is it not, in the hands of the party leadership? That is unacceptable.
If I thought that those 11 men consisted of people of the reputation and integrity of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn or of my good friend the Home Secretary, if I thought that the 11 were adjudicators of that quality, I should be tempted—I will not say that I should wholly go along with it—to go along with the

1327
measure. But the 11 men are not people of that reputation or quality. They are 11 party officials of mixed quality and ability who put the party first, as they are expected to do. Frankly, I do not believe that we should give them that power. We are right to resist it.
What other arguments are left? Perhaps I may refer once again to my noble friend Lord Callaghan. He put the point with more force than anyone else that there is that anomaly in the open list system in which it is possible for someone to become a member who has won fewer votes than someone who has won more votes but who does not become elected. But the reason for that is the PR system. It arises naturally under proportional representation.
During the short interval that we have had between the last occasion on which we debated this matter and now, I took the trouble to contact the Finnish Embassy. Finland operates an open list system. I put it to the Finnish Ministers, there in a wholly open way. I said to them, "What is your experience? Do you find that, when someone is elected as an MEP to the European Parliament from Finland who has won fewer votes than a member of another party who is not then elected, that is acceptable? Is there a great fuss and a row?". "Not a bit", they said. "We accept it as being perfectly natural and normal and something that must arise out of the proportional representation system which we in our country support and have no intention whatever of changing it". So much for the anomaly.
What is left? First, the closed list system is in operation in Europe. Seventy per cent. of the member states operate it in the European Parliament. While we have many things to learn from our continental neighbours, and I mean that quite genuinely, we really must not set them up as being superior in experience and wisdom in the matter of the practice of democracy; they are not so. Perhaps I may give examples of what I mean. The great problem for our democratic comrades across the Channel is that the system has resulted in a gap and gulf between the elected representatives and their own people. There is what they call a classe politique; something separate and apart from the people they are supposed to represent. It arises out of the PR system and the closed list.
Perhaps I may give one illustration. On 3rd May, just after that great meeting of the European Council during the British Presidency when the 11 Euroland members were declared, the German Bundestag had before it the proposition that it should join the single currency. The same day an opinion poll taken in Germany showed that the majority of the German people—not for the first time—were not in favour of the single currency. Yet that very day the German Bundestag voted overwhelmingly in favour of joining it. Are we surprised that the gap exists between representatives and people in continental Europe?
I shall add one final point. We may object to it; some people may laugh at it; some people may try to fiddle it; but we are committed at least to a referendum in this country before we join the single currency. Not one of the 11 member states which has become part of
1328
Euroland has had a referendum of its own people to give it the authority to join and to take this momentous—certainly it is that—and very dangerous decision.
So there it is. Certainly the reason the Government are pressing the legislation cannot be on merit. Why are they doing this six times? It is not on the merits of the case, so why is it? I seriously ask whether there is somewhere here a secret agenda. Is there something going on about which we have not been told? I have looked, naturally, as you would expect me to, at what was going on in continental Europe over the same period. I found three matters of genuine relevance which I believe one has almost a duty to report to the House. First, as part of the Maastricht Treaty there were changes in the clauses in the European Community treaty affecting the election of Members of the European Parliament. It changed the formula into a looser one; that it can go ahead and have a uniform system provided that members are in agreement on common principles.
The European Parliament also changed the treaty to include a clause which greatly stressed the importance and desirability of cross-frontier political parties; multi-national political parties. It then set up an institutions committee, not surprisingly, and it reported in favour of adopting a system. A long resolution was passed on 15th July 1998 before the sequence of votes took place here, the first of which was on 20th October. That was the immediate background.
If we accept the system we shall be committed to it, joining in a common European system from which we cannot withdraw. In addition, we would be committed in principle, though not under an immediate threat, to opting for a system of cross-frontier elections based upon proportionality and the cross-frontier parties: in the parties with the entitlement to additional seats—it is about additional seats amounting to 5 or 10 per cent. of the total—the cross-frontier party managers themselves can allocate who are to be the MEPs. It is not even the 11 good men of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, but a number of men, perhaps 11 or so good men, of the European socialist party and the European equivalent of the Conservative Party who will decide. That is not an attractive prospect and I can well understand why the Government would not wish to have this matter brought into the general background of our debate.
I say to my noble friend and to the House that I am amazed that in these long debates—we have had at least six—not once has a Minister in either House referred to the parallel developments occurring in the European Parliament and the European institutions. I say that with considerable emphasis, because in its resolution of 15th July 1998 it included the sentence:
"whereas the Government of the United Kingdom has tabled a bill in Parliament, introducing regional proportional representation for the European elections in 1999",
and it goes on to make recommendations. They knew what was going on here; we did not know what was going on there. I maintain that that is a shock to me and a disgraceful development. It should never have been allowed to happen.

1329
I conclude with a few words about the lessons to be learnt. One of them is that, in my view, this House behaved admirably. It did its duty, it stuck by its guns and it had every right to do so during the one year which the Parliament Act allows us to return measures we dislike to the House of Commons. It has no reason to be other than proud of that resolution and achievement. However, it is now a different ball game. The Parliament Act comes into effect; we have had our 12 months' delay, and moreover we are in the second Session. We cannot stop the measure. Therefore, I will not vote for the amendment, partly for constitutional reasons but also because it is now the easiest way of helping the Government to get the Bill through. It is only by passing that firm resolution that they will get the timetable which they need. Having said that, I had better sit down.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, after that pyrotechnic display from the noble Lord, Lord Shore, what I have to say will seem a trifle flat. I hope to be brief and to curtail much of what I might have said, owing to the hour.
Twice in the previous Session I spoke on the topic of open and closed lists. In between the first and the second of those occasions, as I explained on the second occasion, I had been selected as number one on the list of prospective Conservative Euro-candidates for the European parliamentary elections in the North West of England. So that there is no doubt about the matter, I should like to explain to your Lordships that I was born in Carlisle.
I want to reiterate my comments about the closed list, which I consider to be a horrid thing. I had intended to illustrate the matter, but the noble Lord, Lord Shore, has already done so in a manner, with respect to illustrations from his party, which, if he had not been more fastidious, I think he would have described as in the manner of Tammany Hall, and the aura of the closed list is the reek of the stench of the smoke-filled rooms of that building.
In the past, I have always voted on this topic in accordance with my opinion of the merits of the closed, as opposed to the open, list. In trying to understand the nature of proportional representation, it is helpful to liken it to sin. Both of them come in a number of different forms, some of which are much more attractive than others.
The Labour Party's manifesto flags up that party's intention, were it to be elected to government, to introduce a form of proportional representation for the European parliamentary elections. However, it does not specify what that form should be. As the debate has moved on, we have ceased to debate the nuances of the merits of the closed versus the open system. We are now talking about whether or not the system that is necessary to bring proportional representation on to the statute book should be the form favoured by this Chamber or the elected Chamber.
We can—it is our duty to do so—return matters to the other place in order to question them, because we are a revising and amending Chamber. However, I am
1330
concerned that in the guise of asking the other place to think again, we actually end up by frustrating the underlying project that the other place has in mind. I fear we are moving to the very limits of our constitutional position.
If it is the purpose of politicians fundamentally to frustrate the government of the day, I believe that that should be done on the Floor of the other place. It is the nature of the European Parliament that it sits for a fixed five-year term and, therefore, it follows that in this Government's term of office there can be but one European parliamentary election. If we continually return this matter to the other place under the guise of asking the other place to think again, we could have the effect of fundamentally frustrating that project because the Government will run out of time to implement the proposals.
I believe, like Dicey, that the general rule is that the House of Lords must, in matters of legislation, ultimately give way to the House of Commons. That is one of the best-established maxims of modern constitutional ethics.
As I have already mentioned, I was chosen to be number one on the Conservative list of prospective candidates in the North West for the European Parliament. As I explained on a previous occasion, I received conflicting advice on whether to participate in the debate and the vote. On reflection, I decided to do so. However, on this occasion, although I believe that it is constitutionally correct that the Government should get their business through, I am told by informed and expert commentators on such matters that by virtue of being number one on the list, the Government getting their business through is likely to enable me to achieve something that I want; namely, to be elected to the European Parliament, so I intend not to vote. To vote for the Government is promoting my candidature and, in the particular and peculiar circumstances of this evening, to vote for the amendment has the same effect.
Before I sit down, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to conclude with some points which I believe are very relevant and can be held by all candidates and all those involved in the elections. Proportional representation is unknown political territory on the mainland of this country. The preparations for an election held under it are not straightforward and the necessary pre-election work is complicated, time-consuming and novel. All those matters have had to go on hold during this period of uncertainty. The longer we are all kept waiting, the less effective the various political parties will be in the election which is to be held in June next year which is, after all, only six months' hence.
Traditionally, European parliamentary elections have had a low turn-out. That is not only bad when looked at from the perspective of the European parliament—some noble Lords may find that an attractive proposition—but I believe that it is also bad for the political process and democracy in general. It is particularly so in a world where there is evidence of increasing disillusionment with politics. I have no doubt at all that I speak for everybody involved in those elections when I speak to

1331
and through your Lordships to Parliament as a whole and say, "Please stop playing games with this matter. Please can we have a final decision so that the uncertainty can be ended?", so that all those who are actively involved in this part of the democratic process can get on with it to the best of their abilities in the wider public interest.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I believe it is fair to say that most noble Lords who have opposed this Bill in its present form over the past months have done so as outright opponents of PR. I readily agree with those noble Lords in maintaining that the first-past-the-post is by far the best system for general elections, given that they result in the formation of a government. And they, ideally, should not have to depend on horse trading or shifting political alliances.
However, none of those elected to the European Parliament is to be granted executive powers. I believe that was a point made in so many words by my noble friend Lord Weatherill. Therefore, PR in some form may well be appropriate for European elections.
But there are at least two things wrong with the form of PR proposed by the Government. The first is multi-member constituencies as such. One of the glories of our British tradition is that MPs take pride in working hard and conscientiously for all their constituents, no matter that the political opinions of their constituents may be the precise opposite of their own. I said our "British tradition", but the same applies to Northern Ireland as my noble friend Lord Molyneaux and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, would undoubtedly agree were they here. Unionist members are normally assiduous in attending to the day-to-day problems of their nationalist constituents, and nationalist members are equally zealous in looking after their unionist constituents.
The proponents of the multi-member constituency argue that only a Conservative can effectively look after the mundane interests of Conservative voters; only a Liberal Democrat can look after Liberal Democrats and so forth. That is surely a counsel of despair, alien to our traditions.
The second thing wrong with the method proposed is the closed list. So far what has not been pointed out is that the closed list system is much more attuned to the late 19th century than to the late 20th century, and still less to the 21st century. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, implied, it reeks of Tammany Hall, when bewildered, semi-literate men arriving in a strange country after an arduous ocean crossing, were told, "Forget about individuals and names. Vote the straight Democrat ticket year in and year out and the ward bosses will guarantee to wangle you a job and accommodation". Nowadays, partly thanks to radio and television, we have an informed, even streetwise electorate and accordingly most of them are not content to vote the straight party line unthinkingly. They want to be able to fine tune, so to speak, their selection by putting at the top of their list, for example, an anti-abortion Labour candidate, a Conservative who
1332
hates grammar schools, a Liberal Democrat Euro-sceptic—yes, such creatures do exist—or even an individual, irrespective of party, whom they happen to like and admire as an individual.
In trying to defend the closed list system, the Government argue that it is necessary in order to ensure the election of women and members of ethnic minorities—the implication being that, left to their own devices, Labour voters would be reluctant to vote for individuals in those categories. Is not that assumption insulting to Labour voters? The Government also argue that France and Germany operate closed list systems; indeed, they do. However, France and Germany are the two most élitist nations in Europe. Except when the mob are allowed to take over briefly—as happens from time to time—France is run by "les énarques", while the political class in Germany is so contemptuous of the German man-in-the-street that it refused to consult him over abolition of his beloved deutschmark (he would certainly have voted against abolition had he been given the opportunity). So France and Germany are not very happy examples.
This is one of those rare occasions when the broadsheets, the tabloids and most of the public are as one in declaring that, for today's educated electorate, the closed list system will not do. The stance taken by your Lordships' House in October and November, which was the right one, cannot suddenly become the wrong one in December. The general public would, understandably, regard such a volte-face as totally unprincipled. Accordingly, I contend that all noble Lords who oppose the closed list system should support the amendment this evening.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is always fascinating that the further one goes away from Westminster in a southerly or an easterly direction, the greater the respect and the enthusiasm for our political and parliamentary institutions. In fact, spending much of my time now in central and eastern Europe, I would go as far as to say that we enjoy very considerable respect. People there look at us with some amusement as they see us seeking to destroy the very institutions upon which democracy is based. They say to me, "Watch out for the closed list; watch out for the party".
In the Ukraine the other day, a closed list was defined to me as, effectively, "life Peers" and the open list as, effectively, "hereditary Peers". The open list of hereditary Peers was obviously far more open because you could see what was coming a long way off. The insults that we throw around about each other are wrong. Some of us on this side of the House feel that we are here by accident of birth or even conception; indeed, I was conceived on the beach at Ocho Rios in Jamaica. I happen to be a Peer because of the accident of birth and have never had the privilege of having a vote because my father died young. I feel that it is not a matter of trying to justify one type of Peer rather than the other. We are both illegitimate and, if I had my way, we should all stand for election.

1333
What worries me is a certain moral dishonesty in the socialist world. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, reminded us that it was in December 1977 that we had the defeat on proportional representation. However, I should like to return to 1st January 1973 when we joined the EEC. I seem to remember that that wonderful Labour Party, with which I co-operate very much on the Council of Europe, decided that the European Parliament was totally undemocratic and refused to send a delegation to it. Therefore, our own delegation, which was desperately short of funds, had to turn to a rather humble couple of people called the Treasurers of the Conservative Group for Europe. We had to go out and raise commercial money from companies, some of which, I note, give donations today to the Labour Party. But, at that time, they had to fund our delegation.
Moreover, two-and-a-half years later the people said, "We are in the European Union [or the EEC] and of course we should participate in the Parliament", but the Labour Party still refused to send anyone. Indeed, it sent people there only after a referendum—and that was two years later.
There is a certain dishonesty about that, but what worries me more today is what my East European friends are saying about the closed list and the party. I suppose we could say, as I was once told, that a communist is a socialist in a hurry. I believe that that goes back to 1926. But, in trying to change things in the way that we are now doing, we should not think just of Europe as it is today; we should think of what Europe will be in the future. We should think of the countries that will join. Where does Europe stop? Where does it end? We should think of the painful process taking place in some of those countries where political power still remains in the hands of the party; where there are still closed lists; where closed committees of 12 appoint people, but only the 13th has the vote—and nobody knows who he is or how long he will remain; where people are not disenfranchised but deselected or possibly disappointed. I do not like closed lists and I do not like the possibility, however remote, that we may see the return of the creeping paralysis of socialism.
9.50 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as we move towards our 11 o'clock Vote I realise that 25 minutes is not very long to deal with all the issues that have been raised in this debate. It is very strange, coming round this course for the sixth time; it is not long since we discussed it previously. Since then I have felt as though like I have been in an episode of "House of Cards", with all the plots, skulduggery and deals which have been going on.
It is amazing to think how well the present incumbents of the Conservative Front Bench have done out of all this. The present Leader of the Conservatives was of course Chief Whip on the previous occasion. On that occasion he replaced the parliamentary traditions of Burke and Locke by the machinations of Burke and Hare.
I said last time that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was an unambitious Scot. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Benches that I now
1334
revise my opinion. I now see him as one of those gangsters in those Hollywood B-movies where the number two in the organisation was the real power behind the throne, who kept some innocent dupe—who was usually shot in the last reel—to carry the can for him.
We have had a merry canter round. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, as always, was magnificent. I enjoyed that speech the first time I heard it more than 30 years ago. It will go down well when he addresses it where it should be addressed—a Labour Party Conference—when the Labour Party decides how it wants to select its members for the European Parliament. It is not a speech which is particularly relevant to what is before this House tonight.
Two themes are before the House tonight. The first concerns the merits of closed and open lists. Two points have been best made. First, we should stop this parliamentary pantomime, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, and allow these elections to proceed. Secondly, we should recognise that there are demerits in the open list system, not least that it causes competition and rivalry between party nominees rather than presenting a party case to the electorate.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has not responded to the point that a general election presents short lists of one, chosen by precisely those same party machines—Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour—as will choose in the European elections. It really is double-talk to pretend that this is something new. These are proposals that have been passed in other legislation and that align us with many other parts of Europe. But most of all, as far as we on these Benches are concerned, they will produce by far the fairest Euro-elections that have yet been held. They will give all parties a chance to be properly represented; they will bring party representation—for Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats—to parts of the country that have been denied it by the unfair first-past-the-post system.
I do not want to delay the House. I see the serried ranks of the Conservative Benches, probably the death rattle of the ancien regime. There they are, once again about to defy the elected House. It is an abuse of power. It is a vote too far. We will not join them this evening. We will rely, we believe rightly, on the other place to have its will. The House should proceed, I hope fairly soon, to that decision.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney made an important speech. He accused us of being party to a conspiracy and suggested that I had never mentioned it in the past. He is right. I was on the telephone to King Herod only last weekend and he and I have agreed on a massacre of the innocents, directed from Brussels.
Quite a good deal of humbug is still washing about. Every former MP in this House was elected on a closed list of one. All Life Peers got here by the determination and nomination of a party machine, one way or the other. As it happens, if one criticises the present Government, Mr. Blair is the first Prime Minister ever to

1335
say that he would give up his unrestricted, over-weaning power to nominate Members of this House. None of his predecessors had the nerve and the courage to do that.
The amendment is almost not believable. It refers to,
"an approach which would end the historic right of the British people to choose the candidates they wish to be elected",
as in Northern Ireland, as in the new Scottish parliament and as in the new Welsh assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, says, "You cannot chide me about that because the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill were both big Bills". So I assume that his policy is, "When you have a really big issue that matters domestically, don't bother to raise these alleged questions of principle. But if you have a little Bill, then spend hour after hour examining it, dissecting it, putting it back together and kicking it all around Westminster". That is bogus; and we know it is bogus; and the sooner we recognise that, the better.
No one is able to give us any lessons about open and closed lists. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said on the first occasion—or was it the second, the third, the fourth or the fifth?—we discussed these matters that he was in charge of the choice of candidates for the Scottish Parliament. He was Lord Blackspot. He could stop them even standing—Lord Blackspot of Ardbrecknish, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What happened after that with the English Conservative Party, such as it was? It would not even allow the late Nicholas Budgen, who was in fact the grit in the oyster, to stand at all, or Mr. Winston Churchill.
So let us not have any more humbug. The truth is that the principle is as I have always contended it to be. Is it legitimate to continue to assert unelected, unaccountable power against the elected Chamber? On that principle there is no dispute capable. We stand on the principle. I am sorry to say it but those who are playing this ping-pong are deeply flawed and deeply and irremediably wrong.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure exactly how the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has advised his troops to vote on the subject of my amendment, but perhaps that will be revealed later on. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, as Lord Mackay of the Blackspot, that the Conservative Party in Scotland had an election over the weekend. Its party members were able to come along to a meeting and listen to all the people who put themselves forward as candidates. The party members decided in what order they should be on the list. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, if the Labour Party has done anything even vaguely resembling that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have actually. If one studies the way in which parliamentary candidates are chosen, one sees that is a good deal more democratic. Whatever disagreements there may be between the noble Lord and myself, I have never pretended to be the man who could say to a prospective
1336
candidate, "You may not even stand." The weekend election does not figure very highly in the annals of democratic thought.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Labour Party had a selection process in Scotland, to such an extent that it actually blackballed some of its own existing Members of Parliament, so I shall not take any lessons on "the black spot" from the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does not the noble Lord recollect that everyone was allowed to be a candidate but that, in the nature of things, not all prospective candidates were chosen?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, Mr. Dennis Canavan was not even allowed to be a candidate, but he will probably be a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
According to all the press reports, the Labour Party decided the matter on a London-dominated group. The noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, explained exactly who was on that London-dominated group. The evidence stands on the Scottish list or any other list in this country, but particularly on the way in which those two lists were drawn up.
I thought that I would start with the Liberal Democrats, briefly. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for coming along and indicating, as he did in his report, that he was in favour of the open list. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, wished me well. At least I think he wished me well; I was not entirely sure.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that the trouble with the open list was that people in the same party competed against each other. As I understand the argument for electoral reform, the point in favour of the single transferable vote is that people are allowed to choose between the various representatives of a party. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, had better get back on the wavelength of what the Liberal Democrat Party thinks. I know that may be difficult for him. During the speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, the Liberal Democrat Benches emptied, leaving the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, holding the fort. As I understand it, those noble Lords were not going out for a small dram but to decide how to vote. I am not sure from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whether those noble Lords made up their minds or whether they have still to do so.
The argument for the open list is overwhelming. The fact that only one government Back Bencher defended it still means that the score over the piece between both Houses is that many more government Back Benchers were opposed to the closed list than in favour of it. That is simply a fact, as any study of the proceedings in another place or here will confirm.

1337
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, made the point well to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the closed list crushes democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, should know about that. I remind him of some of his colleagues currently in the European Parliament—Mr. Alex Smith, Mr. Hugh McMahon, Mr. Alex Falconer and Mr. Henry McGovan, who was in the last one. None of them will appear in the next European Parliament because, according to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, a group of 11 people decided that they jolly well should not.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Mr. Alex Falconer announced that he was not even standing as a candidate?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course he did. According to press reports, Mr. Falconer did so because he knew that he was going to get his throat cut, so there was no point in going through the exercise.
The closed list would be much easier to defend if the Labour Party had not shown political parties in this country how the list could be manipulated in exactly the way that my noble friend Lord Selsdon pointed out was done in eastern Europe. That is why the closed list system is in such disrepute. If the closed list were arrived at by all the members of the party voting, I would not be able to make many of these debating points. However, that is not how it is happening in at least one of our great parties. Let us imagine for a minute that it was to happen that way in all three parties. That would bring our democracy into serious disrepute.
The position is perfectly clear. I am well aware that, in common with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, there are two conflicting propositions.
I know that if I maintain my principled objection and ask my noble friends to vote in order to show that we still believe the open list is preferable to the closed list, and we win—which, I suspect, given the lack of Peers on the Government Benches, that we shall—the Government will use the battering ram of the Parliament Acts to get the measure through. If the Government feel proud about using the Parliament Acts to get such a deeply un-British and undemocratic proposition through, then let them feel proud. I seek the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, the original Motion was, That the Bill be now read a second time; since when an amendment has been moved to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to give the European Parliamentary Elections Bill a Second Reading on the grounds that it includes an undemocratic 'closed list' system providing for the selection of MEPs by party choice, an approach which would end the historic right of the British people to choose the candidates they wish to be elected, a step for which the House notes with great concern no mandate was sought or given at the last General Election". The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to.
10.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 167; Not-Contents, 73.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Addison, V.

Geddes, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Gisborough, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Glentoran, L.

Annaly, L.

Greenway, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Haddington, E.

Astor, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Harlech, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bell, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Belstead, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Berners, B.

Hemphill, L.

Biddulph, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Biffen, L.

Higgins, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hogg, B.

Blackwell, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blatch, B.

Home, E.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Brentford, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Bumham, L. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Buscombe, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Jopling, L.

Byford, B.

Killearn, L.

Cadman, L.

Kimball, L.

Caithness, E.

Kingsland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kitchener, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Knutsford, V.

Carnock, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Leigh, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Luke, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Colwyn, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cross, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Moran, L.

Derwent, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Downshire, M.

Moynihan, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Naseby, L.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Feldman, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Norrie, L.

Fookes, B.

Northbrook, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Northesk, E.

Gage, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

1339

Oxfuird, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Pender, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Phillimore, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E

Rawlings, B.

Tebbit, L.

Rennell, L.

Teviot, L.

Renton, L.

Thatcher, B.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tollemache, L.

Rodney, L.

Torrington, V.

Romney, E.

Trenchard, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Seccombe, B.

Vivian, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Westbury, L.

Selsdon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Sharples, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wise, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Inchyra, L.

Alli, L.

Islwyn, L.

Amos, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Judd, L.

Bach, L.

Kintore, E.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Berkeley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Bramall, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Burlison, L.

Monkswell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Carrick, E.

Norton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Pitkeathley, B.

Christopher, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Ely, Bp.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rix, L.

Gladwyn, L

Sawyer, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strafford, E.

Hacking, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hardy of Wath. L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Haskel, L.

Walpole, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warner, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Winston, L.

Hughes, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, given the result of the vote, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House some questions.
The Government were defeated five times in this House in the past Session on the principle of the closed list. The House has shown again tonight, and I believe rightly, that it is unwilling to agree to the replacement of voter choice with choice by party officers. This succession of defeats is an unprecedented humiliation for the Government on a discredited policy which has been repeatedly attacked by their own Back-Benchers in another place.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House must now make the Government's intentions clear. Even at this stage will they reconsider their policy, or do they intend to use, for only the second time in 50 years, the high-handed device of the Parliament Acts to force through a shabby and undemocratic voting system into law—a system which has no place in their manifesto and which would represent the greatest restriction on the freedom of choice of electors since the Reform Act of 1832? If they take that choice, they have the power to do so, but they should use that power with shame and no shred of pride.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am delighted to respond to the noble Lord. Since we are reminding each other of what was said on previous occasions, perhaps I may remind him of what his predecessor, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said on the occasion of, I think, the fifth defeat on this discussion which occurred about a month ago. He said—I hope that I paraphrase him correctly but his remarks are in the Official Report—that he expected that this House would know how to behave were this issue to come before it again.
All I can say to the noble Lord tonight is that, as he knows, the Government will now send a message to the other place, and Madam Speaker, I am sure, will act upon her duty.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  Ammunition Contracts
  Ammunition Contracts
  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge
  Public Art Collections: Commercial Loans
  Public Art Collections: Commercial Loans
  A.12, Little Glemham: Resurfacing
  A.12, Little Glemham: Resurfacing
  Cross-Channel Rail Passenger Services
  Cross-Channel Rail Passenger Services
  Miners' Respiratory Diseases
  Miners' Respiratory Diseases
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Police Use of Firearms
  Police Use of Firearms