Sitting of 3 February 1998

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

    Housing (Green-field Sites)
    Mr. Kidney: What practical advice his Department plans to issue on alternatives to the development of green-field sites to planning authorities to meet growing housing demand. [24886]
    Mr. Mullin: What measures he is taking to encourage house building on brown-field sites; and if he will make a statement. [24888]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I hope to be making a statement to the House on the whole issue of household growth later this month. Meanwhile, national planning policy encourages local authorities to use previously developed sites for housing. This helps regenerate our towns and cities and helps to protect our countryside.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Local people have plenty of good sense and resourcefulness. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when he changes planning policy, he will give more say to local people than the previous Tory Government ever did?
    Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. My statement to the House will introduce greater flexibility into the criteria that will allow greater thought and priority to be given to the judgment of people in local areas.
    Mr. Mullin: I hear what my right hon. Friend says. However, I put it to him that the signals that have come from his Department thus far are ambiguous. For example, is my right hon. Friend aware that Newcastle, which has 7,000 empty housing units, is proposing to colonise 1,200 acres of green-belt land? Easington, which has acres and acres of brown-field sites following pit closures, is planning to build on green-field sites in some of the few unspoiled villages remaining in county Durham. In Sunderland, acres of listed Victorian
    826
    properties are sliding towards dereliction because of developments on green-field sites outside the city. I put it to my right hon. Friend that that sort of madness is deeply ingrained and must be stopped rather than merely discouraged.
    Mr. Prescott: I well understand my hon. Friend's point about making a judgment between using green-field and brown-field sites for housing. In the case of Newcastle, much of the area available for brown-field sites has been built upon. My hon. Friend mentioned the different problem of empty houses, which we must address also.
    The amount of land released in Newcastle under the inspector's recommendation for green-belt sites is compensated by an increase in green belt sites in the north-east that is 50 times greater than the amount of land earmarked for house building. That is the scale of the change: 50 times more land will be available for green-belt areas than is available at present.
    My hon. Friend will know that in Newcastle the inspector judged that transport and urban considerations were important and that housing was connected to the transport and metro links. They are serious considerations, and I shall respond to them more fully when I make my statement to the House.
    Mr. Gummer: When the right hon. Gentleman re-reads his answer, I wonder whether he will notice that he mistook "green-field" for "green-belt". Is that not one of the problems? When the right hon. Gentleman produces his statement—the whole House hopes that he will build upon his article in The Times—will he agree to revisit the decisions that he made regarding Newcastle, Stevenage and West Sussex and try to recover the ground that I fear he has lost, and which his statement might help him to regain?
    Mr. Prescott: I take the right hon. Gentleman's more serious point about making a proper judgment between green-field, green-belt and brown-field sites. I am bound to say that I am somewhat confused about his position and that of his Front Bench, which seems to change nightly. The Opposition cannot decide what areas should be given to green-field and to brown-field site development. The Tory party manifesto refers to 60 per cent. for brown-field areas, the consultation document says 50 per cent., both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) have said that it should be 75 per cent., and a meeting of the shadow Cabinet a few days ago appears to have changed the figure to 66 per cent. However, the record of the Conservatives when in office, over their last 10 years, was 42 per cent.
    Mr. Soames: Will the Secretary of State answer a specific question? Will he explain to my constituents in Mid-Sussex why, after the most exhaustive and careful examination and the finding of the Government inspector, he should have torn up and thrown aside the structure plan for West Sussex, which had been so carefully prepared and agreed to, and which was the basis upon which we could go ahead? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he tore up that excellent piece of work?
    Mr. Prescott: It is difficult. The hon. Gentleman will realise that West Sussex is seeking a judicial review of the decision. I thought that I had made it clear that the

    827
    number of houses that it was proposed to build was contrary to what we thought to be the best judgment for the area. Clearly the inspector and I had a disagreement about the matter. We shall argue the case in the appropriate place. As I have said, it will be a matter for judicial review. That is all that I can say about the matter at this stage.
    Mr. Soley: Does my right hon. Friend recall the early 1980s, when the then Tory Government promised a bonfire of planning controls? Over the following decade they managed to build too few houses in the wrong places for the wrong groups of people. Now the Conservatives wonder what the problem is.
    Does my right hon. Friend recall also that it was a Labour Government who in 1947 produced a progressive planning Act? It is now 50 years since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 came into effect. To deal with the problem, we need a modern, sophisticated reversion to that 1947 Act so that we get the right type of housing in the right places for the many people who need it in both city and rural areas.
    Mr. Prescott: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The statement that I shall make to the House shortly will cover many of the points that he has raised. The review that we are conducting of the planning machinery will have an impact on many of the decisions that are taken in future.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister's comments would be more welcome if the Government had not recently made a series of major decisions allowing green-field and green-belt development. Would it not be appropriate, given that the Government themselves say that that policy must change, to announce a moratorium on any further major permissions until the Government have announced their new policy?
    Mr. Prescott: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, he will realise that I am governed by statutes. Whether I agree or disagree with the inspector's report, I have to operate within a certain timetable. I am left with no choice about that. Therefore, I have taken the decisions that I have. I have intervened, disagreed or agreed, whatever the position may be. I have no choice in the matter until I make a statement to the House in a couple of weeks' time.
    Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the beautiful open Pennine countryside around the huge conurbations of Manchester, Sheffield and other cities in the north has been preserved because of Labour Government policies, which have been implemented by Labour local authorities? Will my right hon. Friend recognise in his forthcoming statement that if there is any dilution of the present controls and a dependence on commercial interests, the present safeguards will not apply, especially to the beautiful countryside in the Pennines.
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said—[Interruption.] I think that we can agree that the then Labour Government set up a legislative framework after the second world war. The previous Conservative Administration built upon that framework and were able
    828
    to double the number of areas in the green belt. There is no dispute about that. I remind the House, however, that that was the result of Labour legislation. Despite all the controversial decisions that have been taken in the nine months since we have been in office, the designated green-belt area is greater now than when we came into power.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State recognise that one of the problems that is caused sometimes by restrictive housing policies in rural areas that are designed to protect the countryside from unnecessary development is that local people on low incomes are forced out of the housing market as a result of competition with people with high incomes moving in from urban areas to rural areas? Do not restrictive policies in rural areas need to be accompanied by special measures to protect the needs of local indigenous rural areas? What ideas has the right hon. Gentleman about that?
    Mr. Prescott: It is important that we concern ourselves with the provision of social housing. The argument between green belt and brown-field sites is not necessarily totally about that issue. Indeed, in green-field areas, sufficient consideration has not been given to the provision of social housing. We are talking about the provision of housing and where it is distributed, and my statement must address itself to that point. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait another couple of weeks.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), surely what matters are not the words used by the Secretary of State about the countryside but the decisions that he takes. Is it not a fact that there is widespread concern throughout the country that, even if the public win their case before an independent inquiry or panel, it will be overturned by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Prescott: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I read the leaflet produced yesterday by the Opposition called "Save Our Countryside", which seeks an assurance that never again would a Government ignore and overturn the recommendation of an independent planning inspector. I presume that Governments will always reserve the right to judge whether the planning inspector is right. We recognise that. It is a proper judgment that Governments have always observed on these matters.
    I regard such pamphlets and, indeed, the targets set by the Opposition as sheer rhetoric and hypocrisy in their hope that it will divert the Government from their course. It will not. Despite all the controversy about recent decisions, more areas are in the green belt than when we came to power.

    Rough Sleepers
    Mr. Heppell: What measures his Department proposes to reduce the numbers sleeping rough in towns and cities outside London. [24889]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have announced more than £20 million of funding for rough sleeper strategies in

    829
    18 areas outside central London. I can announce today a further £1.5 million of pump-priming funding over the next 12 months. That will support local rough-sleeping strategies in 16 new areas and fund additional hostel staff in five existing areas.
    Mr. Heppell: I thank the Minister for that answer. I also thank her for the fact that Nottingham has already had some help with the rough sleepers initiative. I am pleased that the initiative will also be passed on to other areas of the country. I understand that the social exclusion unit is doing some work on the rough sleepers initiative. How does she plan to co-ordinate, through her Department, what happens to rough sleepers?
    Ms Armstrong: I am one of the Ministers attached to the social exclusion unit, and rough sleeping is one of the first three issues that it is looking at. We are determined that we will make it much less necessary for people to sleep rough on the streets of Britain, and are determined to do what we can to tackle the causes of homelessness as well.
    Mr. Sayeed: I am glad to hear what the Government are doing to reduce the number of people sleeping rough. It is a disgrace that anyone sleeps rough. An average of 3 per cent. of local housing owned by Labour local authorities is unoccupied, and in Islington it is 6 per cent. Why cannot it be used by people who are sleeping rough?
    Ms Armstrong: Much attention has been paid by local authorities throughout the country to how to bring unoccupied houses back into occupation. We also have to face the enormous number of properties that the previous Government allowed to be left aside, and that is taking a lot of sorting out. We want to ensure that every single house in this country becomes a home, and that we tackle the things that currently lead to people losing their homes and having nowhere to live. We are determined to tackle that, and hope that we will get the support of Opposition Members in so doing.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Burstow: How many and what proportion of local authorities with responsibility for education, are receiving less than the amount that has been passported through the capping regime to raise standards in schools as a result of the increase in revenue support grant adjusted for changes in nursery voucher funding and increased national non-domestic rate. [24891]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): One hundred and sixteen out of 150 local education authorities—or 77 per cent.—have an increase in revenue support grant and NNDR entitlements that is less than the increase in their 1998–99 standard spending assessment for education.
    Mr. Burstow: Before Christmas, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that the cost of extra spending on education this year would not fall on the council tax payer. Will he confirm that the figures that he has given show that the only way in which the vast majority of
    830
    councils will be able to spend extra money on education to protect our school budgets this year will be by cutting social service budgets or increasing the council tax?
    Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will know only too well, the increase in education spending—£835 million—has been fully matched by grant. That was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
    As the hon. Gentleman also knows, this Government inherited a framework from the last Government that envisaged a real-terms increase in the contribution of local charge payers, because of their policy of reducing grant below the level of total standard spending. We have not worsened the position, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have ensured that the education increase has been matched in full.
    Mr. Yeo: The Minister seems to be modelling his approach to answering questions on that of the Prime Minister. Will he now say simply, in language that even those outside the House can understand, that, because of his local government settlement—despite all the boasts about the importance of education—more cash will go to schools next year only if other services are cut, or if council tax payers suffer a massive increase?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to come to the House and raise such matters, when he knows full well that his party's decisions would lead to real-terms increases in council tax. That was the legacy of his party's Government. He also knows—and it is disingenuous of him to pretend otherwise—that the £835 million increase in education expenditure has been fully met by grant.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, although the additional education money has been handed over, some local authorities have not come out of the spending round very well—especially Derbyshire, which has ended up at the bottom of the pile?
    We are long past the time when Labour Members, particularly Ministers, should be arguing about keeping to the Tory guidelines. Enough is enough already. People out there—our supporters—expect more than that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' The Tories are cheering, but I am talking about their policies.
    Will my hon. Friend make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he remind the Chancellor that, if there is an extra £10 billion in taxable income for this financial year, we ought to be using it to ensure that Derbyshire and other areas benefit?
    Mr. Raynsford: I hear what my hon. Friend says. [Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members seem to be trying to line themselves up with my hon. Friend's comments, given that he was directly criticising the policies of the last Government.
    I remind my hon. Friends that we have provided for a 3.8 per cent. increase in local government expenditure, which is double what was left by the last Government. That is the present Government's commitment to improved relations with local government. We always said that this year's settlement would be difficult, because we inherited a financial framework and we are committed to working within it.

    Fuel Poverty
    Sir Robert Smith: What action the Government are taking to reduce fuel poverty. [24893]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have cut value-added tax on fuel to 5 per cent., and pensioner households will get extra help with their heating costs this winter and next. This year, at least 400,000 low-income households should benefit from the home energy efficiency scheme.
    Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he considered the role that the environment task force can play in trying to improve energy efficiency? To that end, what efforts is he making to ensure that people receive not only money for the labour, but cash towards the cost of the materials required? The labour in itself will not make a house more energy-efficient.
    Mr. Meacher: We are indeed looking to the environment task force, under the new deal, to generate energy-efficiency projects for the fuel poor. The hon. Gentleman is right: the grants that we will provide are intended not simply to ensure that training is provided, or indeed that payments can be made to managers and contractors, but to cover payments for the equipment and plant that may be necessary. We have been examining the matter seriously, and I think that when the hon. Gentleman looks at the final figures he will see that we have taken it fully into account.
    Mr. Ruffley: Will the Minister explain why Ministers talked out the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, a private Member's Bill? Does he understand how disgusted old-age pensioners are in my county at the Government's actions in connection with cold weather payments?
    Mr. Meacher: Let me make it very clear that we have already taken substantial action to assist pensioners with heating costs this winter and next winter, and that, for the period after that, we will—[Interruption.] I hear exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps he could just listen for a moment and he might learn a little.
    In the period after that two years, we intend to review the cold weather payment system precisely to take account of the long-term results of the pensions review and of the need for long-term support for pensioners' heating costs. We have just announced also that we are reversing the decision of the previous Government to cut the budget of the Energy Saving Trust this year from £19 million to £13.5 million. We have restored the whole of that amount. Given a gearing ratio of 4:1, that will lever in about £20 million extra from the private sector. That is a substantial benefit to pensioners and others on low incomes.

    Rural Development
    Mr. Beith: How many members of the north-east rural development agency board will be chosen for their ability to contribute a strong rural perspective. [24894]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Our White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity" made it clear that, outside London, each RDA board will include at least one member who can contribute a strong rural perspective.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that there is a distinct jobs crisis in more remote rural parts of the northern region and that it cannot be addressed by measures—necessary as they are—to deal with urban problems in the region? The crisis is made much worse by what is happening in our farming and fishing industries and by the effect of the strong pound on export industries. Does he recognise that it is vital that we have people on the RDA who have some experience of trying to earn a living in the countryside, if we are to ensure that we have measures that will address its problems?
    Mr. Caborn: We take on board the right hon. Gentleman's concerns. That is what the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and I have been doing in discussions throughout the rural areas. I think that there is now a consensus that we need to bring together both the urban and rural areas to find solutions to these problems. We are applying the single regeneration budget through the RDA and the right hon. Gentleman will know that, in that way, it plays a major role in assisting rural regeneration. For far too long, rural areas have been left out in the cold. We are going to be bring them in and have a comprehensive approach to regeneration in both rural and urban areas.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend ensure that he has a structure for attracting candidates to the north-east RDA board that is flexible enough to include interested people who are in the midst of their career, not just the retired and people who are overcommitted? Will he be flexible in trying to attract entrepreneurs, academics and people who can give a little less time than the three days that I believe are predicted?
    Mr. Caborn: As my hon. Friend knows, we have clearly said that we want to broaden as much as possible the selection process. I again invite hon. Members to send to my Department names that they believe should be considered for the posts of chairman, deputy chairman or member of the board. We will be more than willing to accept those. We will make the process as transparent as possible and it will be in line with Nolan. We want dynamic people—whom we can attract from the regions—to drive the agenda that is laid out in the White Paper.
    Mr. Chope: The process is anything but transparent. In Committee this morning, the Minister and his colleagues rejected an Opposition amendment which would provide for consultation with rural interests before appointments are made to regional development agencies. That rejection shows that the Government are engaged in a betrayal of rural interests.
    Mr. Caborn: What a load of claptrap, and this morning we heard it all in the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman is not even a member. We gave comprehensive answers. As the White Paper clearly states, we are addressing rural and urban concerns with equal power. This morning's Opposition amendments were negative.

    Regional Development Agencies
    Mr. MacShane: If he will make a statement on the democratic accountability of the regional development agencies. [24895]
    Mr. Caborn: Regional development agencies will be non-departmental public bodies and as such they will be accountable to Ministers. However, RDAs will be responsive to regional views and will be required to give an account of themselves to those who have an interest in their work.
    Mr. MacShane: I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that one of the clear signals from last year's election was that people want a complete rejection of the centralising "Whitehall knows best" mentality of the Conservative party. The previous Government ran the most centralised party machine since the holy Roman empire. As a former Sheffield steelworker, the Minister will know the importance of not creating quango outposts of Whitehall. I invite him to go part of the way towards the full monty by saying that we need real, democratic accountability for RDAs. Their members will take important decisions, and they must be connected democratically to the regions from which they come. We should start finally to dismantle the centralised Tory state that has done so much damage to our country.
    Mr. Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend for, as usual, a forthright question. I again assure him that it was set out in the manifesto on which we fought the 1 May election that we would set up regional development agencies in the English regions. There will consult the chambers that are being set up in all nine English regions, and in the fulness of time we shall give the people of the regions through a referendum or other such mechanism, the opportunity to state whether they want a directly elected regional assembly. As my hon. Friend rightly reminds the House, we were overwhelmingly elected on the basis of our manifesto.
    Mr. Baldry: Does not the Minister's answer confirm that regional development agencies will lead to less accountability, more bureaucracy, considerable duplication of effort and much local authority confusion? They are a sop to Labour leaders in boroughs such as Gateshead and others in the north-east. What might be suitable for the north-east is not necessarily suitable for other large parts of the country. Very few people want such bodies, and they will not be of any real benefit to the people of Britain, will they?
    Mr. Caborn: If regional development agencies are such bad models, I cannot understand why the Conservative Government kept them for 18 years. It was in 1975 that a Labour Government introduced the Scottish and Welsh development agencies, and the previous Administrations kept them. If I remember correctly, it was Prime Minister Thatcher who used those models to set up a body in Northern Ireland. We are giving England the same good institutions that exist in Scotland and Wales. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there were 1,500 responses to our consultation and almost universal acceptance of the concept of regional development agencies.
    Mrs. Ellman: Does the Minister agree that the effectiveness of regional development agencies can be
    834
    maximised by them working closely with regional chambers? It is in the chambers that policies on transport, the environment and further and higher education can be developed and linked to essential economic development.
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend has tremendous experience in the matter. As she clearly said, the partnership and bottom-up approach that regional development agencies will use in creating regional partnerships will address issues such as a weak competitive base and create more wealth for our nation. The Government will endeavour to create such an approach by ensuring that the Bill—if Conservative Members will allow us to get it through the House—is an enabling measure that brings together all the partnerships to bear down on the serious issues confronting the regions.

    Departmental Travel
    Mr. Baker: What steps he is taking to encourage employees within his Department to travel to work by means other than private car. [24896]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): All Departments have been asked to draw up and implement green transport plans with the objective of minimising the environmental impact of Departments' transport activities. To achieve that objective, all civil servants and Ministers will be urged to use public transport for official business and, whenever possible, for commuting. Walking or cycling short distances will also be encouraged. My Department is taking the lead in the development and implementation of the policy.
    Mr. Baker: May I welcome the commitment shown by the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment to developing an integrated transport policy—which I support and which is a most welcome change from the previous Government's transport policy? However, for Ministers to be entirely effective, they will have to ensure that their own house is in order and that their Departments are whiter than white—or greener than green. Might it be helpful if the Secretary of State did not use a four-litre Jaguar and if he persuaded his colleagues to use public transport more? Some Ministers—including the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department—have not so far travelled by train.
    Angela Eagle: I have clarified the Department's approach to the matter. The hon. Gentleman must realise that there are circumstances in which cars are necessary—for example, for security reasons, in Northern Ireland. Figures alone do not tell the whole story. Nevertheless, in my own case, of the 31 journeys on official visits that I have made outside London since I was appointed, one has been by car, four by air and 26 by rail.

    Pedestrians
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What steps he is taking to improve facilities for pedestrians in order to support walking as a mode of transport. [24916]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I chair the walking steering group which is introducing a national walking strategy and good practice guidance. [Laughter.] These will help local authorities to improve conditions for walking, including its integration with other transport modes. We expect walking to feature more prominently in local land use and transport planning.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that local authorities can do a great deal more to encourage people to walk to work, to school and to their local shops? Would not that help to eliminate the 48 per cent. of car journeys that are shorter than two miles—thereby improving the air pollution and congestion that have been left behind by the previous Administration?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am sure that she will be delighted to learn—if she does not already know—that we have managed to increase the amount available for local authority transport packages. For 1998–99, £85 million has been allocated, compared to £79 million for 1997–98. Virtually all the packages that we are funding include measures to help pedestrians. I should tell Conservative Members who seemed to find the idea of a walking steering group so risible, that the group was formed in 1996, when their party was in government.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: May I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her enthusiasm for the walking steering group? Will she reassure me that the Ramblers Association is a member of the group? If so, I am sure that it advised her that best step that she could take to make life worthwhile for walkers would be to attack the problem at the Devil's Punch Bowl and at Hindhead common, and to approve the A3 Hindhead tunnel scheme as part of the trunk roads review.
    Ms Jackson: I must congratulate the right hon. Lady; no opportunity to mention her constituents' concerns passes her by. A national walking strategy cannot be imposed, or solely owned, by the Government or by any other one group, however. We believe that the number of interested parties who make contributions to the steering group will best serve the needs and rights of pedestrians.
    Mr. Brake: Notwithstanding the Minister's response, is she aware that some organisations, particularly cycling groups, are worried about the lack of any proposed national strategy on walking?
    Ms Jackson: I understand the difficulties that cyclists face because there is no particular strategy highlighting the needs of vulnerable road users. However, my discussions with the walking steering group and cyclists groups reveal that there is a shared agenda. It is entirely possible for us to move forward on the understanding that we have to provide more access to our roads, which are not the exclusive reserve of one form of transport.

    Birmingham Northern Relief Road
    Dr. Tony Wright: If he will review his response to the inspector's report on the Birmingham northern relief road in respect of the Lichfield and Hatherton Canal. [24917]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): The formal, legal decision has been taken and cannot now be reopened. That decision placed obligations on Midland Expressway Ltd. to carry out advance work and facilitate restoration of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals, if and when they are restored to a navigable state.
    Dr. Wright: My right hon. Friend will know that the canal scheme is a major scheme for the entire west midlands canal network, with enormous potential for tourism, recreation and employment. When the inspector approved the Birmingham northern relief road, he insisted that the canal scheme was safeguarded. My right hon. Friend will know that there is enormous dismay at the Government's decision not to safeguard the scheme or ensure that the developers safeguard it. If a privately funded toll road does not safeguard major public schemes, will not many people consider the cost much too high?
    Dr. Strang: I understand the potential benefits of the restoration of those and other canals, and I can well understand my hon. Friend's disappointment. I know that he and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), along with members of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals restoration fund, met my noble friend Baroness Hayman to discuss the issues. I understand that it was a constructive meeting and that some useful suggestions were made.
    Mrs. Spelman: Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will consider the impact of the Birmingham northern relief road on adjoining motorways, particularly the M42, which is subject to part of the review? Can he say when the review is likely to be completed?
    Dr. Strang: I can give the hon. Lady the assurance she seeks. She will be aware that the BNRR was given the go-ahead because of the need for a new strategic route to serve the west midlands, the north-west of England and Scotland. On her specific point about the timetable for the conclusion of the review of our trunk roads programme and the subsequent announcements, I expect that to be later in the year, probably in the summer.

    London Underground
    Mr. John Cryer: What plans he has to increase the level of investment in the London underground. [24918]
    Mr. Burstow: What plans he has to modernise the London underground; and how they will be funded. [24924]
    Mr. Prescott: We are in the final phase of developing proposals for a public-private partnership to provide London Underground with the funding that it needs to increase investment and modernise the network. We shall shortly be in a position to make an announcement.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the underground should remain in public hands and be

    837
    publicly accountable, and that, if there were any danger that it would be broken up and sold off—as there was under the previous Government—it would follow the same pattern as British Rail and end up in the hands of a bunch of spivs and jackals? Three years after privatisation, trains are slower, there is less investment and the railway companies are crying out for increased subsidies.
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend can be assured that we have set ourselves against the privatisation of London Underground. The proposal will be a public-private partnership that is fully consistent with the underground being publicly owned and publicly accountable.
    Mr. Burstow: Does the Deputy Prime Minister rule out the proposal, reported in The Times as coming from the Prime Minister, to break the underground into many parts and sell 51 per cent. of the business to the private sector?
    Mr. Prescott: I have read many reports in the press of different proposals that I am considering. I reiterate that we shall not propose privatisation. We want a public-private partnership that is publicly owned and publicly accountable to raise the £7 billion that the underground needs. We have to be sure that we get the formula right. If we do not, we shall end up with a proposal like the channel tunnel rail link arrangement, which we have just seen fail.
    Mr. Pickles: In that public-private partnership, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the undertaking given to me in an answer by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that the current definition of public expenditure will remain unchanged? If so, how will he encourage private investment in the railways when his hon. Friends refer to those in charge as spivs and jackals?
    Mr. Prescott: I am sure that I shall be able to reassure the House that what I have claimed about the public-private partnership will be fulfilled, but hon. Members must wait for the statement, which will come shortly.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Does not everybody, including the Secretary of State, agree that the way forward for the underground is through private investment? On public investment, will he confirm the figures given to the Transport Sub-Committee, which show, contrary to the impression he gives, that, since 1960, core investment, including renewals, has averaged £250 million a year at current prices and that no Labour Government in that period achieved even that average figure?
    Mr. Prescott: The reality is that, after 18 years of Tory Administration, there is massive disinvestment in the underground. One of the last acts of the previous Government was to reduce investment by over £300 million. We have to find a formula to finance proper investment in the underground. We shall do that and we shall make a statement to the House shortly.

    Buses (Disabled Access)
    Ms Hewitt: What proposals he has to make buses accessible to disabled people. [24919]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: We have recently published our proposals under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to
    838
    require all buses and coaches to be accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users. Copies of the consultation document setting out the proposals, including a timetable for implementation, have been widely distributed to disability organisations, local authorities and the bus and coach industry. Copies are also available from the Library.
    Ms Hewitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be warmly welcomed by organisations representing disabled people. Will she join me in congratulating Leicester City Buses, which has already introduced new vehicles—kneeling buses—which are easily accessible to people with disabilities and to people encumbered by small children and heavy shopping? Will she take every step to ensure that the timetable set out in the consultation document is adhered to?
    Ms Jackson: I not only welcome but warmly welcome the initiative, as I do all such commitments by bus companies around the country. They have clearly understood that improving services to people with disabilities also provides infinitely better services to the whole community and will increase the number of bus passengers, which the Government strongly endorse.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Lady has read many of the studies from around the world on examples of large amounts of money being concentrated on ways to get wheelchairs on and off public transport. Has it not been shown that very few people use such facilities? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Shameful."] The previous Government's investment in motability and ensuring that taxis were available for wheelchair users is probably a better use of money. I am sure that we all believe that we should try to help. those who are ambulant but have difficulty in getting up large steps. I hope that the Minister will take that into account, rather than trying to be politically correct. She must ensure that we invest our money correctly to provide the best form of transport to get wheelchair users to and from work and the shops.
    Ms Jackson: I agree with some of my hon. Friends that that was a shameful question. The hon. Gentleman talks about "our" money. Wheelchair users and people with disabilities also pay taxes. It is absurd to suggest that adaptations to increase accessibility on public transport are rarely used. We have to have the accessible transport before we can make any such judgment.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on the enforcement of vehicle emissions standards by local authorities. [24920]
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Seven local authorities have been given powers under regulations which came into force on 26 December 1997 to enforce vehicle exhaust emissions standards at the roadside. The seven authorities are Birmingham, Bristol Canterbury, Glasgow, Middlesbrough, Swansea and Westminster. Offenders will be liable to pay a £60 fixed penalty. We will be reviewing the effectiveness of the regulations over the next 12 months or so, with a view to extending the powers to all local authorities.
    Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Given the fury felt by pedestrians and motorists when they

    839
    see old decrepit vehicles, particularly buses and lorries, belching out black smoke and choking nearly everyone in sight, will she consider, when reviewing the regulations, allowing local authority trading standards officers to track down such polluting vehicles and take firm action against their owners, instead of having to rely on roadside checks or on referrals to the traffic commissioners?
    Ms Jackson: Such facilities already exist. My hon. Friend referred to traffic commissioners. As I am sure she is aware, those who ply under operator licences are the responsibility of traffic commissioners. All traffic commissioners should publish details of smoky vehicle hotlines so that members of the public can highlight offending vehicles to them and the vehicle inspectorate.
    Mr. Ottaway: Does the hon. Lady agree that the best way to control vehicle emissions is to ensure that responsibility for cleaner cars rests with manufacturers? With that in mind, will she take this opportunity to praise Westminster city council, which for years has run its pool cars on liquid petroleum gas, provided incentives for electric cars, run an exhaust watch scheme and is now one of the pilot authorities in the vehicle emissions testing scheme? Labour talks about it; Conservative Westminster gets on with it.
    Ms Jackson: Westminster council has certainly got on with it—but under a Labour Administration. I am somewhat surprised that, in the hon. Gentleman's long list of praise, he neglected to praise my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who froze duty on gas road fuels in his Budget. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the proposals made in January by my noble Friend Baroness Hayman for concessions for cleaner lorries and buses through the reduction in vehicle excise duty. It is the Government's firm conviction that the protection of the environment must be at heart of all our policies.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she and her Department are doing in identifying vehicle emissions? Will she carefully consider the fact that, owing to vehicle emissions, the incidence of asthma, particularly among young children, is increasing in many of our towns and cities? It is therefore important that we extend monitoring of emissions in our towns and cities to address the problems of ill health among many of our citizens, particularly children.
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a particularly accurate point. That is why the regulations will be reviewed over the next 12 months with a view to extending powers to all local authorities. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that procedure alone will not be sufficient to bring about clean air, which the Government are committed to achieving.

    Road Congestion
    Mr. Day: If he will make a statement outlining how he plans to tackle congestion on Britain's roads. [24921]
    Dr. Strang: The Government are developing an integrated transport policy. As part of that, we are considering options for tackling congestion and pollution
    840
    on local and national roads. We will announce how we intend to proceed in the forthcoming transport White Paper.
    Mr. Day: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the Government turn their mind for a moment from clobbering the motorist with threats of heavy increases in petrol prices to the Manchester airport eastern link road, which is left over from the previous Government's road programme? Residents in the area have fought very hard for the road. Although a third of it has been built, the rest has not. It is not even linked to the airport—and it is traffic from the airport of which the local area is supposed to be being relieved. I hope that the Minister can assure my constituents that the road will be finished before the Government complete their seemingly endless review.
    Dr. Strang: The review is neither lengthy nor endless. I recognise the popular support for the road to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I pay tribute to his efforts to advance its cause—indeed, he raised the matter with my noble Friend Baroness Hayman. We shall make an announcement about that road, and others, in the summer.
    Ms Walley: I welcome the integrated transport review, but may I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a pitfall against which we must guard? We should not proceed with the review of trunk roads before we have had the opportunity to put at the heart of our policies integrated transport and concern for the environment and sustainability. I am thinking in particular of the recommendations of the Government office for the west midlands.
    Dr. Strang: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says, which is why we attach such a high priority to our integrated transport White Paper. It is an indictment of previous Conservative Administrations that this transport White Paper will be the first for more than 20 years. In 18 years, the Conservative Government produced only a Green Paper—a consultation paper.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Does the Minister agree that a policy of taxing and taxing the motorist hits everyone, irrespective of need, and will not by itself tackle congestion? Is it, in principle, his policy to ring-fence the proceeds of any congestion tax and use them to improve transport, and is that also the Treasury's view?
    Dr. Strang: In the consultation paper that we issued last August—about which we received so many responses and on which we held so many constructive seminars throughout the country—we made it clear that we were considering the possibility of new dedicated income streams. That would discourage car use—not necessarily car ownership—and also raise money not only for us, but for local authorities to invest in improved public transport.
    Dr. Iddon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Administration's policies, such as the deregulation of buses, a lack of investment in rail, and predict-and-provide road building, caused the congestion on our roads, which costs British industry and commerce £19 billion a year? Is not that a good reason for having a properly integrated transport policy?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Current traffic projections, which are based on the assumption that

    841
    policies will be unchanged, are not consistent either with developing a modern, competitive economy, as we must tackle congestion, or with environmental sustainability. We must tackle this issue, which is why we are biting the bullet and publishing the first transport White Paper for more than 20 years.

    Rail Freight
    Mr. Llwyd: What initiatives his Department is pursuing to increase the current level of freight being transported by rail; and if he will make a statement. [24922]
    Dr. Strang: We have already revitalised the freight grants scheme and secured a better deal for channel tunnel rail freight. We are considering further measures to encourage rail freight in the development of our integrated transport policy, on which we shall issue a White Paper in the spring.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am sure that everyone agrees that moving freight from road to rail is a good, sound policy. What is being done to encourage Railtrack to modernise the gauge and move freight to the railways? Surely Railtrack should now consider using the international size of loading
    842
    gauge. Is it not high time for us to ensure greater equality between road and rail? Should not road transport pay for the cost of the infrastructure and the damage that it does to the environment?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is right to want an increase in the amount of freight moved by rail. The Government are putting their money where their mouth is. Some £15 million was spent on rail freight grants last year, this year we will spend £30 million, of which two thirds has already been spent, and next year the budgeted figure is £40 million. We are determined to increase the amount of freight that goes by rail.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it will be difficult greatly to increase the percentages, given the fragmentation of the existing railway system. Will he consider carefully ways in which the companies can be encouraged to allow some expansion of freight paths within the existing system?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right. For far too long, freight has played the Cinderella to passengers on the railways. We are determined to improve the situation and, as part of that policy, we intend to set up a new railway authority, one of whose key objectives will be to examine ways to encourage more freight on to the railways.

Health Services (London)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I wish to make a statement on the future of health and health care in London.
At the general election, we made it clear that we wanted to make sure that every Londoner has access to top-quality health care. We promised a moratorium on all hospital closures in London while the future of London's health care was reassessed against what Londoners really need. We have kept that promise.
On 20 June last year, just seven weeks after coming to office, I announced that a swift and independent review of London's health needs was to be carried out by a distinguished panel chaired by Sir Leslie Turnberg, then president of the Royal College of Physicians, formerly consultant physician at Hope hospital, Salford, and professor of medicine at Manchester university.
Since then, the review panel has done a remarkable job. It has reviewed all the evidence, consulted widely and carried out a large number of meetings and visits. The panel received and considered more than 1,800 responses from local people and organisations. It submitted its report on 18 November. Since then, it has been considered very carefully by the Government. We have been faced with some tough decisions.
Today, seven months after the panel was established, I am publishing the report of the independent review panel—the Turnberg report. I am also publishing the Government's response. The Turnberg report spells out a clear set of recommendations for the improvement of health services in London. I am glad to be able to announce that the Government accept all its recommendations. Many are in line with our proposals in the White Paper "The new NHS" for a 10-year general improvement programme to make the NHS modern and dependable. All are accepted by the Government, and the necessary further work is already being put in hand.
Time does not permit me to list all the important recommendations in the Turnberg report, so I shall concentrate on a limited number of most immediate interest to Londoners. The report recognises that in many parts of London—especially in the most deprived areas—primary care, mental health, intermediate care and community services are simply not up to the standard to which everyone in our country is entitled. The report proposes a range of measures to bring things up to scratch. We accept those measures. We shall provide an additional investment of at least £140 million in those services for London over the lifetime of this Parliament. An extra £30 million will be targeted on those services in the coming financial year.
The report recognises the need for new arrangements to ensure a Londonwide strategy for health and proposes, as a medium-term aim, a single NHS regional office for London. Without Londonwide strategies and actions, the necessary improvements in mental health services and the proper integration of services for children and older people will be hard to achieve, if not impossible.
The report concluded that there is no evidence that
"there are more acute hospital beds available to Londoners than the English average".
844
The Government have therefore abandoned the presumption that we inherited from our predecessors, that London is overprovided with acute hospital beds. As a result, any future changes in bed numbers in London will be in line with those in the rest of the country.
The review panel was asked to look at the plans of London NHS trusts and health authorities, including their plans for capital developments. It was asked in particular to advise on the future of Queen Mary's university hospital in Roehampton, Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospitals in east London and St. Bartholomew's hospital. For those purposes, the panel reviewed London hospital provision in terms of five sectors covering north, south-east, south-west, west and east London respectively. It faced some awkward choices and made some tough recommendations. The Government have made similarly hard-headed decisions.
For north London, the panel said that a new hospital building was "sorely needed" to bring University College hospital, the Middlesex hospital, the Hospital for Tropical Diseases and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital for women together on one site. That would provide top-quality local and specialist services, with academic and research facilities shared with University college nearby. As the local Member of Parliament, I warmly endorse that proposal. The panel also recommends urgent capital investment at the Whittington hospital. We shall invite plans for such improvements. The need for swift action is understood, but it will take time to carry out all the necessary evaluations before work can proceed.
For south-east London, the panel endorsed the proposal to build the new Queen Elizabeth hospital at Greenwich through the private finance initiative. It also supported the proposals for further improvements to King's College hospital on the Denmark Hill site.
The panel considered the proposal to close the accident and emergency unit at Guy's hospital and called for a re-evaluation of the proposed closure to ensure that alternative services will be able to cope. That evaluation has taken place. Additional accident and emergency capacity is already in place at King's and Lewisham hospitals. The situation will continue to be closely monitored in the lead-up to the closure of the Guy's A and E department and beyond. Contingency plans will be put in place to provide additional services if patient numbers are higher than expected.
The panel also called for a re-evaluation of the proposed shift of other services from Guy's to St. Thomas's, to ensure that best use is made of some of the facilities at Guy's which, on present plans, would be vacated. That is likely to keep more services at Guy's than was planned by the previous Government.
In south-west London, the panel favoured plans for investment in the development of a community hospital on the site of Queen Mary's Roehampton. That means the replacement of acute services currently provided at Queen Mary's by improved alternative acute services at Kingston hospital and St. George's hospital. The Government accept that proposal. The panel also endorsed a proposed shift of services between St. George's and Atkinson Morley's hospital.
In west London, the panel supports the shift of services from Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea hospital to the Hammersmith site. It also called for special attention to be given to the need to foster the national and

845
international role of Hammersmith hospital and its relationship with Imperial College medical school. A series of service reviews is now under way in west London, addressing that aim and the need to serve local people.
It was in east London that the panel faced the most difficult problems. It was asked to consider proposals involving the future of Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospitals. It supports the development of a new hospital at Oldchurch, rather than at Harold Wood, to provide the full range of services for that area—not least because that is where the majority of the population live, including those with the greatest health needs. Like all the other new reconfiguration proposals that I mentioned, that proposal will be the subject of local consultation.
For the east end, the panel recommended a package of measures to counter the deprivation and ill health of many of the local people. It proposes investment in intermediate and community services. It also proposes the full utilisation of beds at Homerton hospital and Newham general hospital and new investment at Newham general hospital. It endorses the proposal to rebuild Royal London hospital Whitechapel, but with 900 beds, rather than the 1,100 in the current stalled plans for that redevelopment. Those have been difficult decisions.
That leads me on to the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. The Turnberg report recommends that Bart's should not close. The Government agree, and Bart's will be saved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' We will not countenance the closure of that great hospital, which has faithfully served the people of London for 875 years.
During the time when the new Royal London hospital is being built and other hospital developments are taking place in the east end, Bart's will continue in its present role. When that period comes to a close, in line with the proposals of the Turnberg report, Bart's will concentrate on its renowned specialist expertise, with a focus on cancer and cardiac services.
We owe a great debt to Sir Leslie Turnberg and his colleagues for their work and their wisdom. I believe that the Turnberg report will prove to be a far-reaching and far-sighted plan for the improvement of health services in London. The Turnberg proposals have the backing of the Government, and the personal backing of the Prime Minister. They will provide a firm foundation for a 10-year programme to provide London with a modern and dependable health service. That programme paves the way for the investment of well over £800 million to provide London's health service with the fine modern buildings that patients and staff deserve. At least £140 million will be provided to support primary care and mental health. That amounts to a boost of almost £1 billion for health care in London.
There have been many reports on the future of health care in London. Some have mouldered on library shelves; others have been the subject of endless and indecisive debate; and all the while buildings have been left to deteriorate, staff have been left uncertain and patients have been left to wait. That will not be the fate of the Turnberg report.
By accepting all its recommendations, the Government have turned that excellent report into an action plan to modernise London's health service. From today, we shall be mobilising all those who care about London's health services, not just the hard-working people who work in
846
the NHS, but people in local government, universities, scientists and other researchers, people in business, patient groups and local people, to work together systematically to deliver the improvements that Londoners want to see, year by year. That is what the Turnberg report recommends. That is no more than Londoners deserve. The chattering times are over. The time for action has come.
Mr. John Maples: As has become the habit of the Government, the report was comprehensively leaked before it was given to the House. The White Paper was leaked; the Green Paper on public health has been printed almost in full in the Health Service Journal; and yesterday, the Financial Times was obviously accurately briefed on the Turnberg report. It is a great and continuing discourtesy to the House that it is not informed of such decisions first.
I echo the Secretary of State's thanks to Professor Turnberg and his colleagues for their work, which will provide a valuable basis of information for planning health services in London. The panel was established last June so that it could report by October. Why has it taken the Secretary of State more than two months, nearly three, to publish its report? The answer is that it did not solve the right hon. Gentleman's problem, because it was supposed to give him cover for keeping Bart's going to provide local services. It has not done so.
It is now clear that another problem was the Treasury, which apparently believed that Bart's should be shut completely and that all services should be transferred to the new hospital, the Royal London. The Secretary of State has been forced to come up with a face-saving formula which, according to the Treasury, does not stand up financially.
Labour Members cheered when the Secretary of State said that he had saved Bart's, but let no Labour Member kid himself that Bart's has been saved for the people of east London. We welcome the tertiary referral centre—it will no doubt provide wonderful services for cancer and cardiac patients from throughout the country—but Bart's hospital will not provide any of the local services usually provided by a district general hospital.
May I ask the Secretary of State some questions? [Interruption.] I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions; perhaps he would like to hear what they are without interruption. Do the boards of the Royal Hospitals NHS trust and East London and The City health authority agree with that decision? Did they want to continue local services on the Bart's site, or did they believe that it would have been more efficient to transfer all the services to a new hospital on the Royal London site? Is it not the accepted wisdom of most expert opinion that such specialist hospitals are not a really good idea and that real breakthroughs occur when all the specialties are on the same site? Has the Secretary of State asked the royal colleges for their opinion on splitting those hospitals?
What was the Treasury's estimate of the additional cost of the decision? The local health authority is already running a significant deficit and if there are, as I expect, additional costs, will it be reimbursed for those additional costs?
During and before the general election, Labour exploited the Save Bart's campaign, but it is not now prepared to give the people behind that campaign what

847
they wanted—the continuation of local services on the Bart's site. The review and the decision have not been about saving Bart's; they have been about saving the Secretary of State's face, and it looks as if the people of east London will have to pay for it.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new Royal London hospital will go ahead? Does he agree that what is really needed in east London is better primary care, and can he confirm that the extra costs of the decision will reduce budgets for local services, including primary care?
What really improves cancer care is early diagnosis by general practitioners. If that is made less likely by the decision and its extra costs, the people of east London will gain little, if any, advantage from the new tertiary services.
I welcome the decision to provide more beds in London. In the Tomlinson report, Sir Bernard Tomlinson said that if the rate of emergency admissions increased, more beds would be needed, and that has clearly happened; but they are most needed in long-term care, and that problem results largely from Labour local authorities' appalling performance in providing nursing home beds.
We cannot let this decision pass without reminding the House of some of the Government's broken promises on London hospitals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They do not like being reminded of them. It has not taken long to get some broken promises.
Before the election, Labour candidates in Putney and Brent, North obtained promises from the then shadow Secretary of State to keep open Edgware general hospital and Queen Mary's university hospital at Roehampton. The Secretary of State promised a moratorium on closures while the review was under way. All those promises have been broken. Both accident and emergency departments have been shut—effectively a death sentence for a hospital. Queen Mary's has been run down to the point of unviability. We all suspected that we would soon be told that it could not continue with such reduced services and that what remained would have to be moved to the Kingston site. That has been confirmed this afternoon.
The same is true of Edgware. There is no way that Edgware general will remain a district general hospital. Last week, when I challenged the Secretary of State, he tried to wriggle out of that, saying that he had not promised no service rundowns, only no closures. It will not take long for the people of Edgware and Putney to discover that they mean the same thing, and they will not be impressed by the Secretary of State's distinction.
It will be interesting to see whether the new Labour Members for those constituencies—the hon. Members for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)—who campaigned heavily, ruthlessly and with great bravado on the issue before the election, now have the courage to stand up to the Secretary of State and fulfil their election commitments.
The Government have so many reviews going on that it is difficult to remember which is which, but this is the one that was to give the Secretary of State cover for keeping Bart's open. It has not. Bart's will close as a district general hospital providing local services to local people in east London and the City. The Secretary of State has neither saved Bart's nor, I suspect, improved local
848
services. His solution will probably cost more. Promises have been broken at Edgware and Roehampton, and it remains to be seen whether the new Royal London hospital ever actually gets built.
Mr. Dobson: As I said when I telephoned you earlier today, Madam Speaker, I am disgusted by the leak of part of the proposals to the Financial Times yesterday. That was a discourtesy not just to the House, but to the excellent team of people who produced the report. There may be some ersatz upset on the Opposition Benches, but if Opposition Members had seen me when I got into my office this morning and discovered that the leak had taken place, they would have realised that I was rather more upset than they are.
Let me make it clear that the purpose of the Turnberg panel was to produce an independent report from five excellent people of the highest integrity. They have done that, and we have accepted every one of their recommendations. Any suggestion that what I have announced today is a face-saving formula is an insult to the integrity of the people who produced the report and recommended everything that I announced today.
The hon. Gentleman referred to accepted wisdom. The accepted wisdom is that Papworth, which might be described as a single-subject hospital, is an excellent hospital, that the Royal Brompton, which is similar, is an excellent hospital, and that the Christie hospital in Manchester is an excellent hospital. There is no reason why we should necessarily go along with what happens to be the current fashion in health care.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had consulted the royal colleges. We have not consulted them, but I cannot do much better than ask the then president of the oldest and most distinguished of the royal colleges to conduct the review.
With regard to primary care, I have made it clear, the report makes it clear and I made it clear in my statement that we want much more effort to be put into improving primary care, particularly in east London, where it is in a bad state.
When it comes to broken promises, there is none. We have kept every single one of our promises in relation to health care in London. We promised that no hospital would be closed while the review was undertaken: no hospital has been closed. We promised that there would be a review: there has been a review. We did not promise to accept every recommendation in the review, but we have done so, because they are first-rate, wise and sensible recommendations.
On Edgware hospital, the scheme that has been worked out by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), commands the support of the bulk of the people in the Edgware area.
Finally, when the hon. Gentleman speaks of hospitals that have been run down in London, let me remind him that they have been running down for 18 years under his hon. Friends. We are stopping the rundown and sorting things out, and we have been in power only nine months.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Does the Secretary of State accept that no praise can be too great for him and the Prime Minister, for removing the death sentence on St. Bartholomew's hospital imposed by the previous rotten Tory

849
Administration—a death threat that barbarians from Whitehall have sought to uphold ever since? Does he accept—here I choose my words carefully, in order to avoid hyperbole—that when the final paragraph of the last chapter of the definitive history of the world comes to be written, and the writer looks up into the sky at the pantheon of the gods—that is, those people who have made a real contribution to humanity and civilisation—the Secretary of State will be there among them? Frank, you've been brilliant.
Mr. Dobson: It would be churlish of me to challenge anything that my hon. Friend said. This may be an appropriate opportunity to say that it is almost impossible to exaggerate the symbolic significance of St. Bartholomew's hospital, which has served London and Londoners in peace and in war, in good times and in bad, for 875 years. A party that calls itself the Conservative party might have thought that there was some merit in its history and tradition, but it has taken a Labour Government to do something about it.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I join the Secretary of State in thanking Sir Leslie Turnberg and his colleagues, without reservation, for an excellent report. From what I have seen so far, it is a professional piece of work that commands the confidence of those with whom they work. I also thank the Government for accepting the panel's recommendations without reservation. When the Government accept a package of general and specific recommendations produced by an independent body, we should recognise that that is a statesmanlike response.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: However.
Mr. Hughes: No, there are very limited "howevers". I have two specific points. First, I note the Turnberg panel's scepticism about the old Government strategic plan for my part of London, and particularly Guy's hospital. I urge Ministers to look particularly carefully—I know that they are willing to do that—at any proposals remaining on the table to close casualty at Guy's. I urge them to view even more sceptically the advice that they receive from civil servants and officials to the effect that the Government should close and leave empty perfectly good buildings on the Guy's site—whose construction cost millions of pounds of taxpayers' money—and build replacement buildings, costing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, just down the road. That would be folly. If the Government do not accept that proposal, Guy's hospital may continue to flourish.
Secondly, I believe that the proposal regarding Bart's is realistic and reasonable. It is not what everyone wanted for Bart's, but it will produce a much more viable site for London in terms of size and retain a centre of excellence which, like Guy's, is recognised all over the world. Lastly, I shall put a question.
Madam Speaker: About time.
Mr. Hughes: I know, Madam Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the message of the report is that London health services require proper funding, no further rundown of beds and, above all, democratically accountable and co-ordinated strategic planning? We must never leave the vulnerable, such as
850
the mentally ill and the elderly, to look for the scraps from the health service while others benefit from the best health service in the world.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report. I am sure that Sir Leslie Turnberg and his colleagues will be as grateful as I am for his comments.
I recognise the force of the panel's recommendation in relation to the proposed replacement of some excellent, new, occupied buildings at Guy's with others at St. Thomas's, which would involve great expense. There may be merit in moving some of the facilities to St. Thomas's as part of the rationalisation of the two hospitals, but we shall consider that matter carefully. In view of how much careful thought has gone into the report, it would be wrong for me to make an instant judgment as to what facilities should or should not be moved.
The same principle applies to the Bart's-Royal London situation. A very large hospital at the Royal London was proposed to replace the existing Royal London and Bart's hospitals, most of whose buildings are in excellent nick and provide an excellent service. We think that the decision makes financial sense—and every other sort of sense.
Kate Hoey: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and particularly the lifting of the uncertainty that has surrounded two great hospitals—Guy's and St. Thomas's—for some time. Given that the decision has been made to centralise accident and emergency services at St. Thomas's, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever changes might take place, there will have to be a large women and children's unit at St. Thomas's? Does he agree that this provides an opportunity for all those involved with St. Thomas's and Guy's to begin to work together and increase the positive partnership that has been established in the past two years?
Mr. Dobson: I know that what my hon. Friend wants me to confirm is what she wants to happen. I do not think that I should take important and delicate decisions about the future of two great hospitals while standing at the Dispatch Box. I hope that the re-evaluation will come up with what my hon. Friend wants. It may not, however, and I do not want to comment on that.
I shall say, however, that in recent times the board, the management and the clinicians of both St. Thomas's and Guy's have been working much better together than ever seemed possible. I hope that they are now successfully working as one unit, carrying on the fine traditions of both hospitals and providing services both to local people and to people from throughout the country who come to them for specialist attention.
Mr. Eric Pickles: I refer to Harold Wood hospital. The Secretary of State says that there is to be public consultation. Is he aware that public consultation has already taken place and that the unanimous view was in favour of Harold Wood hospital? Is he further aware that, were it not for the review, the contracts were due to be signed, and that construction would have been taking place on the Harold Wood site

851
right now? The further delay means that my constituents will have to put up with accident and emergency services at difficult-to-reach hospitals that are not in terribly good condition.
Is the Secretary of State aware that about £15 million of public money has been expended by Harold Wood so as to be ready for the accident and emergency service? Is he further aware that additional projects are planned for Harold Wood? What is the future of those projects? Will they go ahead? What is the long-term future of Harold Wood hospital? It is a hospital that is close to a railway station, a major road and the M25.
Finally, at a recent meeting of South Essex health authority, which was held in my constituency, I was told that it was the Government's view that money should be taken from prosperous areas so that it might be given to socially deprived areas. Is that an accurate reflection of the Government's position?
Mr. Dobson: We believe in having a proper standard of health care in every part of the country and fair funding between different parts of the country. As for the proposals for Oldchurch and Harold Wood, they represent the considered opinion of an expert panel of great integrity, without any influence from me or any other Minister or anyone else in my Department, so far as I know.
I know that there have been several consultations about several propositions affecting Harold Wood and other hospitals. There will have to be consultation on the current proposal for Harold Wood which, as I understand it, has not been put forward before. I emphasise that I want to get on with these things. We do not want endless rounds of consultation. We need to ascertain what people think and, having borne that in mind, we need to come to decisions and get on with doing some work. People are sick to death of the delays.
As for the money that was expended over the past 18 years on various abortive schemes and consultations, I do not think that I should be expected to accept responsibility for that.
Mr. Clive Efford: No issue could arise and no statement could be made that would underline more the difference between Labour Members and Opposition Members. Will my right hon. Friend join me, as someone who stood side by side with thousands of campaigners to save the national health service from the ravages of the previous Administration, in congratulating the hundreds of thousands of campaigners who fought to save the NHS in the hope that a Labour Government would be elected to make the sort of statement that my right hon. Friend has made today?
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, as someone who once got the backside of his trousers wet sitting in Euston road protesting in favour of retaining the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital for women. I suppose I might even call myself a humble foot soldier in the campaign that has been fought, but perhaps that is not the right part of my anatomy.
852
I congratulate everyone in London who campaigned so long and hard to try to ensure that Londoners receive the health service that they deserve. I am sure that every one of them will join me in thanking Sir Leslie Turnberg and his colleagues for their work.
Sir Sydney Chapman: As funding of the national health service increased from £8,000 million a year to £42,000 million under 18 years of Conservative government, we shall all read the Turnberg report with great interest.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State two questions. First, will there be an accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital? That is a matter on which a number of his colleagues campaigned during the election. Secondly, will the report do anything to reverse the cuts that are being made to the funding of Barnet health authority, which are not in any way due to a lack of resources, but are being made just because it is claimed that Barnet health authority was over-provided for in previous years?
Mr. Dobson: We need to get a few things straight. It was not a Labour Government who closed the accident and emergency department in the middle of the night; it was the Tory Government who did that. We have made no bones about it. Since we came to power, we have accepted that, sadly, the shift of the A and E department is here to stay, but I emphasise that, so far as I know, the scheme that was worked out by my hon. Friend the Minister of State—
Mr. Maples: It is shut.
Mr. Dobson: It was shut when we came to power, and it was shut by the hon. Gentleman's mates when he was out of office because people in his London constituency had rumbled him—even before they rumbled a lot more of them at the general election.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Secretary of State agree that not since the blitz have the people of the east end faced an onslaught such as that which they faced as a result of Tory cuts in the national health service? One of the most important aspects of Sir Leslie Turnberg's report is that he makes it clear that the Tory idea that the problem in London was that we had too many beds was complete nonsense. My right hon. Friend's decision to abandon that concept will be widely welcomed, as will the promise of more resources and the decision to keep open Bart's hospital.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and generally agree with what she said. What is needed is to get the standard of health and health care in the deprived boroughs of the east end up to the level that people in Surrey, Kent and Hertfordshire have come to expect. People in the east end deserve standards that are just as good as those for people anywhere else.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: What is the future of Purley hospital?
Mr. Dobson: It is not covered by the review.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State for his brave decision to lift the cosh

853
from Bart's hospital—a decision that will be well received in the borough of Islington—for his determination to put new money into London's health service, and for linking the issues of poverty and ill health, which were so ignored by the previous Government and by all health planning.
I ask my right hon. Friend two specific questions. First, what services does he propose should be developed on the Whittington hospital site, which he mentioned in his statement? Secondly, what will be the longer-term arrangements for more democratic and rational planning of health care and community care needs throughout London, after the Turnberg panel has finished all its work?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who represents Islington, South and Finsbury, and who is dealing with matters connected with the national lottery at the moment, are pleased with what is being done. When my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to read the Turnberg report. he will see that there are proposals in it for a Londonwide strategic approach, and for changes so that general arrangements in London reflect local needs and priorities better.
On the Whittington hospital, proposals have not gone very far. All we have is a proposal that the hospital needs more investment, and it will get more investment, but the nature of that investment and what it provides will have to be worked out in relation to other services provided by the surrounding hospitals.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister share the sadness that my constituents and I feel at the downgrading of Queen Mary's Roehampton to a community hospital? Although we accept that it is inevitable, it is inevitable because of the shambolic policies pursued by the previous Government, in particular the rebuilding of Westminster hospital—with which Queen Mary's Roehampton was linked—in central London on the Chelsea and Westminster site, which was a total waste of money when a good site was waiting at Queen Mary's Roehampton.
Three things worry us very much, and we shall want an assurance about them if we are to accept the solution that the Turnberg report has suggested for hospital services in south-west London.
First, will the Secretary of State pay due regard to staffing problems in hospitals such as Queen Mary's Roehampton, where full services will not be provided, and where staff recruitment is proving very difficult? I have some fears for patients' safety in the interim period during the changeover. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman address the travel problems of my constituents who will no longer be able to undergo surgery at Queen Mary's, or to visit patients having surgery there? Thirdly, and most important, will he please ensure that what is provided in the next financial year will include money for all the building work that will be necessary at Kingston hospital, so that my constituents can receive proper in-patient care there?
Mr. Dobson: I share the hon. Lady's concern and sympathy for all those associated with Queen Mary's Roehampton, just as I have always sympathised with
854
people who have lost their hospitals. I think that, in my time, my constituency has lost the best part of 10 hospitals of one kind or another through amalgamation or closure, and I know how upsetting it is.
On balance, however, I think that, given the circumstances that we inherited and which the Turnberg panel was examining, the panel had no alternative but to recommend what it recommended. It may seem like crocodile tears to suggest that we ought not to talk about the hospital's being downgraded, but in a sense it is not downgrading to enable top-quality community services to be provided on a site. I hope that, ultimately, people will realise that there is merit in providing top-quality alternative services.
As the hon. Lady knows, consultation is taking place, and I hope that it will bear in mind all the considerations that she raised. We shall try to ensure that it does before any decision comes to us, if it is challenged by the community health council.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I now ask hon. Members to make no comments, but to put one question to the Secretary of State. If they put more than one question, I may be inclined to ask the Secretary of State to answer only the first. I cannot call all hon. Members at this rate, with all the comments that they are making and all the long questions that they are asking.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I remind the Secretary of State of the history of Edgware hospital? The previous Government closed it on 1 April, and continued to knock it down in the run-up to the general election. At the election, we promised that there would be a review. The review has happened—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have just made a ruling. We know exactly what has been happening. If the hon. Gentleman has a question to ask the Secretary of State, he must put it, or I shall call another hon. Member.
Mr. Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of sorting out health service problems is to consult the local community and hold discussions with it? That is what we did when we carried out the Edgware review, and the result of the review will be better services for local people. That did not happen under the previous Government, who closed the hospital.
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree.
Mr. James Clappison: May I return to the second part of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman)? What action will the Secretary of State take in regard to the further £7 million programme of cuts in services at Barnet and Edgware which was recently announced?
Mr. Dobson: I remind the hon. Gentleman—who, if I remember rightly, was a member of the previous Government—that one of the problems in Barnet was the huge deficit that the health authority and the trust were running. That is having to be put right. We cannot have health authorities and trusts in deficit. The cash increase

855
for Barnet health authority next year is £6,176,000, and for this winter alone it received more than £1 million to help it out; but it really must put its house in order—even if, under the previous Government, it was a disorderly house.
Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Will my right hon. Friend pass on our thanks to Sir Leslie Turnberg and his panel for the excellent news for east London and Romford in particular, and also thank them for endorsing the local community's view that hospital services should be at the heart of the community—and that part of the community is Oldchurch?
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree. As I think Sir Leslie is observing our proceedings, he will receive the message directly and it needs no elaboration from me.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: From the Secretary of State's remarks, should we deduce that he regards the decision to retain Bart's as a tertiary referral centre as setting a precedent for resisting the incorporation of such centres into district general hospitals rather than their retention as separate sites of specialisation?
Mr. Dobson: As I have said at the Dispatch Box on innumerable occasions, I am a great believer in horses for courses. I am not necessarily in favour of bureaucratic neatness. Our attitude to the national health service is that we want to keep what works and discard what does not. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, in some regions, some specialist hospitals are doing a brilliant job and if anyone, for the sake of neatness, wants to persuade me to change the position, they will have a lot of talking to do.
Ann Keen: Does the Secretary of State agree that today's welcome report will undoubtedly increase the retention of experienced medical and nursing staff in London, and that now that they are no longer competing with each other and are working on clinical need, with their expertise, that can only assist Londoners?
Mr. Dobson: I hope that our announcement will improve morale and enthusiasm among health service staff in London. I think that they were looking for some action and some certainty. Once we get on with it, they will be even better pleased.
Mr. John Cryer: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the decision that was made under the Conservative Government to close Oldchurch and to keep open Harold Wood was based on skewed information and skewed consultation exercises, and that today's decision, on which I congratulate him, will be welcomed as the right one by people throughout Oldchurch, Rainham and the rest of east London?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am sure that the Turnberg panel examined carefully and objectively the information before it before coming to its
856
conclusion. I am sure that the panel is sad that it means that Harold Wood will not be a major acute hospital, but these decisions have to be taken.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In spite of the swashbuckling style, the right hon. Gentleman's statement has an extraordinarily familiar ring about it. Having considered the five quadrants, he has said that 95 per cent. of the changes set in hand by report after report should proceed. Obviously, some of the changes will be greatly welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), but does the Secretary of State agree that the problem was not beds, but the duplication of the specialist units, which has deprived London of the money needed for primary care and mental health services? The urgent need in London is for primary care and mental health services, and that is what we await.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Robert Maxwell's comments when he was finishing his time at the King's Fund? He said that, for 50 years, London had been looking for teaching and research centres of excellence that were linked to the universities and that, at last, it seemed as if that was exactly what was going to happen.
Mr. Dobson: Indeed, and everything that we are doing at Guy's, St. Thomas's, King's College, Bart's, the Royal London, University College, Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea hospitals promotes top-quality services for local people. Most of those great hospitals are located even now, as they were when they were first founded, in deprived areas where people most need care. That is what we are doing.
As for the suggestion that, in some way or other, battering the hospitals into submission would improve primary care, I quote from Sir Leslie Turnberg's report:
"Improvements in primary care have not been able to substitute for reductions in secondary care."
In view of the fact that the right hon. Lady has asked a question today after her disastrous encounter with Bart's, I refer her to the Book of Proverbs, chapter 26, verse 11:
"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."
Mr. Tony McNulty: I thought that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) was rising to apologise to London. We live in hope.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that more than 120 groups and organisations took part in the three-day review on Edgware hospital and that those taking part included Conservatives from Barnet and Harrow. The consensus that was built on the review is clearly the way forward for Edgware, and that is the reality for the local community. In the context of Edgware hospital, I ask my right hon. Friend not to listen to any knee-jerk nonsense from Conservative Members.
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Ms Margaret Hodge: I join other east London Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the wise decision on Oldchurch hospital. There has been mention of heaven. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if my

857
predecessor Jo Richardson is up there, she will be at the centre of the crowd waving a flag, congratulating my right hon. Friend on his sensible decision, which will result in a first-class health service for the people of Barking?
Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The living approve of what we are doing, and I guess that the dead would also approve if they were still around.
Mr. Stephen Timms: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about investing in GPs in east London. Can he confirm that the Government aim to have as many GPs per head of population in east London as there are elsewhere, and that the premises from which they operate should be of as high a quality and standard as elsewhere? Does he agree that that is nothing like the case today?
Mr. Dobson: Our recent White Paper, "The new NHS", made it clear that we believe that all parts of the country are entitled to the standards of health care to which those in the richest and healthiest areas are accustomed. The report is a reaffirmation on a London scale of our national commitment in the White Paper.
Mr. Keith Darvill: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that the co-operation between Barking and Havering health authority, the hospital trusts, the local authorities and Labour Members during the review process is a fine example of cross-agency co-operation, which we should support for the future of our health service?
Mr. Dobson: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Above all, we want to encourage all parts of the health service in London to work together. It is plain that when they and local social services departments and voluntary groups work together, the result is much better than under the old system in which they worked against each other.
Mr. Nigel Beard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread welcome in the London boroughs of Bexley and Greenwich for the decision to rebuild the Queen Elizabeth hospital? That will bring to an end a period of local hospital closure during which the prevarication of the previous Administration did not reassure health services in the area.
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and look forward to the necessary progress that will enable work to start on the site in Greenwich as soon as possible.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Can my right hon. Friend say when we might see the details of the distribution of the extra money for the next financial year? He may know that my local health authority, Redbridge and Waltham Forest district health authority, is in financial chaos. That is a legacy from the previous Government and is also because of rank bad management. The authority is currently proposing cuts in precisely
858
some of the areas such as mental health and community services that my right hon. Friend has identified as needing improvement.
Mr. Dobson: The authority certainly faces significant problems, which have existed for a long time. It has already received its general allocation. Some of the additional £30 million that I mentioned may be spent on primary care or mental health care in that area. However, it cannot be used just to wipe out the deficit that the health authority has run up.
Mr. Mike Gapes: May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on the need to deal with the problems in Redbridge and Waltham Forest? Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, I should draw attention to the fact that the new Oldchurch hospital will be only three and a half miles from the new King George hospital, in my constituency. May I ask for my right hon. Friend's assurance that the planned consultation process will include detailed discussions with King George hospital, with Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority and with local residents on the implications of the decision, so that we can ensure that there is no question of any threat to King George hospital? We want to ensure that we have a new hospital at Oldchurch and a successful and improving—as it is—King George hospital.
Mr. Dobson: I assure my hon. Friend that there will be thorough local consultation, and that any decisions will take account of the possible impact of a new hospital at Oldchurch on neighbouring hospitals. I reassure him that our objective is to build up, not run down, London's hospitals.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the closure of Queen Mary's as a district general hospital will bring additional pressure on a variety of neighbouring hospitals—particularly the West Middlesex, which is already under severe pressure? What specific action will he take to deal with that?
Mr. Dobson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, public consultation is in progress on the ramifications of the proposal to close Queen Mary's Roehampton. As I have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), the ultimate decision will have to take account of the impact on other hospitals. Everyone knows that the West Middlesex has severe problems that will have to be sorted out; we want to get on with doing just that.
Despite the comments of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), in replying to the statement, we have conducted the review as quickly as possible. The review has been established, reported and completed, and is therefore off the list of reviews. It has been a very good review, and it will provide the basis for a programme of real action. We cannot simply sit around talking about action. If we did so, Londoners would never forgive us.

Points of Order
4.26 pm
Mr. David Willetts: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I tabled a written question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking
"when the Government expect to publish the conclusions of the Office for National Statistics review of unemployment statistics."
In the past hour, I have received from the Treasury the answer:
"I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible."
However, just as I was receiving that reply from the Treasury, a press conference was being conducted at which the Treasury was providing the results of the review of unemployment statistics.
May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to remind Ministers that they have an obligation to answer openly and frankly questions from hon. Members? It is very disappointing that an answer is available at a press conference, but that it apparently cannot be given to a written question.
Madam Speaker: I shall do more than that. If the facts are as the hon. Gentleman describes them, it is to be regretted that he has not received a substantive answer to his question. I intend to look into the matter as soon as I leave the Chair.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are the sixth Speaker whom I have had the privilege of serving, and the one about whom there has been the least complaint—not least because you have permitted two private notice questions on Iraq. [Interruption.] Some people might think that war is more urgent than Welsh devolution—but I leave that.
My point of order is this. In a statement in today's edition of The Times, Mr. Marc Weller, the deputy director of the centre of international studies in the university of Cambridge, says:
"Preventative wars directed against the future military potential of a state are unlawful."
Have you, Madam Speaker, had any request from a Minister to state the legal basis on which military action is threatened in Iraq? The background is that, this morning, I talked to four separate international lawyers, three of whom said categorically that military action in these circumstances is unlawful. Before we go any further, and at their convenience, the Government should make a statement on the matter.
Madam Speaker: I fully understand and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's deep anxiety. Indeed, he and I had an exchange this morning, when I let him know that I could not be helpful to him today. The Government have not told me that they intend to make any further statements. As the hon. Gentleman knows, later this week the President of the Council will be announcing next week's business. Perhaps he will seek an opportunity to press for a statement or a debate on the matters that he raised.

Parliamentary Currency Commission
4.29 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a commission, chaired by a law lord, to examine and report to Parliament and to the public on future currency arrangements for the United Kingdom, including consideration of the options of retaining sterling, adopting the European Single Currency, or adopting the United States dollar.
My Bill is straightforward enough. It recognises the importance of the decision that the British people will have to make in due course: whether or not to enter the European single currency.
The Bill has two main provisions. Those old enough to remember the referendum in the 1970s on entry to the European Economic Community might recall that, despite the plethora of information that was available for and against joining the EEC, as it was then known, the salient points were not clearly argued out. The pros made their case and the antis made theirs. Often their arguments did not meet, so clear conclusions could not be drawn. It was a little like Prime Minister's Question Time.
My Bill would appoint a commission, independent of Parliament and politics, chaired by a senior judge, to argue out the pros and the cons of Britain surrendering its national currency. Its findings would be made available to everyone entitled to vote in the referendum.
The Bill then goes further. It seeks to think the unthinkable. If, for the first time since the Norman invasion, the Government were to decide that we should adopt a foreign currency and surrender the pound because they believed that that was the best option for Britain—they might well decide that it was not and that we should stay as we are—the commission would be charged to ask: "Are these our only two options? Might there be an even better one?"
Deciding to stay with sterling or to adopt the euro are not the only two options. Joining a new currency is a decision that might last for generations. Limiting the options to just two is not rigorous economics and the Chancellor himself wants the decision to be based on economic grounds.
Last October, the Chancellor published "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests". Although parts of the document owe more to Mandelson-speak than to Treasury-speak, on the whole I welcome the Green Paper with the brown cover. I agree with the opening statement that the Chancellor makes in the preface:
"The decision on a single currency must be determined by a hard-headed assessment of Britain's economic interests".
Although members of the United States Federal Reserve, historians and economists have all said that a single currency can work only if there is, in effect, a single Government commanding a pan-European economic regime, that is a separate though most fundamental issue which—using all my reserves of will power—I shall ignore today.
Let us look at the economic criteria set out in the Green Paper for entering a single currency: business cycles, economic structures and—in Euro-speak—convergence. For Britain to operate successfully in a single currency. our economy must be synchronised to that currency. I asked the Library to analyse movements of the pound

861
against the deutschmark, the French franc and the United States dollar since we left the exchange rate mechanism and the pound could float freely, reflecting the real value of the currency. In the five years from October 1992 to October 1997, the standard deviation in values between the pound and dollar was just 3.3. In marked contrast, the standard deviation between the franc and the pound was almost double at 6.3 and between the deutschmark and the pound it was more than double at 7.
In other words, the pound is linked twice as strongly to the dollar as it is to either of the two main continental European currencies. That is good for British exporters to the Americas, the far east, and other dollar zone areas, but it does not augur well for British membership of a European single currency, which would be dominated by the German and French economies.
It is not surprising that Oxford Economic Forecasting's report published last autumn states that income tax and unemployment would rise if we entered economic and monetary union. It forecasts that the basic rate of income tax would have to rise from 23p to 28p to control inflation, with a resulting rise in unemployment.
What about labour market flexibility? European Union citizens can already work in any EU member state without a work permit. In practice, language and culture present the real barrier. Twice as many workers from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as EU citizens are currently employed in the UK. Our entering EMU will not make a euro's worth of difference to that. Commonality of language, legal system, and culture is everything.
The Prime Minister has justified the introduction of the national minimum wage by claiming that the United States has such legislation. I am not opposed to the principle of a minimum wage that protects workers exploited in garment trade sweatshops in Bradford or the east end of London. However, the legislation in America is realistic. It excludes young employees and many industries, including those related to tourism. The Prime Minister is wrong to say that there is a national minimum wage in the United States. It has regional variations and the rate, which has just gone up, is only £3.05 an hour for those to whom it applies.
The legislation currently before Parliament has no exemptions and is convergent to some European legislation. I fear that if it is meant to converge our economy with the rest of Europe, it will succeed. Our unemployment will rise in harmony with the rest of Europe, where laws owe more to political correctness than to economic reality. The American economist Barry Eichengreen found that
862
"The adjustment to regional labour market shocks is about 20 per cent. faster in the US than in the EU".
Is not that what we want for Britain?
James Capel's November briefing last year stated:
"The UK is out of synch with Europe"
and:
"The UK is different".
It reports that, while German households have debt of only 17 per cent. of disposable income because they rent, the equivalent figure for Britain is 110 per cent.—six times as much—because we enjoy a home-owning economy. However, the US figures are similar to Britain's. Long-term mortgages are as available in the US as they are in the UK. To converge with Europe, are we to become a home-renting society?
We may not like it, but Britain's economy has greater economic convergence with the US than with the larger continental economies. The culture, legal system, and huge mutual investments make it so. Moreover, that convergence has stood the test of time. It meets the economic tests set down by the Chancellor.
The Bill would empower an independent commission to examine all the options. I believe that there are sound economic, let alone constitutional, grounds for keeping the pound. If I am wrong, let the commission investigate whether our interests would be better served by joining the dollar zone rather than the euro zone. I am not seriously suggesting today that we should adopt the dollar, but if the commission favours the dollar, why should we opt for the euro if it is second best?
The Chancellor has said:
"The decision on a single currency must be determined by a hard-headed assessment of Britain's economic interests".
The commission could determine which single currency.
I beg that leave be given to bring in my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Eric Forth, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Howard Flight and Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Parliamentary Currency Commission
  PARLIAMENTARY CURRENCY COMMISSION
  Mr. Michael Fabricant accordingly presented a Bill to establish a commission, chaired by a law lord, to examine and report to Parliament and to the public on future currency arrangements for the United Kingdom, including consideration of the options of retaining sterling, adopting the European Single Currency, or adopting the United States dollar: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 115].
Orders of the Day

  Government of Wales Bill
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 2 February].
  [MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

  Government of Wales Bill
    Clause 80

      GRANTS TO ASSEMBLY
      4.39 pm
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 387, in page 38, line 28, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 29.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 369, in page 38, line 29, at end insert
      ', and the totality in any financial year of such amounts shall be no less than a totality produced by the application of the Barnett Formula.
      (1A) In this section "Barnett Formula" means the non—statutory mechanism for calculating, on the basis of proportions of population, the equivalent changes to the budgets of the territorial departments following changes to programmes and budgets in England.'.
      No. 388, in page 38, line 29, at end insert—
      '(1A) The amount of money referred to in subsection (1) shall be the current block grant as determined on the basis of the Barnett Formula for the first full year of the Parliament's operation commencing on 1 April 2000.
      (1B) Adjustments to the Barnett Formula to take account of population changes shall be made following the publication of census and mid-census population figures.
      (1C) In this Act "Barnett Formula" means the non—statutory mechanism for calculating on the basis of proportions of population, the equivalent changes to the budgets of the territorial departments following changes to programmes and budgets in England.
      (1D) The Assembly and Parliament shall conduct a joint review of the funding formula for the Assembly for implementation in the tenth year following the establishment of the Assembly.'.
      No. 371, in page 38, line 31, after 'Assembly', insert
      'out of money provided by Parliament'.
      No. 18, in page 38, line 32, at end insert—
      '(3) No payment may be made under this section until the Secretary of State, Minister or government department (as the case may be) has laid before the House of Commons a statement certifying that the payment is based on the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole.'.
      No. 435, in page 38, line 32, at end insert—
      '(3) In determining the amounts of payments made under this section, Ministers of the Crown shall have regard to objective indicators concerning Wales, which shall include—

      (a) Gross Domestic Product per head as a percentage of the average for the United Kingdom,

      (b) indicators of relative deprivation, and

      (c) an indicator of the divergence of sparsity of population from the average sparsity of population for the United Kingdom.'.

      No. 438, in clause 81, page 39, line 18, at end insert—
      '(4A) The statement shall include details of the arrangements referred to in section 80(3).'.
      Mr. Livsey: Amendment No. 387 removes the words
      "of such amounts as he may determine",
      but permits the Secretary of State to make payments to the assembly. It paves the way for amendment No. 388, which represents the input and impact that Liberal Democrats seek.
      The purpose of the amendments is to put the Barnett formula into the debate on the assembly and how the assembly should be financed. They seek to remove the Secretary of State's flexibility in determining payments to the assembly. Clause 80 uses the phrases "from time to time" and
      "of such amounts as he may determine".
      That does not provide a concrete funding formula on which the assembly can develop long-term funding plans.
      The Barnett formula has been used for Wales since 1980. The fact that it has been used for almost 20 years is an indication of its success and widespread acceptance as an adequate solution to the problem of funding Wales and Scotland to take account of the particular needs of those countries. The Barnett formula has tended to preserve higher expenditure per capita in Wales than in England. That is important because the cost of providing many services in Wales is much higher than in England. Although that is largely due to the sparsity of population in mid-Wales and north Wales, it is also due to quite high levels of social deprivation in south Wales and other parts of the country. That will not change when the assembly begins its work, so its budget should be based on the same principles as now.
      The Barnett formula is non-statutory. Our amendments would provide a statutory basis for securing its principles, which, of course, relate to the annual change. Amendment No. 388, however, recognises that the formula may not be the most appropriate long-term solution to the problem of funding Scotland and Wales. Perhaps some of us would prefer even higher funding, given the low level of gross domestic product that Wales has achieved, particularly over the past 10 years. Proposed subsection (1D) therefore includes provisions for a joint review of the funding formula after the assembly has existed for 10 years.
      Page 25 of the White Paper states that the present arrangement for deciding the size of the budget allocated to Wales will be retained. Our amendments seek to include that commitment in the Bill, so that it is quite clear from where funding for Wales is derived.
      We also support amendments Nos. 435 and 438, which would allow the particular problems of deprivation and sparsity of population in Wales to be considered when the assembly's budget is determined. As an hon. Member who represents a rural constituency, I know only too well the problems of population sparsity and the importance of achieving a fair settlement on sparsity factors. One has only to consider local education authority school transport bills, for example, to realise the enormity of the problem. I have great pleasure in commending the amendments to the Committee.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 369 and 371, which are in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). Amendment No. 369 deals with the Barnett formula, and I shall return to it later.
      I should mention to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), that amendment No. 371 is a probing amendment to clarify what is meant by clause 80(2), under which, apparently, any Minister of the Crown will be able to make payments to the assembly. Apparently, those payments will not specifically be from money provided by Parliament. What payments are envisaged and why are they not from money provided by Parliament? I suspect that such payments would have been from money provided by Parliament before the transfer.
      The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) explained the Barnett formula. Given that—I think—we are all well aware of its intricacies and details, I shall not have to try to explain it again either to myself or to anybody else. There is a magical figure of 6.02 somewhere or other, which is supposed to indicate the relationship between the populations of Wales and England. The figure is higher than it would otherwise be, which means that any increase in the block grant for the Welsh Office is slightly greater than the corresponding increase for England. Conversely, of course, if there is a decrease, the resulting decrease is greater. We shall, therefore, lose out if there are reductions in expenditure.
      I have no doubt that the Minister will give a number of reasons why the Barnett formula should not be incorporated into the Bill. We shall be told that the Barnett formula covers only the block grant to the Welsh Office and not other expenditure in Wales. For example, about 8 or 9 per cent. of total United Kingdom social security expenditure, including income support and spending on disability, is spent in Wales. That is higher than the percentage of the United Kingdom population who live in Wales and higher than the figure in the Barnett formula, which shows—I say this as an aside—how dependent Wales is on those social security payments.
      It will be argued that there is no need to include the Barnett formula in the Bill because the Government say—I entirely accept their statements—that they have no intention of changing it. Another argument against the formula's inclusion is that no Parliament can bind another Parliament.
      I broadly accept those arguments—there may be others—but the Barnett formula is all that we have. My hon. Friend the Minister looks as though he agrees with me. If he wants to introduce a better and more sophisticated system, we shall accept it. I accept that this Parliament cannot bind its successors, but it is better that such provisions are included in a Bill than in an order or Government statement. If there is nothing better on offer, the Barnett formula should be entrenched in the Bill.
      866
      Last week, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) rightly said that a scheme of devolution needs both a dispute resolution procedure and a resource allocation system.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: A resource transfer mechanism.
      Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend says, a resource transfer mechanism. The Bill provides, to some extent, for a dispute resolution procedure. We find tucked away in schedule 6 the proposal that, in any dispute between central Government and the devolved assembly, the Wales and Chester circuit will have the opportunity to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. No doubt the lawyers will be delighted at that—I see the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) perking up. There is an irony in that proposal. Traditionally, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has heard such appeals from overseas territories, dependent territories and colonies. Nevertheless, at least there will be a dispute resolution procedure.
      The Bill contains nothing about a resource transfer mechanism. That is why I argue for the inclusion of the Barnett formula, which would provide some means—albeit imperfect—through which to decide how resources can be transferred. The lack of such a mechanism is a substantial weakness in the Bill. We are engaged in finding a constitutional settlement. Whenever one makes a criticism, one is immediately put in the "No" camp, but I have no objection to devolution. I object to the lack of a proper constitutional settlement for the protection of Wales. England does not need a Barnett formula, and I suspect that the Scots do not any longer need a Barnett formula, either—their budget just about balances.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: What the right hon. Gentleman says is not the received wisdom in Edinburgh.
      Mr. Davies: I shall not stray further into Scottish matters and the question of Scottish wisdom or otherwise.
      Wales needs such a mechanism, however, and it should be entrenched in legislation to protect the Welsh against the English. I have great respect for the English as a nation and as a people, but I have never trusted them.
      I am surprised that the Welsh nationalists, having accepted some of the baubles offered by the London Government, now seem to trust the English. Personally, I do not trust them, although I respect them, which is why I want the Barnett formula included in the Bill—I want Wales to be protected.
      During the referendum campaign and in our consideration of the Bill, there has been a romantic belief that everything will be the same after devolution and after the Scots have all gone back to Edinburgh to practise their received wisdom. A few days ago—I think that it was when we debated the order-making powers—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred several times to the unitary Government. I made a mental note of it: he kept saying that the unitary Government will do this but not that.
      I do not want to split hairs, but there will be no unitary Government—in any meaningful sense—after the Bill has been enacted and after the Scottish Parliament has been

      867
      established. There will be a central Government, but not a unitary Government in the form that we have known for many hundreds of years.
      The central Government will try to balance the conflicting interests of the three nations of Britain—the Scots, the Welsh and the English. I exclude Ireland, as I am talking about Britain, not the United Kingdom. There will be competition for resources. Decisions that a unitary Government would naturally make behind closed doors—no one would even think about it—will have a greater transparency, and resources will be the prime subject of dispute between the three nations of this British state.
      We are told that the Secretary of State, be it my right hon. Friend or anyone else, will fight hard in Cabinet to maintain the block grant for Wales. Alas, the Secretary of State will have no Department in a Cabinet where everyone else—with the exception of the Secretary of State for Scotland—will have one. The system in Whitehall is governed by Departments—civil servants and Ministers carry the views of their Departments into Cabinet. The Secretary of State for Wales will be in a weaker position than his Cabinet colleagues.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am intrigued by the fact that my right hon. Friend does not have more ambitious aspirations for Wales. Does he accept that, if the process of allocation of resources is more transparent, a genuine debate will be fomented about the assessment of need within the constituent parts of what will remain the United Kingdom? There may be no unitary Government, but there will be a unitary Treasury, so to speak.
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend trusts the English: I do not. The argument will be between Secretaries of State who will see themselves more and more as Secretaries of State for their responsibilities in England. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be a Secretary of State for English trade and industry, and the Minister of Agriculture may go the same way. The Cabinet will more and more be a Cabinet for England, because England will be the prime concern of its members. Once we have unbundled the unitary state, we shall have three nations in Britain.
      5 pm
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I may be confused about the timing of the invention of the Barnett formula—which has operated reasonably successfully in protecting the level of the Welsh and Scottish block grants—but I thought that it was developed to cope with the devolution that was anticipated in 1979. I recognise my right hon. Friend's expertise as a Treasury Minister at that time. Does he agree that the real risk to the Welsh block grant—and any preferential levels of Welsh public expenditure—would have arisen if Welsh devolution had never been proposed in 1978 and 1979, even though it subsequently went down in flames? Without the proposal, the Barnett formula would never have been invented.
      Mr. Davies: I understand that point. The Barnett formula was not entirely new, and there was a previous formula under Goschen some years before. As a Chinese
      868
      philosopher once said, there is little new under the sun. The Barnett formula was devised to cope with devolution, but I do not understand my hon. Friend's point. Once the unitary state is unbundled, the question of resources will assume—
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) makes is that the Barnett formula was predicated on administrative devolution. What distinction is there in principle between democratic devolution to accompany the administrative devolution that exists, and the original presupposition behind the formula?
      Mr. Davies: We are not arguing that point. I approve of the Barnett formula and I was a Treasury Minister when it was devised, although my colleague Lord Barnett dealt with it. I want to see the formula in the legislation, and I take it that my hon. Friends agree with me.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I agree that, had it not been for the devolution measure of 1979, which went down in flames, the Barnett formula would never have been developed.
      Mr. Davies: That may be true, but I still do not see what conclusion my hon. Friend is trying to draw.
      Mr. Michael Ancram: I wish to take advantage of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister at the time. Was not the Barnett formula a secret for two years, before George Younger announced it to a Select Committee? Does that tally with the formula being developed to cope with the coming devolution?
      Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The formula was in existence before it was revealed to make the position more transparent. However, we are all now in agreement that the Barnett formula is marvellous. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be pleased that Labour Back Benchers are completely unanimous—not for the first time—in wanting to see the Barnett formula in legislation.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan indicated assent.
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend agrees.
      In some ways, our debates on the Bill are very romantic. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) suggested that the First Secretary of the Welsh assembly could sit in the Council of Ministers and negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom, even though he or she would not be a member of the Cabinet or of the Government. That is an illustration of the cloud-cuckoo-land nature of some of our debates.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to read the contribution from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), at the end of the Second Reading debate, he will discover that those words came from his hon. Friend's mouth.
      Mr. Davies: I am sorry if the romanticism I mentioned has even infected those seated on the Treasury Bench. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make up his mind without my intervention.

      869
      As our debates have proceeded, concordats have been mentioned. They have not been trotted out yet, because they are still frantically being drafted. What are the concordats for, except to try to plug the gap that I have mentioned? Did someone at the Institute of Welsh Affairs say, "Yes, we have a problem. The Secretary of State will no longer have a Department and the Welsh assembly will not have the entrée into Whitehall that a Department has. Let us think of something to try to plug the gap in the devolution scheme." The result is the concordats, which are an acceptance that a problem will arise in the relationship of the First Secretary and the assembly with other Departments, including the Treasury.
      Who will be party to the concordats? Will there be a concordat between the assembly and the Treasury? Is such a concordat being drafted already for the Treasury's consideration? Will it contain the Barnett formula?
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: It will be too late then.
      Mr. Davies: I do not know whether it will be too late. A concordat would be second best, but it would be an attempt to plug the gap. If there were no gap, there would be no need for the concordats. I hope that when the Secretary of State winds up, he will tell us whether the assembly will have a concordat with the Treasury. If so, I take it that the Barnett formula will be a central part. At least it would then be in the concordat, although that would not be as satisfactory as having it in legislation.
      The second reason why we need the Barnett formula—or something better—in legislation is a continuation of the first reason. Sadly, Wales is the poorest country in Britain. It is probably not quite as poor as Northern Ireland, although there is not much in it. Wales is a dependent nation. Dependency is considered bad these days, but Wales—and we must be realistic, especially as we move towards devolution—is dependent on the English taxpayer. As I said before, England does not need a Barnett formula. The Scots may need one, but Wales certainly needs one because it is the poorest country. If it came to negotiation in the future without such a formula entrenched in legislation, Wales would be at the mercy of those terrible English who cannot be trusted on such matters.
      I shall briefly describe the unpleasant state of Welsh dependency which means that we need a Barnett formula. Over the years, the Welsh Office and other Departments have produced regional budgets. I commend them for that because it is not easy to produce a regional budget. It is perhaps easier now, with computers, than it used to be 20 years ago, and more statistics are now available. However, the relevant figures are easy to extrapolate and we have debated them before. The last Welsh regional budget was for 1995 or 1996 and it showed that the difference between the income raised in Wales by taxation and the amount of total public expenditure spent in Wales can amount to £4 billion or £5 billion a year.
      That figure may not mean anything, but if I were to translate that into the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits, which is a rule of thumb that people use, my calculations, which have never been properly challenged, show that the Welsh budget deficit would be about 14 or 15 per cent. of Welsh gross domestic product. Greece has a budget deficit of about 7 per cent. of GDP. No country
      870
      could ever fund the sort of deficit that Wales has—it would be impossible to operate with a deficit of nearly 15 per cent. of GDP.
      The Administration would have either to cut expenditure or to try to raise taxes, but raising taxes in that situation would be absolutely hopeless. Somebody calculated that to balance the Welsh budget—balancing budgets is fashionable these days; everyone tries to do it and apparently President Clinton has managed not only to balance the budget, but to produce a surplus—our public expenditure levels would have to be on a par with those of Slovakia, which is one of the poorest countries in central Europe. That is the reality of the situation.
      I sit here listening to speeches from the Welsh nationalists in which they call for more power for this and more power for that, but they do not make any attempt to consider or discuss where the money will come from to enable that power to be exercised. The Welsh Liberal Democrats are even crazier; they want to have a power to vary taxation—
      Mr. Livsey: Quite right.
      Mr. Davies: A power to vary taxation means putting it up or bringing it down, but if there is a budget deficit of 15 per cent. of GDP and if the economy has not got a tax base that comes anywhere near to covering public expenditure, the idea of putting up taxes is simply mad. If public expenditure is not covered by taxes to the tune of a 15 per cent. difference, cutting taxes is also mad. I cannot understand why the Liberal Democrats, who obviously have not looked at the Welsh economy, want the power to vary taxes in an economy with a budget deficit of 15 per cent. of GDP.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: Local government has that power, and plenty of local authorities have that sort of deficit.
      Mr. Davies: Yes, and the position is becoming worse, if I am to believe what I read in the Western Mail today, but that is no real answer. My point is that it is irrelevant and nonsensical to have powers to increase or reduce taxes when the Welsh economy is in such a dependent state.
      Mr. Livsey: The right hon. Gentleman is making great play of Liberal Democrat policy, but that policy is strictly limited in terms of upward or downward variation of taxation—it is marginal in terms of the overall situation, and I am sure that, as an economist, he recognises that.
      Mr. Davies: I certainly do not accept that I am an economist and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that statement.
      Mr. Livsey indicated assent.
      Mr. Davies: I am glad to hear that the Liberal Democrat party's policy is marginal in this respect, but whether marginal or not, the point is one of principle; it makes no sense to increase taxes even marginally in an economy such as that of Wales.
      The same is true of the Welsh establishment. There is now a body called the Institute of Welsh Affairs which churns out paper and, if my analysis is correct, it is wholly

      871
      funded by the English taxpayer. One of its suggestions was that the number of Members of the Assembly should be doubled from 60 to 120, but there was no attempt to say where the money would come from. We know that the Secretary of State will take a chunk out of the budget first and that the assembly then will have to pay its way out of the budget for hospitals and schools. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has shown no awareness or understanding of the real economic problems facing Wales, and it gives me no great pleasure to point that out.
      The city of Cardiff would disappear down an economic black hole if Wales had to balance its budget, because that city exists because of public expenditure. Every establishment is parasitic on public expenditure, but the Welsh establishment is more parasitic than any other in the western world, because it is almost totally dependent on public expenditure. There is, however, no awareness in Wales of the real enormity of the problems of the Welsh economy. That is why we need to have a proper financial resource settlement in the legislation, so that in future, Wales will not be at the mercy of cuts or of attempts to create surpluses in public expenditure—or whatever the latest economic fashion might be.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider my points, although the time to do so was probably before the White Paper was drafted in that dreadful Cabinet Committee chaired by the Lord Chancellor. The opportunity was either missed or stopped—I do not know which, and I doubt that my right hon. Friend will rise to speak on that subject. Having said that, there may be an opportunity before the Bill returns to the House of Commons to look at this issue again. It is in the interests not of any of us here, but of Wales, that Wales is protected in future in terms of public expenditure.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Ancram: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and, although I do not necessarily agree with his solution to the problem as set out in his amendments, I agree with much of his analysis.
      I am sure that we all agree that we are now discussing one of the central parts of the Bill. Devolution was sold to the people of Wales on the basis that financial provision from the United Kingdom, which is channelled in part through the Barnett formula, would not change. That was the claim made in the White Paper and the constant pledge made by the Secretary of State during the referendum campaign. It is also written into the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill, although, as the Secretary of State well knows, the moment the Bill becomes an Act—if he achieves that—the explanatory and financial memorandum will fly off and there will be no mention of the Barnett formula in the statute, so its presence now is of fairly limited value.
      The reason all those assurances were given is that, without such assurances, the Bill would be a mess of pottage—and a cold one at that. Because those assurances had been given, we all expected to find them on the face of the Bill, so clause 80 came as something of a surprise. Clause 80 states:
      "The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments to the Assembly out of the money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine."
      872
      That is hardly an assurance. There is no definition of "from time to time", whether it means an annual, monthly or five-yearly payment. There is no description of the amounts and no criteria for calculating them. There is even no identification of which Secretary of State is being talked about, because under the Bill it could mean any relevant Secretary of State. Whichever Secretary of State it is, the only thing that is certain is that the determination is not bound in any way but is entirely at his discretion.
      That is what appears on the face of the Bill. There is therefore nothing that tells us to what the payment will relate and nothing that assures us that it will not be totally at the whim of the Westminster Government of the day. If the clause does refer to a Secretary of State for Wales who is arguing his case within that Government, we need to remember that he will have lost almost all influence and clout, because his powers will have been transferred to the assembly.
      I am sure that we shall be told that such details are not put on the face of Bills, to which my answer is that, in the past, they have not needed to be. I happen to agree—this is why I disagree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli—that detailed formulas should not be included in legislation: circumstances and definitions can change, and formula setting by primary legislation is an inflexible tool; but that does not mean that there should be no criteria whatsoever on the face of the Bill.
      I am sure that we shall also be told that what has gone on before will continue and that, in a sense, nothing has changed; but a lot will have changed. What will have changed specifically is that the issue will no longer be one of making financial arrangements and provisions between Ministers and Departments in the same Government, but one involving two different Administrations and sets of politicians who might not see eye to eye. I have spoken before about testing constitutional change against the worst-case scenario, and we must take into account the fact that there may be times when the Administrations in Cardiff and in London are of different political complexions or hold different economic views, yet there is nothing in the Bill that gives us any comfort on that score.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I find the right hon. Gentleman's concern for Welsh finances and the Welsh economy touching. Let us not forget that when he was a member of the previous Government, one Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), boasted of sending millions of pounds from Wales back to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman supported his right hon. Friend's policy.
      Mr. Ancram: We welcome the Minister to the Chamber for the debate. We had been wondering whether there was something ideologically wrong with his views on devolution, because he has hardly been seen during our deliberations. It is typical that he should take refuge in that type of argument.
      We are talking about the protection of Wales in the future. I expressed my concern about that throughout the referendum campaign, and I was accused of scaremongering. I also expressed my worries when the White Paper was published. We waited until the Bill was published to see if it improved matters, but because it is as it is, I must repeat my anxieties.

      873
      I am sure that we will be told that the funding will be agreed under concordats. Hon. Members may remember that, yesterday, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that concordats could not be binding beyond one Parliament. It would not take primary legislation, or even secondary legislation to change them, merely a decision to abandon them—a decision that could be taken unilaterally.
      I am fascinated by the concept of concordats. Will they be presented to the House for parliamentary approval? If so, does that give them an enforceable standing that they would not have otherwise? I would love to know the answers to those questions because we talk about concordats as though they were something special and reassuring, but none of us know what they are other than that they are informal agreements of a non-lasting nature. If I were a lawyer advising my client as to whether to sign away his birthright on that basis, I would tell him that he was off his head even to consider what was on offer.
      The next cry we will hear is, "Why are we worrying about it?" We will be told that the current Barnett formula has been in operation for a long time and that the Government have no intention of changing it—that is what the Treasury says. It is perfectly true that, when we were in government, we faithfully, and, frequently, even generously applied that formula to Wales and Scotland. There is every reason to worry, however, perhaps not in the short term, but in the medium and longer term, because times change, as do needs and democratic demands.
      The Conservative Government believed that the Barnett formula generally reflected need in the area at which it was directed. It is worth remembering two salient features of that formula. First, it does not affect the baseline provision, which has remained based on historic criteria. It therefore does not impinge upon the fundamental area where any calculation of basic need would be made. Secondly, Barnett provides that where comparable changes to programmes in England are made, it results in equivalent changes in the budget of Wales, calculated on the basis of population shares.
      If the baseline generally reflects need, Barnett provides a population-based formula for dealing with changes to expenditure. We took the view that that generally kept the system in line with need.
      There are two elements at work. The historic element that should be based on need and the Barnett formula, which is the means of making adjustments. That arrangement is now being questioned, not by Conservatives, but by many who are associated with the Labour party. Labour Members representing the north-east have already demanded that the Barnett formula should be reviewed because they believe that it operates adversely to their interests. The Treasury Select Committee has called for a needs assessment to show whether Barnett remains the best way in which to allocate increases. When Lord Barnett appeared before that Committee, he agreed that there was a case for a review of the formula.
      The fact is that devolution has rubbed the lamp, and the genie of needs assessment has been let out. He will not so easily be put back in the lamp despite the Treasury's bold attempt in its document, which was published on 8 December. We understand that the formula will continue but that it will be amended to meet the
      874
      requirements of devolution. Factors relating to domestic agriculture, forestry and council tax rebates will be brought into the relevant blocks. In future, an annual update of the Barnett formula to take account of mid-year population estimates will start in 1999 and 2000, noticeably safely after the assembly elections have taken place.
      My concerns do not stem from the Treasury document, but from a number of comments and statements that have been made. The clearest one was that contained in the publication entitled "A guide to the Scotland Bill". I accept that that document does not relate to the Bill, but it discusses the Barnett formula and admits that it is—I choose my words carefully—an administrative arrangement, which will not be prescribed in legislation. It is nothing lasting, certainly nothing in any enforceable form, let alone in tablets of stone.
      In evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, Lord Barnett rubbed the lamp yet further by proclaiming in paragraph 9:
      "there should be a Barnett Formula Mark II based on needs. The review would have to take account of needs, income per head and expenditure per head."
      In annex D.12 of the Government's White Paper, they admit that any substantial revision of the formula would need to be preceded by an in-depth study of relative spending requirements. Essentially, that means needs.
      The Treasury Select Committee went further in paragraph 12, when it stated:
      "The Committee was disappointed that no Government studies have been made in relation to the appropriateness of the Barnett Formula and how it relates to needs. The Committee only took evidence relating to the formula. We believe, however, that it is time to bring the needs assessment up to date; this would help to show whether the Barnett Formula remains the appropriate method of allocating annual expenditure increases … to the four nations of the Union."
      There again, the needs element is the genie that has been taken out of the lamp.
      Concern about the need for a review is not new. Paragraph 11 of the Treasury Select Committee report cites the evidence of John Gieve, the deputy director of general expenditure at the Treasury, who agreed that there
      "is a long-established practice of looking at the allocation of spending across programmes and across regions to try and get the right distribution. I cannot think of any government which would say that it was not interested in whether the distribution between areas or between services did not reflect relative need … all governments would subscribe to the fact that spending should broadly reflect needs."
      Once again, it is clear that the pressure caused by the development of the devolution package has reopened the issue of needs.
      I am not arguing for a change in the current arrangements. I am merely reflecting the fact that the demands for change in the formula are already running hard and that, in particular, the Bill offers no defence against them and no limits on them. Indeed, it does not even start to try to do so. We always warned that the demand for change would be one of the corollaries of devolution, but at the time we were accused of scaremongering. It gives me no pleasure to see that we have been proved right.
      We now must find a way in which to protect the position of Wales to ensure that, despite the best endeavours of the Secretary of State, the people of Wales

      875
      are not asked to sell their birthright for such a mess of pottage. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Wales would not fare badly from any assessment of need or anything that recognised that as the basis for making provision.
      We look first to the Bill to protect that position, but it is not only silent but complacently so on the issue. There are no indications of how, when or in what circumstances, and according to what criteria the assembly would be funded, or by whom. There is no provision for the assembly to make any representations to Westminster about what Wales needs. Even the Stormont Government had that right. All we have is a complacent fallback on an administrative arrangement and the past. Perhaps those arrangements and the Barnett formula work where the demander and the provider are part of the same Administration, operating a friendly formula for resource allocation, but that ball game will have passed to one where internal United Kingdom opposition will increasingly raise its head. That is already happening. If the plan of the Labour Government to regionalise England goes ahead, that competition will become even more intense.
      Where there are disagreements, there are no guarantees that the position of Wales would be protected. Under the Bill, that would depend on the Westminster Government and the Secretary of State—a Secretary of State with no clout or influence.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): They can change it now.
      Mr. Ancram: I thought that the Secretary of State had clout and influence now, but if the Whip says not, I will accept that from him. The position will have changed after devolution.
      The Bill cannot afford to be silent on the issue. There is no point in trying to entrench a formula, as suggested in amendment Nos. 369, 388 and 436, because circumstances change, as do political imperatives. A lack of flexibility could be damaging. The right hon. Member for Llanelli argued that that was not so, but an administrative arrangement could be changed and if such an arrangement had been mentioned in a Bill, that legislation could begin to look pretty sorry. There must be some reference point, some criteria in the Bill; that is why we tabled amendment No. 18. We did so because we believe that what we are suggesting will create the discipline needed and provide more than a transient agreement or a political whim.
      With clause 80 as it stands, the Bill is a hostage to fortune. It is vague, ill-defined and circumventable, and it offers neither assurance nor financial protection. It leaves an enormous void which, if left unattended, will focus resentment and dissent for years to come, play into the hands of nationalists on both sides of the border and, ultimately, do Wales no good.
      We all know from experience that the Treasury hates criteria that might bind it, but amendment No. 18 seeks to introduce the element of criteria, which will, we believe, protect the interests of Wales. The amendment may not be cast iron. It may indeed be little more than indicative, but, by requiring a statement showing that the payment is based on needs in Wales relative to the United Kingdom
      876
      as a whole, it imposes certain duties on the Government of the United Kingdom. It will require the Westminster Government, or the Secretary of State, or the Treasury, to make their determination of the sum to be paid according to criteria that are more than mere political and transient judgments—which the present Bill allows for—but are based on facts that reflect the genuine long-term requirements of Wales.
      On any view, our amendment must be better than the void in the Bill. I seriously hope that the Government will accept it and get themselves out of what is an enormous hole which, by their actions, they are making deeper each day by the digging in which they are engaging.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: I shall speak to amendment No. 369, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and myself.
      I want to say two things to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). First, he made several pertinent points, which I appreciated, but drew curious conclusions from them. He laboured long over the fact that an assessment of needs would be a dangerous threat to Welsh expenditure. However, if a proper objective needs assessment were made at this moment, the amount of money coming to Wales—regrettably, and for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli cited—would increase beyond what the Barnett formula provides. It would not decrease, unless there was total political malice.
      Mr. Ancram indicated dissent.
      Mr. Rowlands: Well, one got the impression that, during half of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was threatening us with a needs-based assessment, not saying that it was a good thing—but I give way.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I may not have made myself clear. Amendment No. 18 actually proposed that a needs-based statement be made to Parliament. I said what I did because the Government found their arguments on the fact that a needs-based assessment is unnecessary because the Barnett formula exists. I am saying that, the way that things are moving, I am not sure how much longer it will be used. We must provide against that eventuality.
      Mr. Rowlands: We have it at the moment, so amendment No. 369 suggests that the Barnett formula, however imperfect, is at least a basis on which one can plan and think about the short to medium-term financing of the assembly.
      I have read with interest the Treasury Select Committee Report on the Barnett formula—its second report of 1997-98. The description of the Barnett formula that was made in the Committee and endorsed by Treasury officials was:
      "a non-statutory policy rule based on mutual understanding between parties within the policy network, the implementation of which is subject to both sides observing the behavioural 'rules of the game'."

      877
      I should not like to rest the future funding of a Welsh assembly on a system that was merely
      "the behavioural 'rules of the game"
      being observed by all the parties. Therefore, I agree that, whatever the Barnett formula's other imperfections, it should be given a statutory base. I should not like to rest the assembly's funding on that weasel-worded description of the Barnett formula. It is important to give the formula better standing and status than it apparently has in the Treasury's eyes. That is my first point.
      Secondly, from what have I read of the origins of the formula—I do not want to go over the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—Joel Barnett rather denied that it was purely devolution-driven and argued that it was a more convenient way of negotiating these matters for the nations within the United Kingdom.
      Joel Barnett argued—I put the point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—that the strength of the formula was the fact that it avoided an annual negotiation on a territorial basis. If that is the case, presumably the future Secretary of State for Wales will have no negotiation to conduct. If we had the Barnett formula, at least we would know that that was a basis and that, whatever happened, the Secretary of State for Wales's negotiating position would not be a main determining factor. Is not that the case, and is it not a possible case for giving greater status to the Barnett formula, to avoid annual negotiations by the Secretary of State to obtain money for the Welsh assembly? Treasury officials said that that was the value and purpose of the formula.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that enshrining the Barnett formula, with all its imperfections, in legislation will serve as a disincentive to the type of needs-based re-assessment that we all need in Wales?
      Mr. Rowlands: I do not think so, because everyone accepts that the Barnett formula—as the report says—does not take into account or reflect spending needs. It never did.
      The Barnett formula is a formula for calculating the block expenditure, based on the annual changes in the English departmental programmes. That is one weakness of the scheme—that the future funding of the Welsh assembly will depend on the changes of English departmental spending, as will funding for Scotland—but the formula is the only one that we have at the moment and, until we get a proper needs-based assessment, we had better put up with it.
      Anyone who has studied the effort that was made in 1978-79 knows—this is why amendment No. 18 probably is not realisable—that it will take quite a long time to determine and organise the needs-based redistribution of such money. Therefore, I think that we had better hang on to what we have. I do not say that because I believe the formula to be perfect, and I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) that, if we hang on to it, it will stop Whitehall thinking about needs-based arrangements.
      I have some questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. First, I want to probe him on what will be included in the funding from the Secretary of State. The Barnett formula does not take account of some things;
      878
      for example, in-year changes of expenditure are not subject to the formula. I understand that if, during a financial year, the Government run into some bother and have to cut public expenditure, those cuts in public expenditure in the English Departments concerned do not trigger the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula does not cover in-year changes of expenditure one way or the other. Alternatively, if, for some reason, expenditure is drawn down on the contingency reserve fund, that is not included in the Barnett formula.
      When the Minister replies, will he tell me how such situations will be dealt with in an assembly-Westminster-Whitehall relationship? If, for example—and it will happen to Governments in future—there is a bit of a spending crisis and a Budget is introduced, or an expenditure cut is ordered within the financial year, changing the basis of the funding, how will that be reflected in the Welsh assembly's funding? We need an explanation because that, as I understand it, is not covered by the Barnett formula.
      Similarly, if changes take place in the opposite direction—if extra spending takes place for a situation that has arisen—that is not, within the year, covered by the Barnett formula. In such circumstances, how would the funding of the Welsh assembly be influenced by such changes?
      My second question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is as follows. One talks about Welsh block expenditure as being £7 billion. Not all that amount is covered by the Barnett formula, as such. There is about £250 million worth in the Secretary of State's budget relating to agricultural spending of one kind or another. What will be the position of that £250 million—not a meagre sum, although a large proportion of it, £200 million, consists of EU receipts from the common agricultural policy?
      There is expenditure outside the Barnett formula, in the Secretary of State's £7 billion block budget, which is not dealt with in the same way as the expenditure determining the block expenditure of the other 96 per cent. What happens to the £250 million at present in my right hon. Friend's £7 billion budget, which is not covered by the same rules? Where will that money go? How will it be accounted for? How much will stay with the Secretary of State, how much will go down to the Welsh assembly, and how much will go back to other Whitehall Departments? I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would explain.
      That touches on a point that has been mentioned over and over again, and sooner or later we will have to come to terms with it. What reserve powers will the Secretary of State have? What budget will he have, after the assembly has been established? Serious issues are involved.
      Thirdly, the clause deals with the amount that the Secretary of State will hand over to the Welsh assembly. He has said repeatedly that the assembly's running costs of £15 to £20 million will be covered by the savings that he intends to make in the quangos even before the assembly is established. How far are we down that route of savings to offset the cost of running the assembly? Those are questions thrown up by the argument.
      I return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. We need some kind of formula enshrined in legislation or in a concordat that will have

      879
      some power or force to it. The Barnett formula is the best that we have at present. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West suggested in his intervention, it is not perfect by any means.
      For example, our gross domestic product is 18 per cent. lower than England's, our household disposable income is 11 per cent. lower, our personal income is 17 per cent. lower, and our average earnings are 17 per cent. below those of England.
      Two conclusions emerge from those astonishing figures: we need at least the Barnett formula, but we will need Barnett-plus to ensure the effective financing of the Welsh assembly. As my right hon. Friend argued, we cannot cut the umbilical cord of redistribution of resources in the United Kingdom at present. With the Welsh economy in its present state, this is not the time to do such a thing. It is vital that that umbilical cord is not cut. The pressures for redistribution that continue in the United Kingdom should not be taken off, because by any objective analysis we shall need more, sadly, not less, in the short to medium term.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Wigley: I shall speak to amendment No. 435, and amendment No. 438 which is grouped with it. Before I go into the substance of our amendment, which picks up some of the themes that hon. Members have been running on, I want to dispute the myth that is continually perpetuated, that poor little Wales will never be able to afford anything and must depend for ever and a day on an umbilical cord to somebody or other, and that we can never stand on our own two feet and do anything for ourselves.
      Figures have been generated by the Welsh Office over the years—especially during the 18 years of Tory rule—to justify the amount of money that was going by the formula to Wales to sustain public expenditure. Yes, on certain expenditure headings, Wales has a greater per capita expenditure, but on others that are not in the block, we have significantly less. About 1 per cent. of the expenditure on the defence of the realm comes through into the economy of Wales.
      There was a series of theoretical errors in the paper produced by the Welsh Office during the Conservative regime—taking into London the money that came from Brussels on account of the Welsh economy, for example; and taking in the tax that is paid for civil servants who are based in London as an income into the UK, rather than crediting it to a Welsh account. The paper was totally flawed.
      We must approach the question from the reality that we know in Wales now, not on the basis of spurious figures generated for a political purpose. The reality is, however, that the income per head in Wales has dropped from about 92 per cent. of the UK average 20 to 25 years ago, to 83 per cent. now. That is the result of the 18 years of government that we had, our dependence on the Barnett formula and the assumptions from which it was projected. That is what is basically wrong.
      There is room to challenge the Barnett formula. I note with interest that Lord Barnett himself recognises that it is time to look at the matter again, because Wales is not doing well enough out of the formula. Over those
      880
      18 years, because the Barnett formula existed, it was taken as a fig leaf to justify the levels of public expenditure in Wales, when the economy in Wales, with the problems that we had with the run-down of the coal industry and the steel industry, and the problems in the rural areas, justified a significantly greater injection of money there. Had there been that injection, the economy would by now have been much stronger than it is.
      Mention was made earlier of the fact that countries cannot balance their books. There is one country that is balancing its books—the Irish Republic—no doubt because of the munificence of the English taxpayer, who has paid money to Brussels [Interruption.] It makes me sick—the way that Tory Members sneer at the efforts that Ireland has made to pick itself up by its bootstraps. They denigrate Ireland at every opportunity. Now that Ireland has succeeded in getting its GDP per head not only higher than Wales but higher than the UK, they want to say, "Ah, but it is our money that has done it." It is high time that people in the Tory party paid tribute to Ireland for what it has done, rather than trying to draw it back time after time.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wigley: To come back to Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I know that hon. Members in the imperial party do not like this, because it is always their game to run down Ireland, to sneer at Ireland and, whenever possible, to have wars with Ireland. That is partly why we have the problems that we have now. If they go to Dublin—
      Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make aspersions and judgments on the internal process of another man's thoughts, without giving way?
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): What I can say at this point is that it would be in order to speak to the amendment.
      Mr. Wigley: I am, perhaps, too easily tempted to go down that road when I hear attacks on Ireland.
      Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wigley: Out of kindness, yes.,
      Mr. Shepherd: The essence of the amendment and of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was the size of transfer payments. No one was making a critical judgment one way or the other. The fact is that the Irish Republic has had huge transfer payments, as much as 5 to 6 per cent. of GDP in recent years. The point arising from some of the arguments on the amendments was that Wales similarly receives large transfer payments.
      Mr. Wigley: The point that is material to the argument is the success that the Irish Republic has had in generating its economy to the point that the GDP per head of Ireland is higher than the GDP per head of the UK. Even if one takes out the current transfer payment from Brussels to

      881
      Ireland, it is still higher. That is because over the years the Irish Republic succeeded in using those transfer payments to build up the economy. That brings us back to the core of the argument, as advanced by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and earlier participants.
      Over the period from 1978, when the Barnett formula came in, to the present time, when we have seen the GDP per head of Wales go down, we did not have the transfer payments that were necessary to meet the economic circumstances of Wales at that time, because the Barnett formula does not do that. It increases or decreases in line with the changes in England, where circumstances were entirely different. Because of that reliance on the Barnett formula, there was no attempt to address the stark reality of the Welsh economy that has seen incomes per head drop to a tragically low level in many parts of Wales, where there is rank poverty and deprivation. The Barnett formula has not begun to address those problems because the base situation is inadequate.
      Working within a United Kingdom framework—although Plaid Cymru is more than happy to see Wales become a self-governing country making its own way in the world—any payments that are made to the National Assembly for Wales should have regard to objective criteria. That is where I return to the comments of the right hon. Member for Devizes. Our amendment spells out what those objective criteria should be, and I commend them to hon. Members.
      First, we believe that there should be a reference to the disparity in GDP per head between Wales and the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that the criteria that would work well for Wales—we are poorer, so the Barnett formula should give us more—would penalise Scotland, where GDP is about the same as in England, very heavily?
      Mr. Wigley: I am certain that our Scottish friends are capable of looking after themselves. In the context of this Bill, we shall look after Wales as best we can.
      I believe that the question of GDP per head in Wales and the disparity compared with England, which has widened over time, should be addressed. The disparity within Wales is even more significant. There is desperate poverty in parts of Wales, such as the old slate quarrying and coal mining areas of Gwent and particularly Glamorgan. There must be equalisation the like of which we have not seen in the past 18 years under the formulae that have applied. GDP is not the only factor—there are other indices of deprivation, such as health and morbidity figures, housing and unemployment. There are many large pockets of youth unemployment in our country.
      We believe that sparsity of population is another factor that must be taken into account, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) said in opening the debate. We should bring some objective criteria into play. If we are to discuss the matter logically, we must consider the base and not merely the adjustment mechanism.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to introduce, through the amendment,
      882
      a needs-based consideration into the Barnett formula, thereby satisfying some of the concerns that were raised earlier?
      Mr. Wigley: Yes, but I would not introduce it into the Barnett formula. As defined and described, the Barnett formula is related to yearly changes. That is another characteristic of the formula that fills me with hesitation. If we are moving to an era—heaven forbid—when parties compete with each other to cut public expenditure, in terms of social security or in other directions, applying the Barnett formula could lead to a greater reduction in Wales than in the United Kingdom. That would cause problems.
      Mr. Denzil Davies rose—
      Mr. Wigley: I am drawing my remarks to a close.
      For both those reasons—the size of the base and the appropriateness of the adjustment mechanism—we believe that amendment No. 435 provides a safeguard and should be built into the Bill. I ask the Minister to respond to that point.
      Dr. John Marek: I agreed with almost every word of the speech tonight by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—not the first time in 15 years, but it happens rarely. We must recognise that he made a sensible contribution on behalf of the Opposition. Rather than trying to denigrate and wreck the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the formula as expressed in clauses 80 and 81 is not quite right. He said that we should do a little more to ensure some clarity and avoid problems in the future when the national assembly is up and running. I think that that is true.
      I think that most hon. Members who have spoken in the Committee believe that clauses 80 and 81 are all right; they will do. The national assembly will be established and it will be able to operate. However, the situation could be improved. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) expressed the view that is probably nearest to my own when he said we need Barnett plus. We could probably make do with Barnett for the first five, 10 or 15 years, but it is clear that we will need a little more than clause 80 provides at present.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Amendment No. 369 refers to "no less than" the amount produced by the application of the Barnett formula. Therefore, it allows room for that kind of variation.
      Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. I cannot support the Conservative amendment, which is a probing amendment; if the Opposition seek to divide the House, I shall not vote for that amendment. However, hon. Members have recognised that there is a problem, and we must consider it carefully.
      The right hon. Member for Devizes asked how the money would be transferred from the Treasury to the national assembly. There is no Welsh consolidated fund, although there will be provision for such a fund in the Scottish legislation. The Minister should consider that point. He may have argued for a Welsh consolidated fund and have been bound hand and foot by Treasury solicitors

      883
      saying, "You cannot have a Welsh consolidated fund or anything like it." I do not know. However, I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments about that.
      A Welsh consolidated fund—comprising money from the Treasury upon which the assembly could call at will—would assist me and other hon. Members who worry about how money will be transferred from the Treasury to the assembly.
      Mr. Rowlands: From memory, I think that a Welsh consolidated fund was written into the earlier devolution legislation.
      Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is quite right. Why is there no consolidated fund for Wales when there is one for Scotland? Clause 80 states:
      "The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments to the Assembly out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine."
      I can imagine a Secretary of State who is not on friendly terms with the national assembly leadership withholding its money. In such circumstances, the First Secretary of the national assembly would be forced to telephone from Cardiff, Swansea or Wrexham every morning to ask, "Have you put the cheque in the post, because we want to sign a contract or provide funding for a hospital or school? Is the cheque on its way?" Will the money be provided in the form of a banker's draft? Will the assembly have to wait until a cheque has cleared? That is not satisfactory.
      To the extent that I perceive a conversion in the Opposition's view regarding the Welsh assembly, I am less concerned that things will go badly wrong if there are different ruling parties in Westminster and in the assembly. Even so, we are talking about primary legislation and we should address that point. I ask the Minister: why is there no Welsh consolidated fund to help this process? If there will be no such fund, will the Government introduce an amendment—perhaps in another place—that will make it clear that adequate moneys will be transferred in good time and in sufficient quantities from the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Wales to the national assembly in order to avoid any cash flow problems?
      Most hon. Members would agree with the application of the Barnett formula if clauses 80 and 81 contained a little more substance. I think that that is the general view—and it is probably also the view of Ministers. I wonder whether we can do something about that, although we clearly do not want to see formulae in primary legislation. I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes about that. It would be better to have a needs-based formula than a Barnett formula. I think that we would all agree on that. I am not under any illusion that that could be done in one or two weeks or a month, or before the latest time for the tabling of amendments in another place. But could they table a proposal to amend primary legislation so as to commit the Secretary of State for Wales to abide by certain criteria when determining the sum that is to be transferred to the national assembly? At present, the Bill contains no such provision. It merely refers to the Secretary of State providing
      "such amounts as he may determine."
      884
      There is no reference to the Secretary of State providing according to needs, to the Barnett formula or to anything else.
      6 pm
      We have the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to resolve disputes. Perhaps we could use it to settle any dispute over whether any criteria have or have not been followed sufficiently by the Secretary of State for Wales in determining how much money he should transfer. From the point of co-operation, we need something. I have no intention of supporting the amendments tabled by Members of the Liberal Democrats or of Plaid Cymru. I shall definitely not be supporting the Conservative amendment, although I agree with what the right hon. Member for Devizes said. However, if the Government would at least consider the points that have been raised by many right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon, we should be making progress. Our debates on this Bill have been unusually co-operative and forward-looking and in this instance, we deserve a response from the Government.
      Mr. Shepherd: I shall speak briefly because we are under enormous time constraints. Secondly, I shall take up a point raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Pronunciation?
      Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me; I am an alien. He is right not to trust the non-Welsh on these matters.
      The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that as we come to the end of the unitary state as we have known it, the transfer payments within what was the unitary state will come under more open discussion. We have only to listen to the hopes and aspirations of the Liberal Democrats and the Welsh secessionist party, with their Prime Ministers, Cabinets, research assistants and the huge paraphernalia of additional expenditure that will be given to a political class for Wales, to reflect on the wisdom of the Welsh people—or 75 per cent. of them—in refusing to support the Government's proposals.
      I merely note that 75 per cent. must have heard the speeches of the right hon. Member for Llanelli over many years, in which he has highlighted the real difficulties where there is a poorer region within our island and the transfer of payments to it. Most of us who believe in Britain believe profoundly in the principle of transfer payments. We see ourselves as equal citizens in a commonwealth. Each British citizen contributes through tax and financial arrangements to the benefit of the whole.
      However, we hear words such as "assumption" and "grabbing" used across the Chamber in relation to the Welsh people. The Government's case was, of course, predicated on the Welsh electorate, not the Welsh people. Half a million Welsh people live within the confines of England. A huge proportion of the Welsh electorate is excluded from discussion of these matters. Family, love and community mean that we, the melting pot in England, with Welsh Members elected as English representatives, have a fundamental interest in ensuring the well-being of each part of the Union.

      885
      We have heard the prattling, if I may so, of the Welsh secessionist party, which appears to think that Wales is a fiscally self-contained unit and could launch itself on the international stage, maintaining the standards of living and the aspirations of most of Britain on its own economic base, for which it condemns 18 years of Thatcherism or Conservative government? The rigamarole goes on through each debate, but in this instance we are talking about a matter of substance. We are one small island in the world. We are intermingled by blood and common language. The nonsense that I so often hear is expressed as a form of irritation by many in Wales, who say that they are corralled in Welsh-speaking schools when their heritage for more than a millennium has been integration with England. Indeed, when we divide the Union and talk about it, England and Wales is the unit on which we reflect; that has been the position for most of us for most of our lives.
      The secessionists now see that unit as an inconvenient association. They now postulate to the Welsh people that without funding from across Britain—Welsh, Scottish and English taxpayers as well—it would float off into some glorious financial future as a free-standing independent nation, separate from the other nations of this commonwealth of Britain. That has been the tone and temper of our debates as they have developed on these most delicate subjects. I genuinely think that that is why Wales has been so cautious about going for the route proposed by the Government. I genuinely think that.
      That is no criticism of the Government. I think that they were fixing a political fix in the Welsh Labour party. Wales got what it wanted, and that was a Labour Government. That was the substance of it all. We are now hearing demands and interpretations of matters within the remit of the White Paper that are far beyond anything to which the Government have committed themselves. As a result, caution is urged by English elected representatives. I say that because my neighbouring constituency Member is the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is Welsh born. The hon. Gentleman is proud of his associations with Wales.
      Divisiveness is introduced by those who think that they are mounting a separate state within the Union of Britain while at the same time expecting others to fund their ambitions.
      Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Shepherd: No. I have finished.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: I well understand the thrust of the arguments that have been presented to us so forcefully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). My right hon. Friend believes that, in the new era of devolved government, Wales needs an insurance policy. He thinks that it should have reassurance that it will not be worse off than it is now. As I understand it, that is the basis of my right hon. Friend's amendment.
      Perhaps my right hon. Friend takes the view that I have outlined because, having had the benefit of long experience in Parliament, his estimation of human behaviour may be rather more pessimistic than mine. On any level, however, I believe that there are fallacies in his argument.
      Why should a more transparent and devolved system of government preclude a genuine debate on what the various regions of the United Kingdom require to produce
      886
      equalisation and parity in terms of prosperity? That sort of debate is common elsewhere in Europe. I know that my right hon. Friend is antipathetic towards the concept of Europe, as are various Opposition Members. However, there exists a system for regional transfers within Europe that is entirely consistent with the concept of member states—let alone the modest form of regional government that we propose. There is an open debate in Europe about which regions within Europe should receive transfers. We expect that there will be a healthy debate in Wales about the structural funds for which Wales will be eligible under the Agenda 2000 proposals. These funds should most certainly be based on gross domestic product and should reflect the fact that Wales is far less prosperous than other regions of the United Kingdom.
      I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, with respect, because I believe that we need a healthy and open debate that takes on board an assessment of real needs. As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, I shall refer to five issues that show that there is a need to reconsider the present formula, non-statutory though it is, for the redistribution of resources. He says that he cannot trust the English, in perhaps somewhat intemperate language, although I understand the spirit with which it was stated: that, if we do not enshrine the formula in legislation we will be far worse off. But if the formula is enshrined in legislation, I do not trust this Parliament to be prepared to improve the present situation and to embark on a genuine open debate as to what the regions and nations of the United Kingdom require. If the formula is enshrined, it may be the minimum, within which we shall be trapped.
      Wales has the lowest gross domestic product per head of any region in the United Kingdom. It also has the lowest level of personal disposable income of any region in the United Kingdom. The level of economic activity in Wales is very low. I am speaking specifically of my constituency, where economic activity and prosperity are among the lowest in the United Kingdom. Economic activity in Wales is above only that of Merseyside and the north-east of England. Average earnings in Wales are the second lowest in Britain, and are above only those of the north-east of England. Wales has the highest proportion of the population in the United Kingdom reporting long-term illness. Those facts serve to underline the point that the Barnett formula, based as it is on the historical, somewhat unscientific, inherited baseline, does not really address the objective criteria of relative deprivation.
      I see strength in the Plaid Cymru amendment, which would import objective criteria into the assessment of budgetary transfers in the United Kingdom, but I suspect that it will be unworkable. What is needed is an open and transparent debate. Britain will continue to exist. Many Labour Members accept that the United Kingdom consists of various nations, and are proud to be Members of the British Parliament, which will, of course, continue and retain sovereignty.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin, for allowing me to participate in the debate. I shall make some observations on the Barnett formula and whether it could be improved on, and whether it can be caused to survive or be strengthened, so that there is a guarantee that it will continue beyond the process of democratic devolution—in so far as we can overcome the absence of

      887
      a written constitution and the fundamental principle of this Parliament that we have never found a mechanism to bind our successors.
      I do not agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, and I certainly do not agree with a great deal that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said. There has been a general call from both sides of the Committee that we should try to find a way of causing the Barnett formula, or another resource transfer mechanism based on objective criteria of relative need, to be written into the Bill, and that there should be another means of the Government declaring that they will produce a resource transfer mechanism, which is undoubtedly one of the fundamental features that can make or break successful devolution, before all the Parliamentary proceedings are over, so that, whatever the disputes resolution mechanism, it is there for guidance—for judges in judicial review cases, or whatever it is needed for. If they do that, we will have had the firmest possible declaration from Ministers about how they propose that the resource transfer mechanism will operate in future.
      It is precisely because of devolution that the Barnett formula, and its predecessor, the Goschen formula, came into existence, not despite devolution, as my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman seemed to argue: that a further act of devolution is a threat to the Barnett formula. That is a totally unhistoric view. The Barnett formula came into existence because of the expectation of devolution. Some have said, "You cannot prove that," and, of course, it cannot be proven, because the formula is somewhat shrouded in mystery.
      The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that the formula emerged only two years after it had been agreed between the Government Departments. He is right. Trying to get back to the origins of the formula and to see a document that clearly states it is difficult. It is like one of those theorems. As has been said of other formulae, trying to find out who understands the Barnett formula is difficult. Only three people understand it: one is mad, one is dead and the other one is an academic who, unfortunately, is on a sabbatical bicycling across the Gobi desert.
      6.15 pm
      There is an element of truth about that. The formula is open to dispute. However, it is certainly true that, fortunately, the academic in this case, Professor David Heald of Aberdeen university, is not on sabbatical bicycling across the Gobi desert, but quite recently gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. Appearing before the Select Committee might be far worse than bicycling across the Gobi desert, but he was there. As far as I am aware, he is the only academic to have taken much interest in the Barnett formula. I quote briefly what he said about it:
      "With a view to regularising the financial relationship between the UK Exchequer and the proposed Scottish Assembly, the Labour Government in 1978 established a formula which linked changes in 'Scottish block expenditure' to changes in 'public expenditure in England on those services within the Scottish block'."
      There are not many academics with an interest in this subject, and I take that as a fairly definitive statement from the only academic who is interested.
      888
      Lord Barnett differed slightly from that view when asked about this in the Treasury Committee, but he was asked the wrong question. He was not asked: "Was it because of devolution?" but "Was it because of devolution and the rise of Welsh and Scottish nationalism?" He said that that was part of the picture, but that there were other reasons. There were, of course, reasons other than resource transfer. These related to devolution, but were not to do with resource transfer. One of those issues was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—to avoid the annual punch-up. That was the basis of the Goschen formula, which was brought in shortly after the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office were introduced in 1885.
      The Goschen formula was developed by the Liberal Government at the time to avoid annual punch-ups involving the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Devolution causes formulae to be brought in. It is not a threat to the formulae. So long as we can agree on all that, we might be able to agree on the strongest formula that we can devise, given the absence of a written constitution and our inability to bind our successors. I hope that Ministers will be able to deal with that.
      The other issue that the Barnett formula enshrined was delegation within the block. The Treasury ceased to control the expenditure of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, and a year later the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They could spend the money any way that they chose within the block that had been agreed. If they wanted to have a big year on roads and a lower year on health, or if they wanted to do the reverse, they did not have to justify it to the Treasury. That was in expectation of devolution. It is clearly inconceivable to have Treasury control over individual items of expenditure if there is democratic devolution. They were freeing up the Treasury control mechanisms on individual items of expenditure.
      Those are the three principles of the Barnett formula. First, it enshrined higher expenditure per head in the block by fixing the baseline and tying the changes to an agreed formula. Secondly, it avoided the annual punch-ups by that means. That is why it has lasted for so long. Thirdly, there was no Treasury control over individual expenditure decisions within the block. My right hon. Friend also made the point that Wales is a poor country. We all know that. There is no question about that. Therefore a resource transfer mechanism is critical.
      We must remember that public expenditure comes in three categories. There is the Welsh block—what the Secretary of State for Wales spends. There is a little outside the block, but by and large we are talking about expenditure on health, education, roads and highways, and most agricultural expenditure. Then there is the critical area mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli: social security, which has nothing to do with the Secretary of State for Wales.
      Another item is included in the resource transfer calculations relating to how dependent Wales is on the English taxpayer. Because Wales is a big retirement area, a large proportion of pensioners live there, and, relative to the population as a whole, a large proportion depend on benefits. That is an inheritance from our history of heavy industry: the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned slate quarrying and coal mining.

      889
      Defence procurement is said to be completely outside the area of identifiable regional defence expenditure. We have only 1 per cent. of defence procurement relative to 5 per cent. of the population, which is a loss—if we want to call it a loss—of some £400 million in annual payments towards wages that would be earned in Wales if we had the same share of defence procurement as we have of population. Obviously, that means that there are many fewer well-paid jobs in Wales than there would be otherwise, but defence procurement cannot be distributed region by region or nation by nation in the United Kingdom.
      In a sense, defence procurement is the regional policy of areas with a large number of defence establishments. It is, for instance, the regional policy of the Preston area, which is near the constituency of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), an Opposition spokesman. There is the question of the vast taxpayer funding for British Aerospace—
      Mr. Rowlands: It was the Neville Chamberlain Government.
      Mr. Morgan: There are greater experts than me in the Chamber, so we will not go into the issue now.
      I hope that Ministers will take on board what has been said by hon. Members in all parties. We have asked for the solidest possible enshrining in legislation or in declaration that would be proof against judicial review, and would help the Welsh assembly. We want something that will say, "There shall be a resource transfer mechanism"—a mechanism that will be based on the Barnett formula, or on something better and more lasting. It will strike people as odd, when they look at regional devolution measures throughout Europe, that the Bill makes no reference to the need for and provision of a resource transfer mechanism.
      Mr. Martin Caton: For the time being, I too support maintenance of the Barnett formula as a mechanism for ensuring that Wales receives its fair share when Budget changes occur. That formula, however, just ensures that Wales receives any increase due to it on the basis of proportion of population, as was made clear earlier. That is why the formula could not prevent Wales from falling further behind England in terms of gross national product per head between 1976 and last year—and that is why I am attracted to amendment No. 435. The amendment, tabled by Plaid Cymru, tries to address need in Wales as compared to other parts of Britain.
      I agree with the intention of the amendment, which is to establish objective indicators that can identify and realistically compare need. GDP, relative deprivation and sparsity are certainly factors that need to be included if we are serious about establishing a new needs-based formula. Apart from GDP per head, however, in terms of any comparators for economic activity—unemployment, the proportion of people out of work and not seeking work, youth unemployment, household disposable income or average earnings—Wales is markedly worse off than England in regard to wealth and the ability to create it.
      How would we measure relative deprivation? Would we relate it to age and condition of housing stock? Wales has almost twice as many unfit homes as England, in percentage terms, and far more old homes. Rates of
      890
      homelessness are also higher in Wales. As for health, the picture in Wales—as compared to England—is even bleaker. Wales has more long-term health problems; a much higher proportion of people receive sickness, invalidity or disablement benefit; there are higher death rates from heart disease; there are more cancer registrations; and there are longer waits for hospital treatment.
      What does sparsity mean in real terms for real people? It means smaller primary schools—although, ironically, classes are frequently larger. It means twice the road length to maintain per head of population compared with England. It means that public transport—although even more vital—is often very expensive for both the individual and the public purse.
      I am not convinced that amendment No. 435 adequately provides the framework for a new needs assessment formula, or whether it should be part of the Bill. If, however—as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said—there is a growing belief that spending in Wales, as compared to spending in the United Kingdom as a whole, should be reviewed, we must find a way of analysing comparative need objectively. I am convinced, on the basis of my experience and observation in my constituency and elsewhere as well as on the basis of statistics, that any fair review would result in an acknowledgement of the need to increase Wales's share of the cake rather than cutting it.
      Mr. Hain: I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—which will worry him—that the debate has been crucial. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who makes a valuable contribution to our debates, treated us to a rant rather than the intelligent speech that we have come to expect from him. I note that last night the hon. Gentleman voted for the proposition that there should be a Prime Minister of Wales; I am not sure how that squares with what he said this evening.
      I particularly enjoyed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), which was typically witty and erudite. He does not trust the English—I assume because English clubs have been nicking all the best Llanelli players.
      I apologise if my speech takes a little longer than ministerial speeches of this kind normally do, but many important points have been raised. First, let me deal with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said about amendment No. 371, which deals with a slightly different aspect of the assembly's funding. The amendment would have the undesired effect of preventing the assembly from receiving money that Ministers or Departments have received from sources other than Parliament, which happens now in regard to some European money that the European Commission pays to a Department which, in turn, pays it to the Welsh Office. One instance is the European social fund, which comes via the Department for Education and Employment. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has tabled only a probing amendment, as amendment No. 371 would stop such arrangement from continuing.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) referred to the consolidated fund. The existing parliamentary arrangements would oblige the Treasury to release the amounts voted by Parliament from a

      891
      consolidated fund to the Secretary of State for Wales. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which a Westminster Executive would seek to defy the sovereignty of Parliament and abandon those arrangements.
      My hon. Friend mentioned Scotland. Scotland is different: it has its own consolidated fund because revenues from any income tax levied there will go into it. I should add, however, that the Scottish consolidated fund will not protect the concerns raised by my hon. Friend, because it will still be largely dependent on payments into it by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Government's White Paper "A Voice for Wales" committed us to retaining the present arrangements for deciding the size of the block that is allocated to Wales. That means linking changes to the Welsh block to changes in Government spending on comparable English programmes.
      The Barnett formula, as it has come to be known, has operated in Wales and Scotland for many years and it has clearly achieved some acceptance. No obvious replacement of it would be fairer.
      Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend has gone on to another section of his speech. I thought that I should wait until he finished his point before I intervened.
      What assurance can he give the Committee that any money voted by Parliament for the national assembly will be paid forthwith into the bank for the national assembly?
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Hain: I realise that my hon. Friend is concerned about cheques being delayed in the post and so on, but I am sure that any Parliament will want to ensure that its relationship with the assembly is stable, honest and open, and that the procedures allow for that.
      The Barnett formula is clear and easy to understand. It does not give Wales a disproportionate increase—it is purely a mechanical exercise that is based on relative populations. Criticism of Barnett often arises because of confusion between the absolute size of the block and the mechanism for adjustments.
      The right hon. Member for Devizes quoted somewhat selectively, although accurately, from the Select Committee's report. It did not really challenge the case for Barnett. If the Government decide on a needs assessment, I am confident that Wales will not suffer. That point was made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who I understand is to star in a "Panorama" programme that examines precisely the problems in his constituency that are a legacy of 18 years of Conservative rule. That is the background against which we are discussing this matter.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney raised in-year changes to the block. It is correct to say that such changes are not reflected through the Barnett formula, but there are exceptions and they are explained in the principles of the block budget for Wales, which were published by the Treasury in December. Paragraphs 10 and 11 describe circumstances in which
      892
      access to the reserve can be obtained by the Secretary of State for Wales and of course subsequently by the Welsh assembly.
      Mr. Rowlands: If there were an expenditure review and an urgent cut in public expenditure in the year, how would that be translated into assembly spending?
      Mr. Hain: A Labour Government are not going to make any proposals for such adjustments. In the event of a disaster or similar event, a claim on the block could be made. Under the principles and rules that were published in December by the Treasury, a claim on the reserve could be made.
      I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Caton), for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that Wales has higher needs. They are demonstrated by major economic indicators.
      The latest figures available show that Wales has the lowest gross domestic product in Great Britain; it is only 83.1 per cent. of the UK average—and it has fallen, by the way, in the past 10 years or so under a Conservative Government. Wales also has the lowest personal disposable income of any region in the UK—that, too, has fallen since 1979. Average earnings in Wales are the second lowest in Great Britain. They too have fallen proportionately since 1979. Economic inactivity in Wales is more than 4 per cent. higher than it is in England; for men of working age, the figure is more than 5 per cent. higher. Apart from those economic indicators, the need to spend more in Wales is reflected in the statistics on the health of the Welsh population, the poorer housing conditions and the lower educational achievements.
      It would not have been meaningful or practical to include the details of the formula and block rules in the Bill, as hon. Members have requested. As I have explained, the formula does not determine what the base line of the Welsh block is. I suspect that it would have been a novel use of primary legislation to specify that the Secretary of State should pay to the assembly no less than a particular sum of money. That would have flown in the face of the usual supply procedure by which Parliament approves the Government's requests for funds and authorises expenditure through the annual Appropriation Act. Inclusion of the formula in the Bill could not, therefore, have guaranteed that the assembly would receive a particular level of resources. In short, it would not have been meaningful.
      The practical objection to including the formula and the block rules in the Bill is that the formula and rules are complicated, detailed and subject to change, for reasons that I shall explain. There would either have to have been an order-making power to amend the formula and rules in the Bill or, more likely, acceptance from the outset that the formula and rules would appear only in subordinate legislation.
      Both the formula and the block rules are subject to regular revision. For example, the current rules will need to be amended to allow for the inclusion of forestry and domestic agriculture programmes in the Welsh block when they are transferred, as they will be, to the assembly. The Government have also announced that the population ratio that underpins the formula will be updated annually

      893
      from 1999–2000 onwards. It would therefore not be possible to put the population share in legislation without the ability to amend the legislation annually.
      Nor does the formula tell the whole story of adjustments to the block. Increases or decreases can occur because of asset sales, changes in responsibilities or the imposition of new burdens, whether by the UK Government on the assembly and on its spending programmes or by the assembly on Government Departments.
      Mr. Wigley: In case we do not have time otherwise, will the Minister clarify whether the assembly will be entitled to keep the revenue obtained by asset sales?
      Mr. Hain: That depends on what the asset sale is. If it is a property owned by the assembly—an office block, say--there would be a case for that. If there were a privatisation in Wales—such as the privatisation of Welsh Water—the returns would go back to the Treasury.
      The assembly will not be responsible for all Government expenditure in Wales and some of the expenditure for which it will be responsible will continue to be outside the block arrangements, such as most Europe-funded agriculture expenditure—a point that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
      Any reference to the Barnett formula in the Bill would mean that the whole system would need to be built into legislation. It may not be in the Bill, but the formula—this is an important point; it has not been lightly done—is referred to in the financial memorandum to the Bill, which again shows the Government's continuing commitment to retaining the present arrangements. However, it would not be meaningful or practical to include the details of the formula in the Bill itself. Changes to the Welsh block will continue to be determined by a formula, not by annual negotiations, as the amendments would require.
      I remind the Committee that the formula and block rules have operated for nearly two decades without being included in legislation. During that period, they have operated entirely satisfactorily in terms of their mechanical operation, even under a Conservative Government who were hostile to Wales—[Interruption.] The Conservative Government were indeed hostile to Wales, as any of my constituents would confirm, in terms of the repeated attacks and insults heaped on Wales and the denial of our democracy.
      To ensure that the formula and block rules are entirely open and subject to scrutiny, the Government, for the first time since the Barnett formula came into being—we deserve credit for this—published the principles that govern the block and formula arrangements on 8 December. I did not hear a chorus of criticism in the House when that document was published.
      We are committed to publishing the full rules in due course and any revisions to them. Any major changes to the block and formula rules will be carried out only after a full study of relevant spending needs. That would be the time to consider such factors as GDP, sparsity of population and relative deprivation. The National Assembly for Wales would be fully involved in any such study.
      894
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli raised important points about concordats with the Treasury. There will indeed be a concordat between the assembly and the Treasury. It will cover, for example, the information to be exchanged between the assembly and Treasury. The Barnett formula and block rules will be published separately from any such concordat. The principles of the formula and the block rules were published in December, and we are committed to publishing the full block and formula rules and any significant changes to them.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Barnett formula principles will not be in the concordat—the agreement—between the assembly and the Treasury?
      Mr. Hain: The Barnett formula principles have already been published. The rules will also be published and the financial arrangements between the assembly and the Treasury will be published in a concordat.
      The Government's view is that the determination of the Welsh block is best handled administratively, as it is now, but in a much more open and transparent fashion. Clause 81 obliges my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to lay before the assembly a written statement of its estimated resources for each financial year. That will include details of how the total amounts have been calculated through the block and the formula system. That statement is the proper one in which to set out how the formula has been operated in any given year.
      I welcome the wish to ensure that Wales's needs for a proportionately higher share of UK resources continue to be recognised, but it would not be appropriate to insert that sentiment in the Bill. I hope that my full explanation will satisfy the Committee why it is inappropriate to include the Barnett formula in legislation. The new openness that we propose about the detail of the formula and its operation each year is a much better guarantee of a fair settlement, and Parliament and the assembly will, for the first time, be able to see exactly how the formula operates. That is a stronger and more efficient form of accountability than attempting to capture the procedures in primary legislation.
      Amendment No. 18 would involve unnecessary bureaucracy. It would strangle the assembly with bureaucracy—but perhaps that is not surprising because it is a Conservative amendment. It would require certificates to precede each payment by a Minister or Department. The overall position will be adequately set out in the statement for which clause 81 provides. The amendment is typical of the Opposition's churlish and niggling approach to the Bill.
      There is adequate protection in our proposed arrangements to secure the financial basis for the assembly's budget. I ask the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) not to press his amendment to a vote, and I hope that the Committee will support the clause.
      Mr. Livsey: The debate has been wide-ranging, and many important principles have been enunciated in an effort to define how the assembly will be funded. Hon. Members have tended to focus on the Barnett formula, which has been operating for two decades.
      The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) raised several important issues and said that much more money is coming in than is calculated by the Barnett formula

      895
      because of social security and other payments. The resource transfer mechanism needs to be better defined in the Bill, and the amendments relate to the Barnett formula. As the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) raised similar issues, there seems to be some agreement that the method of funding should be defined. There is no complacency in the Treasury. The Secretary of State has taken a great interest in trying to ensure adequate funding for the assembly.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said that the Barnett formula was convenient because it avoided negotiations. That is a strong point. I understand the views of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) who tabled amendment No. 435 on the crucial issue of need. As hon. Members have said, Wales has many needs. It has low wages, a low gross domestic product, high unemployment and high social deprivation. I did not quite understand the rather intemperate speech made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I am not a nationalist, but many members of my family lost the Welsh language because of discrimination. There are historical reasons for the majority of people in Wales no longer speaking the native tongue. Only about 20 per cent. of its people speak Welsh.
      6.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) spoke about an insurance policy in relation to the Barnett formula advanced by the right hon. Member for Llanelli. We have certainly had a healthy and open debate on many matters. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) rightly said that there was a need for a defined formula. The debate has identified the many problems that arise from rural and urban deprivation in Wales and has shown the requirement for a definition of need. That has not been spelt out in the Bill. We have debated the complex issues. In some respects, the Barnett formula has stood Wales in good stead, but there has been a reduction in GDP.
      I was glad to hear the Minister say that the concordat will be different from the statement in the explanatory and financial memorandum, in that the Barnett formula will be acknowledged. He spoke about deprivation in Wales. The Bill must refer to the principles of resource transfer. If it is not acceptable to put the Barnett formula in the Bill, some kind of statement must be made about how to proceed.
      In the light of the full debate on it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Robert Syms: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 38, line 32, at end insert—
      '(3) The Secretary of State shall receive representations and consult interested parties, including the Assembly, as to payments made under this section.'.
      The Secretary of State will continue to be accountable to Parliament, but he will become the paymaster of the assembly. That is made clear in the notes on clauses, which state that he will be free to determine the amount of such payments. His role will be as a conduit for resources and it is important to amend the Bill to make him more accountable to the people of Wales.
      896
      The assembly will be one of the few examples of an elected body with no direct financial link with voters. Local authorities and even parish councils have some sort of financial link. The briefing paper in the Library states:
      "Indeed Executive Devolution is unlikely to be stable or long lasting because it is so heavily dependent on co-operation between Cardiff and Westminster."
      We are not so sure about Cardiff. Those of us who love the Union wish to strengthen the arrangement by trying to get around the disadvantages of the arrangements in the Bill.
      Administrative devolution is an unusual creation and will require creative and imaginative suggestions—such as our amendment—to make it work. We therefore feel that incorporating amendment No. 15 would be an improvement. We feel also that it is not unreasonable that the assembly should be consulted on financial matters. Indeed, there is no reason why it should not be consulted.
      We can now clearly discern in the Bill the shape of the assembly. We cannot, however, discern the Secretary of State's role. Our amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State's future role is defined. As Secretaries of State, Members of the Assembly, hon. Members and Governments come and go, our amendment would provide a safeguard by establishing a formal consultative process so that people in Wales may feed their views back to Westminster through the Secretary of State.
      We believe also that the consultation process should include other bodies, such as trade unions and the Confederation of British Industry. A formal consultative procedure could be useful to the Secretary of State in establishing a financial background for those from Wales who provide advice and participate in consultation.
      We have heard that the Bill is not an event but a process and that further powers may be given. If we provide a consultative role for both the assembly and the people of Wales, there will be a useful check in ensuring that the assembly's and people's views are fed back, via the Secretary of State, to the House.
      We have heard much about accountability, inclusiveness and openness, yet clause 80 states nakedly the power of the Secretary of State. Although—to give credit to the Secretary of State—some of the proposals that we are debating are meant to reduce that power, our amendment would help to achieve that end. Creating a formal consultation process would help over a period of years to improve the role and relationship between the assembly and Westminster.
      Mr. Hain: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It was a very confident and pleasant performance.
      The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): In contrast with the rest of the Opposition Front Bench.
      Mr. Hain: I am far too nice to make such a point. I welcome the hon. Member for Poole to his new role.
      On amendment No. 15, I should first make it clear that the assembly will be free to make any representations on funding that it wishes to make to my right hon. Friend. Paragraph D.14 of the White Paper made it clear that that was our intention, and clause 34 gives the assembly the power to make representations on any matter affecting

      897
      Wales. Nothing will prevent anyone who wishes to make representations from doing so. Therefore, amendment No. 15 is unnecessary for that purpose.
      The amendment attempts also to ensure that my right hon. Friend will consult the assembly about its funding. I give the Committee an absolute commitment that discussions about those matters will take place between the assembly and my right hon. Friend during each public expenditure survey—subject to the operation of the Barnett formula, which we discussed in the previous debate.
      We can be sure that the assembly will want to give the Secretary of State its views on the total level of resources that should be made available to it, any special factors that it wishes the Government to take into account in reaching their decision and its views on the detailed operation of the block formula. I expect a chorus of views from the assembly, through the Secretary of State, to the Cabinet.
      The assembly and the Secretary of State's office will also have to discuss technical matters, such as settling the schedule of instalments of payments made by the Secretary of State to the assembly. There is no need for legislation to spell out how those discussions should be held. Moreover, the amendment would risk creating a more formalised and costly process by adding further statutory requirements for a potentially wide consultation process with undefined "interested parties".
      I realise—undoubtedly I will be accused of being churlish for saying this—that the Tories need something to vote on today to justify their role as an Opposition, but amendment No. 15 should not be it. Behind the official Opposition's criticism of the Bill is an assumption that there will be massive conflict between the assembly and the Secretary of State—who the Opposition regard both as powerless and, conversely, as the powerful block to the assembly achieving its objectives. He cannot be both.
      The Government are engaged in creating a new democracy and a new pluralism in Britain's democracy. The nation of Wales, the nation of Scotland and, eventually, the regions of England will be engaged in a process of dialogue, debate and—yes—pressure, and in a listening process.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: As someone who is Welsh by descent, I think that it is rather peculiar that the Minister should talk about creating a new democracy. One in four electors in Wales decided that they would like an assembly, whereas three in four either did not bother to vote or voted against the assembly.
      Mr. Hain: That really is like an old gramophone record. The hon. Gentleman simply does not wish to accept the results of a democratic decision of the Welsh people. The referendum result was clear. It stands, and no one can challenge it.
      Mr. Ancram: I wonder whether the Minister can explain to the Committee how that new democracy and new friendship were demonstrated by the argument
      898
      between the Secretary of State and the leader of Cardiff county council—a member of the Labour party—over the location of the assembly?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are debating a specific amendment, to which the Minister is replying.
      Mr. Hain: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend and the council leader were engaged in a loving and intimate dialogue—
      Mr. Ron Davies: Politically.
      Mr. Hain: They were engaged politically, yes—not in any sense personally. I should like to comment—if you will allow me, Mr. Martin—on the supreme irony of the Conservative party's claim that it is listening to Wales. It would be the first time in its history that it has listened to Wales. Wales was not listened to by a Conservative Government for 18 long years—during which our jobs were attacked, our coal mines were closed and all the indices of deprivation—in housing, wealth, education and employment—plunged in comparison with the rest of Britain. Wales was left behind by the Conservative Government. The Conservatives did not listen to Wales and that is why, on 1 May, they were wiped out of Wales in the general election.
      The Government are confident that we will establish a new democratic relationship between the people of Wales and the House. Their views will be communicated through the House to the Government, and through the Secretary of State to the Cabinet. The Bill and its specific provision for finance for the Welsh assembly will guarantee a strong and lively democracy rather than one that is strangled from the centre—which is what Conservative rule has been all about. I urge the Committee to resist amendment No. 15 and to resist the Conservative party.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 114, Noes 350.

      Division No. 146]

      [6.57 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Amess, David

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Duncan, Alan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evans, Nigel

      Baldry, Tony

      Faber, David

      Bercow, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fallon, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Boswell, Tim

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Brady, Graham

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fraser, Christopher

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gale, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      Garnier, Edward

      Butterfill, John

      Gibb, Nick

      Cash, William

      Gill, Christopher

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Gray, James

      Chope, Christopher

      Green, Damian

      Clappison, James

      Greenway, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Collins, Tim

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Colvin, Michael

      Hammond, Philip

      899

      Hayes, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Horam, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Ruffley, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spring, Richard

      Lansley, Andrew

      Steen, Anthony

      Leigh, Edward

      Swayne, Desmond

      Letwin, Oliver

      Syms, Robert

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Loughton, Tim

      Townend, John

      Luff, Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Trend, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Madel, Sir David

      Walter, Robert

      Malins, Humfrey

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wells, Bowen

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wilkinson, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Willetts, David

      Norman, Archie

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ottaway, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Paice, James

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Paterson, Owen

      Pickles, Eric

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Prior, David

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Mr. James Cran.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Byers, Stephen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Alexander, Douglas

      Caborn, Richard

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cann, Jamie

      Ashton, Joe

      Caplin, Ivor

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Casale, Roger

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caton, Martin

      Austin, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Baker, Norman

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Banks, Tony

      Chaytor, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Chidgey, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clelland, David

      Betts, Clive

      Clwyd, Ann

      Blackman, Liz

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cohen, Harry

      Boateng, Paul

      Coleman, Iain

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Brake, Tom

      Cotter, Brian

      Breed, Colin

      Cranston, Ross

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Crausby, David

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cummings, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Burgon, Colin

      Dafis, Cynog

      Burnett, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Burstow, Paul

      Darvill, Keith

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      900

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Davidson, Ian

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Dawson, Hilton

      Hurst, Alan

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hutton, John

      Denham, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Ingram, Adam

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jamieson, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jenkins, Brian

      Doran, Frank

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dowd, Jim

      Drew, David

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Efford, Clive

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Etherington, Bill

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Feam, Ronnie

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Fisher, Mark

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keetch, Paul

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      Kemp, Fraser

      Flint, Caroline

      Kidney, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Follett, Barbara

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Foulkes, George

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Galbraith, Sam

      Laxton, Bob

      Gapes, Mike

      Lepper, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Levitt, Tom

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Linton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Livsey, Richard

      Godsiff, Roger

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Goggins, Paul

      Lock, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McAllion, John

      Gorrie, Donald

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Grant, Bernie

      McCabe, Steve

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Grocott, Bruce

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Grogan, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hain, Peter

      McDonnell, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hancock, Mike

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hanson, David

      McLeish, Henry

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McNulty, Tony

      Harris, Dr Evan

      MacShane, Denis

      Harvey, Nick

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Healey, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hill, Keith

      Martlew, Eric

      Hinchliffe, David

      Maxton, John

      Hoey, Kate

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Home Robertson, John

      Meale, Alan

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Merron, Gillian

      Hope, Phil

      Michael, Alun

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Milburn, Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Miller, Andrew

      901

      Mitchell, Austin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Moore, Michael

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

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

      Mountford, Kali

      Snape, Peter

      Mudie, George

      Soley, Clive

      Mullin, Chris

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Spellar, John

      Norris, Dan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Oaten, Mark

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stevenson, George

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stott, Roger

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stringer, Graham

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Stunell, Andrew

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pendry, Tom

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pike, Peter L

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pond, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pound, Stephen

      Todd, Mark

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Trickett, Jon

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Purchase, Ken

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rammell, Bill

      Tyler, Paul

      Raynsford, Nick

      Vaz, Keith

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rendel, David

      Watts, David

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Webb, Steve

      White, Brian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Willis, Phil

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wills, Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wilson, Brian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Winnick, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wise, Audrey

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wood, Mike

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mr. John McFall and

      Singh, Marsha

      Jane Kennedy.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [2 February], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 81 to 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 87

      NATIONAL LOANS FUND LENDING
      Amendments made: No. 285, in page 41, line 33, leave out 'Minister of the Crown' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
      No. 286, in page 41, line 39, leave out 'Minister of the Crown' and insert 'Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Clause 87, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 88 and 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 90

      AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WALES
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 331, in page 42, leave out lines 28 and 29.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 332, in page 42, line 42, leave out from first 'so' to end of line 43.
      No. 476, in clause 92, page 43, line 28, after 'may', insert
      'with the agreement of the Assembly.'.
      No. 338, in page 44, line 1, leave out from '(7)' to 'shall' in line 3 and insert
      'Each member of the staff of the Auditor General for Wales'.
      No. 477, in clause 93, page 44, leave out lines 22 to 24.
      No. 339, in page 44, leave out lines 25 to 29.
      No. 478, in page 44, line 45, after 'Treasury', insert
      'and shall publish in the form agreed by the Assembly details of any accounts audited by him during the financial year.'.
      Mr. Ancram: Amendments Nos. 331, 332, 338 and 339 are probing amendments. Amendment No. 331 would delete subsection (2), which says:
      "The person for the time being holding that office"
      the office of the Auditor General for Wales—
      "shall by the name of that office be a corporation sole."
      What is a corporation sole? What does it mean? What would happen if the Auditor General for Wales were not a corporation sole? Would the people of Wales suffer if he were not? Are there financial considerations in being a corporation sole? Does it assist him in carrying out his job? In short, is this a necessary provision? In my limited experience of such matters, it seems a strange provision. I am sure that the Minister will convince me otherwise. I shall listen with interest to his explanation.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The Minister is a lost soul.
      Mr. Ancram: If the Minister can explain how to transfer from a lost soul to a corporation sole, I shall be even more interested.
      The Bill allows the Auditor General to be removed from office on the ground of misbehaviour if the Secretary of State recommends his removal to the Queen. However,

      903
      the Secretary of State may make such a recommendation only with the consent of the assembly. Amendment No. 332, which is another probing amendment, would delete that extra provision. The approach in the Bill seems rather long-winded. Is it necessary? Either there is misbehaviour sufficient to warrant removal from office or there is not. If there was a wrong accusation of misbehaviour, I presume that the Auditor General for Wales would have remedies.
      The assembly could second-guess the Secretary of State on what amounted to misbehaviour. What would happen if the Secretary of State and the assembly disagreed? Is it in the interests of Wales for an Auditor General to remain in office if the Secretary of State believes him to be guilty of sackable misbehaviour? Would that be good for respect for the authority of that important office? Would it not tend to undermine the position of the guardian of the financial integrity of the assembly? I ask in all seriousness whether we should guard against that danger and whether the provision requiring consultation with the assembly is necessary.
      Amendment No. 338 refers to clause 92(7). Will the Minister explain its purpose? Does a distinction need to be made between the work of the staff of the Auditor General in their ordinary functions and that requiring them to be a Crown servant for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989? That seems a strange provision. I tabled the probing amendment to find out the thinking behind it. I should have thought that if one is a Crown servant for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act, there is some logic in being a Crown servant otherwise as well.
      Amendment No. 339 would omit clause 93(2). I tabled it because the provision seems odd. It appears to relate to the expenses of the Auditor General that cannot be met by income received by him. Provision is made for those expenses to be paid by others. I should have thought that either expenses were allowable and paid from outside, or not allowable and paid for by the Auditor General. The provision seems to cross those boundaries, and it sparked a degree of interest—not to say suspicion—in my mind. I should be grateful if the Minister could set my mind at rest and assure me that there is nothing to be suspicious about.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I assume that the answer to the many questions asked by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) relates to the staffing structures of the assembly and the fact that the Auditor General's staff have to be firmly placed outside the assembly's staffing structures.
      One of the controversies about setting up the assembly is whether Welsh Office civil service staff who will be transferred to work for the assembly will include what one could approximately call parliamentary staff. Such provision has been made separately for the Scottish Parliament but not for the Welsh assembly. The Welsh assembly's equivalent to parliamentary Clerks will not be separate from general assembly staff; they will be civil servants. There may be Chinese walls between them. In order to ensure that the Auditor General's staff are clearly not civil servants and not part of such an arrangement—which may itself come into question before the Bill has
      904
      completed its passage—they have to be deemed a corporation sole. The Auditor General's staff will stand alone and be responsible only to the Auditor General.
      I am not absolutely sure of my explanation, so I shall listen to any other possible explanations. I believe that the Bill has been structured in such a way to address the issue of how to separate the Auditor General's staff and to whom they are accountable; it ensures that they are not part of the general civil service of the Welsh Office.
      Mr. Dafis: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 477 and 478. Amendment No. 477 is not unlike amendment No. 339, but it would not omit so many lines of clause 93. It also concerns payment of the Auditor General's expenses and relates to additional expenditure that is not covered in the block. Would not such expenses be more appropriately met by the Auditor General's resources? In other words, why should not the money come from the Treasury?
      Amendment No. 478 is simply about openness, and would provide for the publication of accounts audited by the Auditor General. Will the Minister say whether such publication will be required?
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: The question that occurs to me is whether the Auditor General is the servant of the assembly or of the Crown. From clause 90, it would appear that, as he is appointed by the Crown and can be sacked by the Secretary of State—albeit with the approval of the assembly—he is a servant of the Crown. However, under clause 91, he is to be paid by the assembly. I am not sure whether one can—or indeed ought to—serve two masters in that respect.
      Our task in Committee must be to remove potential points of conflict. One potential point is brewing in the arrangements for the dismissal of the Auditor General. If the Auditor General has lost the confidence of the assembly, which pays him, he should go, irrespective of what the Secretary of State might think. If he has lost the confidence of the Secretary of State, but still has the confidence of the assembly, the obverse of the conflict arises. The Bill must provide for one or the other. The merit of amendment No. 332 is clarity; it provides for one and not the other.
      Mr. Öpik: The Liberal Democrats similarly seek clarification. There seems to be a lack of certainty about whether the Auditor General will work for the Government or will be more independent. It goes without saying that we would prefer the post to be independent.
      Perhaps it is just my schooling, but I, too, do not know what corporation sole means. It sounds like a technical description of a ghost, although I am sure that that is not the intent. I should be grateful for clarification.
      I should like to make an observation on amendment No. 339. If we removed the specification that the assembly covered the Auditor General's expenses, even when they were caused by a failure on his or her part, we would effectively be introducing a fine. That is not the right way to go about things. If the individual is incompetent in the role, he or she should be released from employment. If there is a case for a fine, it should be

      905
      pursued through the legal process. It would not be rightbasically—to fine through expenses. I should welcome the Government's views on that.
      Mr. John Hayes: I want to reaffirm the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in two particular areas.
      First, I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy my inquiry about whether it is necessary to make the Auditor General a corporation sole when, as I understand its legal implications, it would make the Auditor General legally liable. I am interested in examples of when that might be deemed necessary.
      The second point, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and is dealt with by amendment No. 332, is the removal of the Auditor General. It could cause conflict to make his removal subject to, first, consultation and, secondly, the approval of the assembly. One notices that they are separate. Surely that could open up a can of worms because, if the Auditor General were in conflict with the assembly, the consultation and approval process would be fraught with difficulties.
      The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes address both those issues. I should be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say about them.
      Mr. Hain: This debate is clearly not a great crowd puller, but it seems to have been designed to keep a Minister on his toes. The Bill provides for the appointment of the Auditor General for Wales by Her Majesty, which underlines the post's independence.
      I accept that, as the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, the amendments are probing, and I stress the importance of the Auditor General's independence. Although he will be appointed by Her Majesty, subsection (7) states that he
      "shall not be regarded as holding office under Her Majesty or as exercising any functions on behalf of the Crown".
      As the Auditor General will not be a Crown servant—he will be an independent being—it is necessary to make clear his powers to enter contracts. That answers the legitimate questions asked by the hon. Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).
      7.30 pm
      The right hon. Member for Devizes and the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Montgomeryshire asked about corporation sole. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that it sounded fishy, but I shall let that pass. Subsection (2) provides that the Auditor General for Wales
      "shall by the name of that office be a corporation sole."
      That means that he has a legal personality equivalent to that of a company.
      That replicates a similar provision in schedule 2(1) to the National Audit Act 1983, which applies to the Comptroller and Auditor General. It ensures that there will be no doubt about the power of the Auditor General for Wales to enter contracts for such mundane items as
      906
      electricity or stationery for his office, or about his powers in more substantial matters such as the right to sue or be sued.
      The Auditor General's status as a corporation sole will mean that rights and liabilities can attach to the office rather than to the individual office holder—people can sue the office rather than the individual office holder. Amendment No. 331 would delete subsection (2) and throw the position into confusion.
      Amendment No. 332 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the assembly before recommending to Her Majesty the removal of the Auditor General on the ground of misbehaviour. I accept that those are unlikely circumstances, but the White Paper made it clear that my right hon. Friend would advise Her Majesty on appointments that she made. We are considering requiring him to consult the assembly about those appointments by means of an order under clause 31.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: There is a complex history to the ways in which extra-parliamentary figures can be removed in extraordinary circumstances. Today, many hon. Members have been considering whether the Director General of the National Lottery can be removed. Some directors general can be removed by a resolution of both Houses but, according to section 1(4) of the National Lottery Act 1993, which governs Oflot,
      "The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as Director General on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour."
      That is parallel to what we are discussing, except for the fact that the Auditor General is supposed to provide, for the Back Benchers, protection against an abuse of power by Front Benchers in the assembly or any quango or public bodies that are accountable to the assembly. The assembly should be involved in the decision to remove the Auditor General, however exceptional the circumstances might be.
      Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As the assembly will be consulted about the appointment of the Auditor General, it is consistent that it should also be consulted about his removal from office—of course, we hope that the need for removal on the ground of misbehaviour will never arise. The assembly will have a closer working relationship with the Auditor General than my right hon. Friend will, so it is right that its views should be taken into account.
      Amendment No. 476 would require the Auditor General to obtain the assembly's agreement before appointing staff or securing services. The Government do not consider that appropriate, as it would fetter the Auditor General's independence, which is especially important to his role in ensuring that the most effective and efficient arrangements are made.
      The Auditor General will be obliged, under clause 93(4) to (7), to consult the assembly's Audit Committee, which will be chaired by a member of a minority party, about his budget. That offers real protection for the Auditor General's independence of operation. Although he will not be accountable to the Committee in the usual sense, he will have to consult it and his arrangements will have to be transparent. It is more appropriate that the assembly's views be taken into account in that way than by the means suggested in the amendment.
      Mr. Hayes: The possible contradiction between accountability and independence lies at the heart of the

      907
      amendments. Does not what the Minister said about amendment No. 476 compromise what he said about the removal of the Auditor General? If the Auditor General is to be truly independent, he should not be bound by the possibility of being removed through the processes of consultation and agreement that we debated earlier.
      Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I do not want to dismiss or deride. It is difficult to strike the correct balance in these matters, but I think that we have done so in the Bill.
      Mr. Ancram: If the Secretary of State believed that there had been sufficient misbehaviour to warrant dismissal but the assembly disagreed, would not that give rise to an unsatisfactory situation in relation to the Auditor General and his ability to continue his work?
      Mr. Hain: If the exact circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes arose, there would clearly be a crisis around the Auditor General. It is difficult to imagine that he would retain the confidence of the democratic fraternity in which he will have to operate in Wales. It is important that there is maximum agreement between the assembly and the Secretary of State, but if the two were in an open conflict, we would have to live with it. The arrangements suggested in the Bill are the best in the circumstances.
      Legislation that creates new public bodies often makes it clear that they are not to be regarded as exercising functions on behalf of the Crown, even when, as in the Auditor General's case, they are appointed by Her Majesty. That makes it clear which bodies or office holders are Crown bodies or Crown servants and which are not. That affects how other legislation applies to them. For example, Crown servants are automatically covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989. Crown bodies enjoy various exemptions under legislation. Amendment No. 338 would alter that unacceptably.
      In the case of the Auditor General and his staff, we decided to follow the precedent of section 3(5) of the National Audit Act 1983 and Statutory Instrument No. 200 of 1990, which provide that the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff are not treated as Crown servants except for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989. That Act should apply to the Auditor General for Wales and his staff because of the access that they may have to classified papers.
      Amendment No. 477, tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), would omit clause 93(1), which would leave it unclear as to who would meet the Auditor General's expenses. As the major benefit of his work would be for the assembly and its public bodies, it is right that the cost should fall to the Welsh block. The assembly will meet all his expenses, to the extent that they are not covered by income. The principal source of income will be audit fees for public bodies' accounts, under clause 93(3).
      Mr. Dafis: Can the Under-Secretary give the Committee any idea of the total costs of the Auditor General?
      Mr. Hain: The costs will be modest.
      908
      Amendment No. 339 would delete clause 93(2), which is modelled on a similar provision in section 4(6) of the National Audit Act 1983, which applies to the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is necessary to ensure that any sums payable as a result of a breach of duty are part of the expenses of the Auditor General for Wales. Without that provision, he might become personally liable for such costs and that would not be desirable.
      Amendment No. 478 would impose a duty on the Auditor General to publish accounts of the bodies that he audits. That is unnecessary for the following reasons. All accounts audited by the Auditor General will have to be laid before the assembly, under clause 97(5) in the case of the assembly's accounts and under clause 138 in respect of the accounts of public bodies, the relevant functions of auditing their accounts being transferred to him by order. Clause 103 requires the assembly to publish all accounts laid before it by the Auditor General. As to the form of the accounts prepared by the public bodies, that will be the subject of directions by the assembly. The relevant powers will be transferred from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to the assembly by Order in Council under clause 22.
      I hope that, with the benefit of those explanations, the right hon. Member for Devizes will agree to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Ancram: I thank the Minister for those explanations, which were genuinely helpful in casting light in some dark places. In the previous debate, the Minister told us how mischievous we were to seek to include an amendment that would require the Secretary of State to consult, because he would do so anyway, and, in this debate, he has told us how irresponsible it would be to remove the requirement to consult, because the Secretary of State might not do so otherwise. Having been in the Minister's place, I know how difficult it is sometimes to reconcile notes from officials, but it is a joy for the Opposition to watch such tangles emerging. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 91 to 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 99

      ACCOUNTS OF ASSEMBLY SUBSIDIARIES ETC
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 343, in page 49, line 30, after 'Assembly', insert
      'or the Welsh Development Agency'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 342, in page 49, line 30, leave out 'an' and insert 'a controlling'.
      Mr. Jenkin: I do not pretend that the amendments are desperately cunning or designed to stretch the Minister out on the rack of office as he seeks to discover our motive. They are simply probing amendments. Clause 99 covers the Auditor General's right of access to accounts

      909
      relating to the assembly's expenditure, including accounts for any assembly subsidiary. The term "Assembly subsidiary" is defined in clause 99(4)(a) as
      "any body corporate in which the Assembly holds an interest".
      Amendments Nos. 343 and 342 would make it clear that an assembly subsidiary should include, for the avoidance of doubt, subsidiaries of the Welsh Development Agency.
      Amendment No. 343 would also make it clear that we should keep to the usual meaning of the word "subsidiary" in corporate matters. In other words, a controlling interest would be necessary. It does not seem reasonable for the Auditor General for Wales to seek the accounts of businesses in which the WDA has a minority stake. That would not be a sensible use of his time or a suitable use of executive power.
      Companies are regulated by the Companies Acts when they publish financial information. I have been a venture capitalist, and I believe that the WDA should have appropriate shareholders' agreements with any private companies in which it has invested. It should not be necessary for the Auditor General for Wales to be able to intrude into private affairs. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Bill already includes the subsidiaries of the WDA in the meaning of the phrase "Assembly subsidiary", and also whether the word "subsidiary" includes any body corporate in which the assembly holds any interest.
      Mr. Öpik: The Liberal Democrats agree with amendment No. 343, which would include the WDA in the requirement to provide accounts. It seems sensible that such an important body is formally included. After all, it will probably become even more important to the Welsh economy and is, therefore, a legitimate target of scrutiny. However, we have a problem with amendment No. 342, because the assembly should have the right to look at the accounts of any organisation in which it has a financial interest.
      Mr. Ancram: The Auditor General.
      Mr. Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman is right to correct me. I mean that the Auditor General should have the right to look at the accounts of such bodies. A sad example from my own constituency illustrates that point well. A company called Merchants Design has gone into liquidation and questions have been raised about whether the necessary proprieties were observed in its financial handling. The right of access to its accounts would be beneficial so that any problems could be exposed.
      Mr. Jenkin: If money from the WDA was invested in the business—even if it was only loan money—a loan agreement would provide the WDA with regular access to management accounts, probably every month. That would be the responsible way in which to conduct the investment. If investment was not conducted in that way, the Auditor General would have an argument with the WDA, not with the failed company. The company would have its own auditors who would ultimately be answerable to Companies House and the Department of Trade and Industry, which regulate the directors of companies. It would be for those bodies to decide whether the company was run properly, not the Auditor General for Wales.
      Mr. Öpik: I understand that point, but it seems to me that there is a problem with that particular company
      910
      specifically because the provision is not enshrined in legislation, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that point.
      It is my understanding that the Bill does not make it mandatory for the Auditor General for Wales to investigate every organisation, but simply gives the Auditor General the right to do so. Surely it is common sense that the Auditor General should have the power to act responsibly and investigate when that is appropriate. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister's views.
      Mr. Hain: I thank the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for the points he raises, which are genuine and probing, and which give us cause to reflect, especially about amendment No. 342. I am also grateful for the points raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), which are legitimate.
      It may help the Committee if I explain the background to clause 99. It caters, among other things, for the possibility that the assembly may establish companies to provide certain services. An example might be if the assembly decided to follow the model of the House of Commons and have a gift shop or cafeteria, and if it decided to run those operations through a subsidiary company. The assembly might also be involved in trusts or charities. Clause 99 ensures that, regardless of the fact that the assembly may have subsidiaries that take a particular legal form, the Auditor General for Wales can have access to their accounts and the Treasury can issue directions about the form of their accounts, if necessary.
      As the Committee would expect, careful consideration was given to the definition of "Assembly subsidiary" in subsection (4). The problem with inserting the word "controlling", as amendment No. 342 would do, is that it would then be necessary to define "controlling", and it is our concern that whatever definition was adopted might enable the assembly to avoid the intended effect of clause 99. If the assembly held, for example, 1,000 shares in a company quoted on the stock exchange, that would not be an interest of the sort that would give rise to the Auditor General seeking access to the books of the company or to the Treasury seeking to direct the form of its accounts. In exercising their functions under clause 99, the Auditor General and the Treasury will be subject to review by the courts in accordance with well-accepted principles regarding the exercise of statutory powers.
      Amendment No. 343 includes a body corporate in which the Welsh Development Agency has an interest in the definition of "Assembly subsidiary". That is not appropriate either. Although the WDA has powers to invest in companies, any such company would in no sense be a subsidiary of the assembly because it would be a subsidiary of a public body funded by the assembly. We intend that the Auditor General will have full access to the WDA's books, including its investments in companies. That will be achieved by order under clauses 136 and 138, and we submit that clause 99 is not the proper place to deal with this matter.
      In inviting the hon. Member for North Essex to withdraw the amendments in the light of my explanation, I stress that, in the past 10 to 15 years in Wales, there has been much questioning of quangos and subsidiaries of quangos, and of the arrangements privately entered into under their aegis. It is absolutely vital that there is full

      911
      transparency and accountability in future, and the Auditor General's powers in this respect, as provided for in the clause, give effect that objective.
      Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has responded to the amendments. I reiterate the need to clarify the question of what is an interest. He asserted that 1,000 shares in a quoted company would not constitute an interest in the accepted sense of the word, and I accept his admonition that defining what is a controlling interest can be extremely complicated. To give an example, one might have 10 per cent. of the ordinary share capital-10 per cent. of the votes—but, when the company goes into default in respect of an agreement, one might find that other, non-voting shares become voting shares and one suddenly has a controlling interest; or the nature of the shareholders' agreement might suggest that one has a controlling interest, even though one does not have a majority of the votes.
      I can understand the difficulty, but I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that there is an issue to be addressed. There is a danger that the assembly may find itself restricted in terms of what it can invest in for the benefit of Wales by having this potentially draconian influence—the Auditor General for Wales—behind it with the ability to interfere in the relationship between the assembly and its non-subsidiaries. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look at the issue again. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 100

      EXAMINATIONS INTO ASSEMBLY'S USE OF RESOURCES
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 344, in page 49, line 34, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 345, in page 49, leave out lines 37 and 38.
      No. 346, in page 49, line 43, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      No. 347, in page 49, line 43, after 'before', insert
      'the House of Commons and'.
      No. 348, in clause 102, page 50, line 28, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      No. 349, in page 50, line 34, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      Mr. Ancram: The clause allows the Auditor General for Wales to investigate
      "the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Assembly has used its resources in discharging its functions."
      It goes on to allow him lay his report before the assembly. We believe that that permissive attitude is insufficient in this instance, where it is important that Auditor General should work in a disciplined and structured way.
      Amendment No. 344 would require him to make such investigations and amendment No. 346 would require him to lay the report before the assembly, rather than leaving
      912
      it to his discretion. Amendment No. 347 would require the report to be laid before the House of Commons as well. The reason for that is that the resources in question will have been voted by the House of Commons and, where there is a report into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which they have been spent, it is right that the House should have sight of it.
      Amendment No. 345 is slightly different. As it stands, the Bill does not permit the Auditor General for Wales to question the merits or otherwise of the assembly's policies. I concede that there may be reasons for that, but it is an unnecessary restriction which could make it less easy for the Auditor General to carry out the permitted examination into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the assembly has used resources to discharge its functions. It could be germane to such an examination to question the merits of the policy objectives in order to assess whether the resources used in pursuit of those objectives have been used in an economic, efficient and effective way. The clause as it stands, therefore, places an unnecessary hurdle in the way of the Auditor General.
      Mr. Öpik: Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned that, by that provision, there is a danger of introducing a clear political tension and a tendency to make political judgments into the Auditor General's activities?
      Mr. Ancram: The Auditor General, who was spoken of earlier in glowing terms as an independent and responsible man, is not likely to do that, and to refuse to allow him to take such considerations into account is to restrict him overmuch.
      Amendment No. 349 is the last in the group. The Audit Commission may lay before the assembly a statement on any report by the Auditor General for Wales, and it may also take evidence on behalf of and report to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. There should be a requirement on the Audit Commission to lay such a report and to act on instructions from the Public Accounts Committee. The PAC, of which I was once a member, is the House's watchdog over the way in which resources voted by the House are spent and it should have that responsibility and power in respect of the Auditor General for Wales. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration, if not to these particular amendments, to the thought that lies behind them.
      Mr. Hain: The Public Accounts Committee will have the right to look into any aspect of the assembly's finances and no amendment is required to enable it to do that, because it acts on behalf of this sovereign House.
      The drafting of clauses 100 and 102 reflects, as closely as possible, the present arrangements involving the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee under the National Audit Act 1983. The 1983 Act gives the Comptroller and Auditor General the power to carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which resources are used, but does not oblige him to do so.
      Amendment No. 344 would remove any discretion from the Auditor General for Wales, and I am not sure whether that was the effect intended. Under the 1983 Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General has no power to question the merits of the policy objectives of the

      913
      Government or public bodies. Amendment No. 345 would allow the Auditor General to do that with respect to the assembly. We believe that that would be a significant change.
      Amendment No. 346 would require the Auditor General to lay before the assembly the report of any examination carried out by him. The Comptroller and Auditor General is under no such obligation under the 1983 Act, and it is not uncommon for reports to be prepared for action by management only, without being published or laid before the PAC.
      Amendment No. 348 would oblige the assembly's audit committee to consider and report on every set of accounts or reports laid before it by the Auditor General for Wales or his auditor. While I imagine that the PAC considers a large proportion of accounts and reports that are laid before the House, I doubt very much that it is required to consider and make a report on them all.
      The amendments would leave the assembly—
      It being Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [2 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clause 100 to ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 101 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 5 agreed to.

    Clause 105

      OBSERVING COMMUNITY LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move amendment No. 373, in page 51, line 43, leave out
      'or any of the Convention rights'.
      I move the amendment with some slight trepidation, as I am speaking from a Front-Bench position to which I have no right.
      The amendment relates to clause 105 which, as Labour Members are aware, prevents the assembly from legislating in contravention of Community law and in contravention of the European convention on human rights, which are stipulated in the current Human Rights Bill. Our amendment would remove the reference to convention rights. That may seem an odd thing to do, but I hope that I shall be able to explain to the satisfaction of the Committee and that of the Minister why we seek that aim, and perhaps make him pause and reconsider.
      Perhaps I may be forgiven for first explaining why we do not seek to remove the reference to adherence to Community law. There is a slightly elaborate, but important, reason that shows why we seek to remove references to convention rights.
      Under the European Communities Act 1972, Community law is superior to our own once an adjudication has been produced by the European Court of Justice or, in the absence of such an adjudication or any contest, simply by virtue of its existence. If every Community law had a direct effect—if it applied automatically to the citizenry and to the Government—that would be an end to the matter. There would be no
      914
      need for the part of clause 105 that relates to Community law because any legislation—in this case subordinate legislation produced by the assembly—which was in contravention of Community law would automatically face a conflict of law and be overruled and overwhelmed by the directly effective Community law in question under the 1972 Act. In addition, as the Secretary of State and his colleagues have repeatedly stressed, because the assembly is a legislature being set up under primary legislation and has subordinate legislative powers only, where there is an Act of Parliament, it will supervene on the assembly.
      There are parts of Community law that, at least arguably, do not have a direct effect. That is particularly true of the framework decisions that are envisaged in the Amsterdam treaty, such as the third pillar on justice and home affairs. In those cases, there is a real reason for the part of the clause that relates to the assembly not contravening Community law. Were there not such a clause, if the assembly happened to be the body to which it fell to implement a framework decision, it would be theoretically possible for it, in contravention of the United Kingdom's treaty obligations, but not in contravention of an Act of this Parliament, to legislate in a vein contrary to the intended spirit of that framework decision.
      It would then fall to the European Court to adjudicate. In the case where there was no direct effect, it is uncertain how that adjudication would fall. A situation could have been created in which the United Kingdom was in contravention of treaty obligations by virtue of an action of the assembly. For that reason, we do not seek to remove the reference to Community law in the clause.
      The situation is altogether different when we come to the European convention on human rights because the ECHR has no superiority to United Kingdom law. There is no Act of Parliament, existent or intended, that would give it such superiority. On the contrary, the way in which the Human Rights Bill has been drafted enacts some, but not all aspects of the ECHR into English law. It defines convention rights as those things that happen to have been enacted by that Bill.
      No circumstance could arise, therefore, under which there could be the possibility of the assembly legislating—legally under United Kingdom law—in contravention of those convention rights. By so legislating, it would automatically be in default of an Act of Parliament; as the Secretary of State and his colleagues have repeatedly stressed, the assembly cannot act in that way.
      There are only two possible explanations for the inclusion of the reference to convention rights. One is that, alas, we face another example of the Bill having been rather poorly drafted to include an otiose item. The other is a more sinister explanation—that there is the thought at the back of the draftsmen's minds, and hence at the back of some ministerial minds, that there might, at some later date, be a change in the Human Rights Bill, or in some other legislation passed in the House, which would allow the assembly to have a direct relationship with the ECHR.
      That would permit a situation to arise whereby something was defined as a convention right by an Act of this Parliament that had not been enacted into English law. Under those circumstances, the assembly would begin to take on a quite different character, because, in relation to a body external to the United Kingdom, it

      915
      would have a special relationship—one different from that of the United Kingdom Parliament and not sanctioned by it. Were that the intention, we would wish to resist it.
      The structure of the argument is straightforward. There is a reason for the reference to Community law in clause 105, but there is either no reason for the convention rights reference because it is unnecessary or there is one and it is malign—to create the possibility of the establishment of a separate relationship. I happen to believe that it is probably error rather than intention that is at work. If that is so, I hope that, after due consideration, the Minister will offer the Committee the grand gesture of removing the offending phrase, perhaps by rephrasing the amendment, in order not to appear to accept our feeble wording.
      Ms Julie Morgan: I oppose the amendment. I am surprised by the reference of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to sinister motives among others. The amendment reveals the official Opposition's fear of change of any kind. Not only do the Conservatives oppose constitutional change by opposing devolution, which is bringing power closer to the people, but they appear to be using the mechanism for scrutinising the Bill to express their opposition to the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Bill. That appears to be the motive behind what their spokesperson said today.
      It is absolutely right and proper that the National Assembly for Wales should comply with the European convention on human rights, and that the Bill should say so. The assembly will have responsibility for all the functions of the Welsh Office, many of which are obviously fundamentally concerned with the rights covered by the European convention on human rights and its protocols, such as the right to life, liberty and security; respect for private family life, home and correspondence; prohibition of discrimination; freedom of peaceful assembly; the right to join a trade union; and the right to education. The national assembly needs to comply with all those rights, and the Bill should say so.
      I believe that the Human Rights Bill will receive its Third Reading in the House of Lords on Thursday 5 February 1998. The UK was the first country to ratify the convention, nearly 50 years ago, and 30 years ago the UK accepted its jurisdiction. I believe that we would all welcome the incorporation of the convention into UK law.
      I believe that the motive of the official Opposition in tabling amendment No. 373 is to express concern about those rights applying in UK law, and that they are using these Committee proceedings to express their concern. I believe that the European convention on human rights should be mentioned in the Bill, and that it is essential that the national assembly abides by the duties of the convention.
      Mr. Öpik: Amendment No. 373 would remove the stipulation that assembly legislation must be compatible with European Community law. However, the Liberal Democrats think that the stipulation is a good one, and on that basis we oppose the amendment.
      Dr. Marek: I agree with the contents of clause 105. I only wish that Ministers would write a few other things
      916
      into the Bill, given that we had an interesting debate about whether some sort of needs formula would be better than the Barnett formula. If there is a bit of inconsistency, I hope that Ministers will think about the word consistency. It is important.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The debate has been brief but illuminating. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on his contribution from the Dispatch Box. He had obviously thought a great deal about what he wanted to say. However—as you would expect, Sir Alan—I could not agree with all he said.
      In our opinion, clause 105 makes it clear that the assembly has no power to do anything that is incompatible with European Community law or any of the convention rights. An argument could be made—to a certain extent, the hon. Member for West Dorset did so—about whether it was necessary to mention convention rights, and whether reference to Community law would be necessary only in certain accepted instances.
      However, we felt that, in the case of both Community law and the convention, it would be appropriate to ensure that the Bill made the obligations of the assembly absolutely clear. The hon. Member for West Dorset is of course aware of the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, the Human Rights Bill, which deals with the issue of the convention, is passing through another place. My hon. Friend made a spirited and convincing argument for our proposal to include the convention in clause 105.
      I am pleased that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) endorsed the clause from the Liberal Democrat Benches and that, once again, I had strong support from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: In order to ensure that the spirit of inclusiveness pervades the whole Chamber, would the Minister accept that Plaid Cymru Members also welcome the inclusion of a reference to the convention in the clause?
      Mr. Griffiths: I am very happy indeed to take on board what the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) has to say on behalf of Plaid Cymru.
      Anyway, the Government decided that although, as the hon. Member for West Dorset said, the Human Rights Bill will apply to the assembly in any event, it should be made clear in the Bill that a failure by the assembly to observe the convention rights should be a devolution issue—that is, within the terms of part I of schedule 6.
      I was very pleased that the argument made by the hon. Member for West Dorset was in no sense an effort to allow the assembly to dodge its human rights responsibilities.
      We felt that the convention should be mentioned in the Bill because the assembly, in matters such as health, education and social services, will have the ability, directly or indirectly, to touch upon convention rights. It may be a belt and braces question in this case, but we felt that it would be better to do it that way—to make it clear that, although the Human Rights Bill, when enacted, will place a duty on the assembly, we consider this to be a devolution issue in terms of the assembly's responsibilities.

      917
      I hope that, having heard those few words of explanation, the hon. Member for West Dorset will be prepared to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Sir Alan. About half an hour ago, during the debate on clause 90, I indirectly made a reference to the powers under which the director general of the Office of the National Lottery could be caused to resign. I am given to understand that he has since resigned—probably not because I made that reference in the debate on clause 90 of the Bill. Have you received any notice from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, indicating that he wishes to make a statement, tonight or tomorrow, confirming either that he has caused Mr. Davis to resign or that Mr. Davis has resigned anyway?
      The Chairman: That is not strictly a point of order for me, as the hon. Member knows. I have received no such request, and the hon. Member was rather lucky that I allowed him to make his earlier remarks within order, in the context of the debate that we were having.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister, who entirely understood the brunt of my remarks, unlike the hon. Members who spoke in the debate, who seemed to think that I was suggesting that the assembly should not be forced to obey the European convention on human rights.
      Mr. Morgan: But the amendment says that.
      Mr. Letwin: No, it does not, because the proposition is that the assembly will in any case be so forced by an Act of Parliament, which is where we believe that the burden should lie.
      I shall try to persuade the Minister to think slightly more about whether this belt and braces is only belt and braces or whether it may have unintended consequences. My reason for doing so comes straight from the Minister's speech, because he said that he wanted to ensure that, in the event of a conflict between the subordinate legislation of the assembly and the European convention or the Human Rights Bill, which is to become an Act, that would be a devolution issue. There is some real force in that argument. However, if there is force in that argument, it would also apply to many of the things that have been asserted by Conservative Members during previous sessions of the Committee.
      Yesterday, we discussed regulatory appraisals. I asked whether it would be the assembly that decided whether it was, or was not, in a specific case, appropriate for there to be regulatory appraisal, and the Minister assured me and the House that that was not a problem because, under the primary legislation governing particular orders which had been transferred by the transfer order to the assembly, a regulatory appraisal was already assured.
      That is a case in which, for the purpose of clarity, it would be advantageous for the matter to be written into the Bill, and it would be advantageous for it to be a devolution issue. Now the Minister and his colleagues have set their face against that in the case that I raised, and in 10 or 20 other such cases in Committee. They have
      918
      established a tissue of precedents through the rest of the Bill suggesting that there should not be belt and braces, but rather a great economy of drafting.
      Wherever there is an underlying Act of Parliament that achieves a certain effect, the Government eschew putting that into the Bill. A lawyer will be able to make the argument with some force that in this particular case there must have been an intention stronger than merely to put it into the Act and make it a devolution issue. I wonder whether the Minister wants to achieve that, and whether it might not rebound on all of us—who knows who might then be in government? Although we are prepared to withdraw the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister might wish to reconsider.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The argument that the hon. Gentleman is developing is essentially speculative. Although I would be prepared to look in detail at some of his arguments, the force of our feeling about the clause and the need for it is unlikely to be changed. I will write to him on the other issue he raises, and I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Letwin: That is a gallant response from the Minister. If, by any chance, this should prod him into the obverse reaction of putting into the Bill more of what we suggested in earlier sittings of the Committee to remedy the imbalance, that would be a greater gain even than the removal of this clause. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 107

      POWER TO PREVENT INCOMPATIBLE ACTION ETC.
      Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 441, in page 52, line 6, after 'international', insert 'treaty'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 442, in page 52, line 11, after 'international', insert 'treaty'.
      No. 443, in page 52, line 15, after 'international', insert 'treaty'.
      No. 444, in page 52, line 27, after first 'international', insert 'treaty'.
      No. 445, in page 52, line 27, after second 'international', insert 'treaty'.
      No. 446, in page 52, leave out lines 29 to 31 and insert 'obligations under Community law.'.
      Mr. Jenkin: The clause is similar to clauses 105 and 106, except that clause 107 refers specifically to other international obligations. Our amendments are intended to make it clear that international obligations comprise treaty obligations.
      I have some questions for the Minister. When is an international obligation an international obligation, if it is not a treaty obligation? Could he give an example of an international obligation that is not a treaty obligation? Under what circumstances do the Government envisage

      919
      that they would impose a non-treaty international obligation on the assembly? That is what the clause gives them the power to do.
      To some extent amendment No. 446 revisits the issue already addressed by my hon. Friend, so I will not address it again.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: That was a succinct introduction to the amendments. I am grateful for the clarity with which the hon. Gentleman made his points, especially as I have an answer to them.
      Clause 107 ensures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the power to prevent the assembly from carrying out acts that are incompatible with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, other than Community law obligations and obligations not to do with acts incompatible with any of the convention rights that we have just discussed.
      However, the United Kingdom has other international obligations that have not all been incorporated in domestic legislation. Hence the need for the reserve power in clause 107 to allow my right hon. Friend to intervene if the assembly is considering undertaking an incompatible action or has already undertaken it.
      Given the interrogative nature of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I assume that this is a probing amendment to find out what we have in mind. Not all the international obligations of the United Kingdom are in the form of a treaty. Some take the form of conventions, protocols or heads of agreement—for example, those that his own Government negotiated, the Rio declaration on the environment and development; Agenda 21, a programme of action for sustainable development also agreed at the Rio summit; and the more recent convention for the protection of the marine environment for the north-east Atlantic. None of those is a Treaty.
      Amendments Nos. 441 to 445 would leave the United Kingdom Government without the power to deliver certain obligations to which they had committed themselves, to the extent that those obligations fall to the assembly's remit. That is why we have used the word "obligations" in preference to "treaties". Not all the commitments made by the United Kingdom are enshrined in treaties at an international level. By using the word "obligation", we are able to ensure that matters arising out of the Rio summit, for example, can be taken on board and acted on by the assembly.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I shall ask my hon. Friend a few further questions arising from my reading of the impact of the Opposition amendments on clause 107. It is an important clause, especially because of the expanding field of environmental obligations, many of which we refer to loosely as treaties, but which are not in fact treaties.
      People talk about the Rio treaty—which, as my hon. Friend noted, is not a treaty—and the two subsidiary agreements, the bio-diversity agreement and the global warming convention. I am not sure whether I have used the right terms, but the agreements are frequently referred to as parts of a treaty, perhaps because of the importance of the people who attended the Rio summit and signed the agreement, including the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
      920
      The Conservative amendments, if I read them correctly, would confine the then Prime Minister—no longer such a figure of importance—who signed the agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. If the amendments were accepted, they would remove from the Welsh assembly any obligation to act pursuant to the Rio summit, because the agreements are not treaties.
      That is probably not what Conservative Front-Bench Members want. If their Prime Minister signed the Rio summit documents bringing into being a British obligation to comply with them, presumably they consider them important, but their amendments would render the agreements useless in the context of the Welsh assembly. The amendments would exclude any agreement that was not formally a treaty from the obligations that the Welsh assembly would have to follow and which, as a reserve power, the Secretary of State could instruct the assembly to carry out.
      That raises an interesting issue that has not yet been touched on. What if the Secretary of State himself were in breach of those treaty—or let us say convention or protocol—obligations? The outstanding example is exactly pursuant to the Rio summit, when there was the bizarre situation of a difference in interpretation of the obligations of the UK Government for Wales and for England by the then Secretary of State for the Environment and the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
      The then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), interpreted the Prime Minister's signature to the global warming convention as requiring him to issue a new series of planning policy guidance notes, one of which said that henceforth there would be no more out-of-town shopping centre developments in England, as they would lead to an increase in car exhaust emissions and thus contravene the global warming policy.
      8.30 pm
      However, the then Secretary of State for Wales, who was part of the same unitary state—as we often say in this debate—and a member of the Cabinet led by the Prime Minister who had signed the Rio summit agreement, took an entirely different view and said, "In Wales, we shop till we drop." He welcomed those frustrated property developers—who were no longer able to build out-of-town shopping centres in England—to Wales with open arms, and refused to issue a parallel planning policy guidance note. As a result, there was total confusion among property developers, lawyers and planning consultants. Although it was the same country under one Prime Minister who had signed the agreement, there were two opposite interpretations of what constituted acceding to the obligations.
      Looking forward 50 years—when we might see the return of a Conservative Prime Minister and therefore a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales—what will happen if that Secretary of State were in breach of any kind of reasonable understanding of the obligations? In other words, what if—it is the sort of scenario that we present when we are trying to send the children quietly to bed—the right hon. Member for Wokingham were to return as Secretary of State for Wales? What if he places a bizarre and completely off-the-wall interpretation on our protocol or convention obligations, particularly regarding environmental law?

      921
      I must press the Minister on that issue. How will we guard against the completely off-the-wall interpretations of future Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales—in the unlikely event, possibly after I have departed this mortal coil, that the Conservatives are returned to power? Such a person would not be a suitable judge of whether the assembly were abiding by international environmental obligations. He could hardly ensure that the assembly complied with those obligations if he did not comply with them also. In that case, we would look to the assembly to ensure that the Secretary of State abided by international environmental obligations. It is not only a matter, as the clause implies, of the Secretary of State acting as a policeman and trying to ensure that the assembly complies with international environmental obligations.
      If the Minister can answer that point clearly, succinctly and convincingly, I promise not to ask him any questions about the Cardiff bay barrage.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for that contribution, and for his piercing question regarding the actions of a previous Secretary of State for Wales. I thought initially that he intended to raise the subject that he has said he will not mention.
      As to the question of out-of-town shopping centres in Wales, we have made it clear that a test must be applied in order to determine whether such planning applications may go ahead. Our inspectorate has examined several such applications.
      It is a fairly simple and straightforward process. If the assembly considered a future Secretary of State for Wales to be in breach of a convention, such as the Rio biodiversity agreement, it could request a judicial review—as could anyone with an interest in such matters. In other words, if the Secretary of State believed that the assembly was acting within the terms of an international obligation but the Friends of the Earth or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds thought that it was not, there would be an opportunity for a judicial review. In the end, that is the backstop position regarding any Government action that is deemed to contravene our international obligations.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Whether the Secretary of State for the Environment in England or the Welsh assembly is in compliance with environmental protocols or conventions is frequently a unilateral matter for them to decide. It is difficult to envisage a judicial review challenge succeeding, because it is for the Government to decide whether they have complied with the obligations of the global warming convention or the biodiversity agreement, for example. For instance, the Government may decide to introduce the grizzly bear to Snowdonia saying, "We have done this in pursuance of what we believe to be our obligations under the biodiversity agreement." That is the difficulty.
      Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter of judgment. Anyone who thought that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales was breaking an international obligation could seek a judicial review. It would then be for the judge to decide whether the Government or the assembly had acted unreasonably and ignored its obligations under some international agreement.
      Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which I think the Committee found
      922
      illuminating. It is certainly not the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition to create a situation whereby we are in breach of any international obligations—least of all those with such noble aims as Agenda 21 and other international environmental agreements.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) once again demonstrated his talent for extending our deliberations. I have a button on my computer that allows one to precis a text. I wonder how short the hon. Gentleman's speech would have been if I had entered it into my computer and then pressed that button—but I digress.
      I must raise a serious point about the nature of clause 105 and other similar clauses in the Bill. We enter into international obligations under the royal prerogative. The House finds it difficult to regulate that process, as we interfere with the exercise of the international prerogative upon the initiative of the House rather than by way of the Government seeking leave of Parliament to exercise the prerogative. Treaties and international obligations are laid on the table under the Ponsonby rule.
      The effect of entering into international obligations—be they treaty obligations as suggested by our amendment or other obligations—is to strip the Welsh assembly of its powers. Every new international obligation effectively creates a new reserved area, which is a no-go zone for the Welsh assembly. The Secretary of State may, by order, direct the assembly to take a certain action or to abstain. We should bear that in mind.
      Mr. Griffiths: If I have understood his comments correctly, the hon. Gentleman implies that the Secretary of State would be the prime mover in such matters. Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the assembly does not fulfil the international obligations for which it has some responsibility under the Bill. It is not for the Secretary of State to take these powers to himself, but to keep a watchful eye on the assembly to ensure that it is using its powers appropriately.
      Mr. Jenkin: I understand the thrust of the Minister's comments. I am postulating a slightly more advanced scenario, which is that the Government will be entering into international obligations purposefully to enable the Government to take powers over the assembly. That may seem far-fetched, but let us consider it in the context of the example given by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, which involved a planning issue. Let us suppose that the assembly had plans to enter into a certain type of development which the Government regarded as unethical or contrary to the environmental purposes of their policies. They could enter into an international agreement to oblige them to exercise by order a prohibition on the assembly. It is a constitutional conundrum that new international obligations could be entered into by the prerogative of the Crown without the usual scrutiny of Parliament, thus giving the Secretary of State power by order to circumscribe the powers of the assembly.
      Mr. Griffiths: I felt quite happy with the way in which the hon. Gentleman was presenting his argument in the early and middle stages of the debate. At the end, however, he spoiled his argument by taking it to absurd lengths. It is perhaps an example of what has happened on other occasions when there has been a triumph of form over substance. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think twice

      923
      about the idea that, to deal with a planning matter, the United Kingdom Government would scurry around the world looking for an international obligation that they could enter into to stop the assembly carrying out an act that came within planning law. That is absurd.
      Setting that aside, the arguments that the hon. Gentleman advanced on other matters were well made. I hope that I have been able to explain to him the intentions that lie behind the clause and why it is important to keep the clause in its substance.
      Mr. Jenkin: I am embarrassed that I have upset the Minister. I thought that we were developing a good relationship. Before it goes any further awry, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 6

      DEVOLUTION ISSUES
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 447, in page 79, line 13, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 14 and insert
      "'Appellate Committee" means the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 448, in page 80, line 5, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 449, in page 80, line 8, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 450, in page 80, line 9, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 451, in page 80, line 11, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 452, in page 80, line 14, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 453, in page 81, line 1, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 454, in page 81, line 4, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 455, in page 81, line 5, leave out from '19.' to end of line 7 and insert—
      'Nothing in this Act shall give the House of Lords jurisdiction to determine a devolution issue arising from or incidental to a criminal prosecution in Scotland.'.
      No. 456, in page 81, line 8, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 457, in page 81, line 10, leave out 'Judicial & and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 458, in page 81, leave out lines 12 to 18.
      No. 459, in page 82, line 1, leave out 'Judicial & and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 460, in page 82, line 4, leave out 'Judicial & and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 461, in page 82, line 5, leave out 'Judicial & and insert 'Appellate'.
      924
      No. 462, in page 82, line 8, leave out 'Judicial & and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 463, in page 82, line 10, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 464, in page 82, line 18, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 465, in page 82, leave out lines 13 to 17.
      No. 466, in page 82, line 20, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 467, in page 82, line 28, leave out 'Judicial' and insert 'Appellate'.
      No. 468, in page 82, leave out from beginning of line 37 to end of line 22 on page 83.
      Mr. Ancram: This group of amendments is not as daunting as it may seem because all the amendments seek to achieve the same purpose. We are, however, seeking to address a significant point, and to question why the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, rather than the House of Lords, has been chosen as the arbiter on devolution issues. That is a serious question. I accept that the Privy Council was mentioned in paragraph 3.43 of the White Paper, but it was a minor mention and gave no justification for the selection of the Privy Council-except to say that the body would produce "a speedy decision". As a lawyer, I doubt whether that will necessarily be true of any court. If that was the only reason for selecting the Privy Council, perhaps it was not the best; perhaps the Privy Council should not have been chosen as the body to which such matters should be submitted.
      We are seeking to replace the Privy Council with the House of Lords, the senior appellate court within our system. I say that even as a Scottish lawyer because, although the House of Lords does not have appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters in Scotland, it does in civil law.
      8.45 pm
      We wonder why a court for which there is a great deal of respect and which cannot be challenged as political in any way, or regarded as tarnished as being part of the House of Lords, where reform will be taking place, is being sidestepped. The House of Lords is a court of the United Kingdom; it is composed of judges from the United Kingdom; and the issues of which we are speaking will be United Kingdom issues. They will arise between parts of the United Kingdom, and it is right that, within the United Kingdom, they should be decided by a court of the United Kingdom.
      The Judicial Committee is not a court of the United Kingdom in the same way; it goes far wider. I have taken the precaution of reading the latest list applying to the Judicial Committee: judges of the United Kingdom naturally appear on it, including the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and such other members of the Privy Council as shall from time to time hold, or have held, high judicial office. But the list contains other members, most of whom, interestingly

      925
      enough—I am sure that the reason is the quality of the country's law—come from New Zealand. There are other members from Australia, Barbados, the Eastern Caribbean supreme court, the Bahamas and Jamaica. The Judicial Committee cannot be regarded as a court which has jurisdiction solely within the United Kingdom or as a court of the United Kingdom.
      I look forward to hearing whether the cosy relationship that has existed between members of Plaid Cymru and the occupants of the Treasury Bench during the past few debates will persist. I have read over the past few days that the Scottish National party is seriously concerned about the use of the Judicial Committee. It takes the view that such matters should not be put before members who, however eminent they may be in jurisprudential terms, may not be fully aware of all the implications of the issues within these islands.
      We are seeking to provide an appellate body in which all parts of the United Kingdom can have confidence, whose judges are known to Members of the House of Commons and to the various parts of the United Kingdom. I fear that the Judicial Committee proposal will give rise to uncertainty about the expertise that may be brought to bear.
      The Opposition have a further concern, which is important in the context of the arguments that we were advancing earlier about the integrity of the Union. We are considering disputes that will arise between members of the United Kingdom and from powers that have been delegated from the House of Commons. I shall not return to the supremacy argument, but there may be doubts about the vires. To take these issues out of the United Kingdom context and place them in an international arena will give them a nature that will be entirely inconsistent with devolution within the United Kingdom. For that reason, too, I hope that the amendments will be given serious consideration by the Government.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I have some sympathy with the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I suggested earlier—and not very seriously—that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was perhaps being used because Scotland and Wales would be dependent territories.
      The right hon. Member Gentleman has made a serious point. It is surprising that all devolution issues are to go to the Privy Council. Perhaps the same judges would sit in the Privy Council and the House of Lords. Perhaps the Minister will say that Mr. Justice Cooke, the President of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, or the President of the East Caribbean Court of Appeal, will not be chosen to hear such cases.
      Why has the Privy Council, which is an excellent court but a bywater in many respects in terms of United Kingdom law, been elevated to such a position? I would think that the House of Lords could do the job perfectly well.
      I was surprised to hear that the Scottish nationalists objected to the use of the Privy Council. I thought that they might object to the House of Lords being the court of final jurisdiction. No doubt the Minister, when he replies, will explain it all.
      Mr. Ancram: To be fair, I should make it clear that what I read was that the Scottish National party did not like the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am not aware of the SNP's views on the House of Lords.
      Mr. Davies: I am still slightly confused. I should have thought that the SNP would have wished it not to be the House of Lords, which might be seen to be an English court, whereas the Judicial Committee has a different pedigree.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I had no intention of chipping into the debate but have been goaded into doing so by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
      I do not speak for the Scottish National party, which has its own view, but I have every confidence in the Privy Council and can see no reason why it should not be selected. That may, of course, further the cosy relationship with the Treasury Bench. I was not aware of it as such, but if it means having to adhere to that cosy relationship, in this instance I do so.
      Dr. Marek: I also had no intention of speaking in the debate. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made a serious point. Let me see whether I can put the other argument.
      If it were to be the House of Lords, there might well be many more English—I use that word advisedly—rather than Scottish or Welsh judges, and there might then be arguments within the Principality on whether a decision was fair, unbiased and so on. The Judicial Committee, with judges from the Commonwealth, will provide a breath of fresh air, a bit of independence and a disinterested view. I am not accusing judges of being anything other than disinterested, but they should also be seen to be disinterested. That is the nub of my argument. If it were the Judicial Committee, with judges from the Commonwealth and so on, it would be easier to get a quorum of judges to sit on a particular case, and the public's perception that those judges were disinterested would be much clearer.
      Mr. Öpik: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred to a list of countries from which we may select our Privy Councillors as wide-ranging as the countries from which we seem to import our beef these days.
      Mr. Jenkin: What about Estonia?
      Mr. Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman excluded Estonia. I do not know of any Privy Councillors living in Estonia at this stage, but time will tell if that changes.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: Yes, but you are working on it.
      Mr. Öpik: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am most certainly not working on our sharing Privy Councillors from Estonia. It seems extremely unlikely that some world tour will be conducted to obtain Privy Councillors to sit on a committee to judge matters that relate to Wales, so that is a slightly spurious concern.

      927
      The second, serious, reason why the Liberal Democrats oppose the proposal is that the House of Lords might not even exist in five or 10 years' time. Privy Councillors are likely still to be in place, so, in the spirit of expectation of significant reform of the upper House, let us tie ourselves to a body that will exist, albeit it all over the world, long after the House of Lords has been massively reformed.
      Mr. Letwin: I wish to speak for one minute, to point out that this is an extraordinary debate, because we are debating which of the two bodies is appropriate. That either should have been nominated to perform the task is remarkable—the more so if it is to be, as it were, exported to the Privy Council—because what we are doing is to ask an English court to adjudicate about the supremacy of Parliament. That is the most extreme example of departure from constitutional convention contained in the Bill. The notion of devolution itself is a most radical measure. It is extraordinary that it should not be allied to the greatest possible conservatism in the choice of court. That seems to me the strongest argument in favour of the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
      Mr. Win Griffiths: This has been another interesting debate, with quite curious trains of thought in relation to what we are trying to do with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
      As the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said when moving his amendment, we made it clear in the White Paper—however brief the reference might have been, it was quite explicit—that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the judicial mechanism that the Government have selected to resolve disputes about the assembly's use of its powers. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about Parliament is not strictly necessary, because it relates to whether the functions set out for the assembly are being carried out appropriately, just as the Law Lords can consider issues in relation to the House if it is felt that a Minister is not carrying out his or her duties appropriately.
      The arrangements that we have made in the Bill are similar to those in the Scotland Bill, although, of course, in that case there is the issue of the primary legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament. We believe that it is highly desirable that the same court should be able to deal with cases that could arise from the new constitutional arrangements for Wales and Scotland that the Government are putting in place. The provision has been included just in case there is a problem. We want to say not that there will be problems, but that there should be a mechanism.
      The Judicial Committee acts now as the final constitutional court of appeal for various Commonwealth dependencies and colonies, which were mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). As it already has that role, we thought it appropriate to use its experience of handling cases that raise constitutional issues.
      We also believe it important that a flexible mechanism should be in place to allow the assembly's powers to be resolved promptly. The amendments would add to the
      928
      work load of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. I am not sure that they would lead to prompt decisions on cases, bearing in mind the provisions in the schedule for cases to be referred on appeal. In that context—this deals with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes and my right hon. Friend for Member for Llanelli—paragraph 33 of schedule 6 gives greater flexibility about the membership of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council than exists for the membership of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.
      The Judicial Committee can draw its members from any of those who hold or have held the office of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, or certain high judicial offices. That includes Lord Chancellors and judges of the High Court and of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or of the Court of Session in Scotland. However—this is the crucial point—schedule 6(33)(b) excludes judges from the colonies or the Commonwealth, because it refers to
      "ignoring for this purpose section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1887".
      I hope that, in the spirit in which I have given my information, the right hon. Member for Devizes will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Dr. Marek: It is clear that that provision will remain in the Bill, but I think that that is a great pity. It would have introduced a breath of fresh air, and a bit if disinterestedness, if some of the judges who have been excluded had been able to make decisions.
      Mr. Griffiths: That is obviously my hon. Friend's view, but we feel that it is appropriate for such matters to be settled in the context of, so to speak, the member states of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Ancram: I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I am not entirely convinced by his arguments. He seems to be riding two horses in opposite directions. First he says that the Judicial Committee will be able to deal with cases swiftly because—he hopes—there will be very few, if any; then he tells us that to give them to the House of Lords would overload the House of Lords. He must decide whether there will be many cases or very few.
      It being Nine o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [2 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Schedule 6 agreed to.
      Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 110

      RELATIONS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 469, in page 53, line 14, at end insert—

      929
      '(1A) The Assembly shall have regard to the published plans and strategies of local authorities in Wales in making decisions which specifically affect the communities of those local authorities.'.
      Let me begin by saying—at the risk of drawing fire from the Conservative Front Bench—that clause 110 is welcomed by anyone who respects local government and the need to develop and nurture the relationship between it and the national assembly.
      The clause requires the assembly to provide a scheme
      "to sustain and promote local government"
      and requires it to form a partnership council with representatives of local government. I firmly believe that the effective governance of Wales will require a working partnership between local government, the voluntary sector and the national assembly. The clause creates a framework within which local government and the national assembly can share understanding, objectives and a programme of agreed action. The framework will not avoid all differences—nor should it—but it will allow the potential for resolution through dialogue.
      The clause also allows a partnership between local government collectively and the assembly. It does not refer to the need for the assembly and its agencies to consider the objectives of individual local authorities. Elsewhere, the Government recognise the role of each local authority in providing community leadership, working with local communities to identify needs and priorities and developing local plans and strategies that can lead and assist all organisations seeking to work in those communities.
      The briefing issued by the Welsh Local Government Association states:
      "The Association believes that it is in the development of community leadership that local authorities can most enhance their contribution. However, it is not enough for local authorities to provide leadership, there needs to be an incentive for other parts of government to consider the leadership that is provided."
      No doubt the assembly will have executive roles that will directly affect specific local communities. For instance, it will take over Tai Cymru's role in financing social housing development. At present, Tai Cymru is required by the Secretary of State to have regard to the housing strategies of local authorities. It is suggested, therefore, that the assembly, in this and all other executive actions, should be required to have regard to the plans and strategies of local authorities in specific decisions that affect local communities.
      The amendment is straightforward, clear and easy to understand. It would not affect the development of national policies by the national assembly, but it would require it, in specific decisions following on from those policies, to have regard to the plans and strategies of local authorities in Wales. That would not give local authorities any right of instruction or veto, but give them some assurance that, when they invest in the development of local strategies, those strategies will have some influence and will not be ignored in, as it were, the painting of the larger picture.
      In essence, the system would be little different from that whereby central Government need to have regard to local structure plans in determining planning issues, for example. Indeed, planning appeals could not be held without proper and due regard to local structure plans that are considered to be of extreme importance.
      930
      To put it another way, the amendment is the essence of subsidiarity in statutory form. Furthermore, it adds clarity to the statement, welcome though it is, that the national assembly is bound to sustain and to promote local government. I suspect that, at some point, the word "otiose" will be mentioned by someone over yonder—who has left the Chamber, so we are spared its use for the time being—but I would appreciate a detailed response from the Minister.
      Dr. Marek: I have general sympathy with what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) proposes, but I cannot support it. The principal reason is that we are legislating for a national assembly; we should give it status and authority and assume that it will carry out its functions properly—and not try to tie it down in primary legislation. I have made that point before.
      I have every confidence that the national assembly will want to work in partnership with local councils. From that point of view, it is better for that to be done through the assembly's Standing Orders, procedures and traditions as they develop, rather than through legislation passed through this Chamber that tries to tie the assembly down to something that it should be doing itself. I hope that, as a result of that general point, or perhaps as a result of what my hon. Friend the Minister says, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      There are other problems with the amendment. At present, structure plans have to be accepted by the Secretary of State, possibly with an examination in public. Structure plans will, however, be the creature of the national assembly, so it is highly unlikely that the assembly will, in a cavalier manner, dismiss a structure plan for a particular unitary authority and try to impose something else. If it does that, it may have a particular reason, but that is by the way because the amendment says that the assembly has to "have regard to" and, of course, it can have regard to something and then nevertheless decide something contrary.
      Unitary authority decisions can be cavalier in the extreme. Eight or 10 years ago, a Welsh Affairs Committee investigation found that three authorities—Anglesey, Cardiganshire, or Ceredigion, and Delyn—had policies on housing in the countryside, but disregarded them. There were departures from the local plan to such an extent that they prompted comment and an investigation by the Select Committee.
      I have confidence in local authorities, which I support. The National Assembly for Wales must have oversight, and it should be able to take a view without having to face a judicial review. It should not be constrained too much by a local authority's strategic policies that do not make good sense or to which it does not abide, or because the policies that the authority is implementing are not in writing. The issue is complicated. I have no wish to offend anybody, but I have to say that there are good and bad councillors, as I guess there are good Members and bad ones.
      The assembly must have respect and status and it must have the final say. I do not wish to have its powers trammelled by the amendment. I sympathise with some of

      931
      the aims behind the amendment, but I am convinced that the assembly's Standing Orders will contain precisely the amendment's principle.
      Mr. Liwyd: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the words "due regard" in the amendment. They mean that the amendment would not bind the assembly in any way. It is an attempt to ensure a healthy and developing partnership between local government and the assembly. That is my aim, and I do not wish to fetter the assembly in any way. The wording of the amendment supports my argument rather than that of the hon. Gentleman.
      Dr. Marek: We could argue about that, but time is short. We are close to the fulcrum of the argument. I prefer the route that I have suggested, but the hon. Gentleman would go the other way. Let us hear what the Minister has to say.
      Mr. Öpik: The Liberal Democrats fully support the amendment because local government often feels frustrated and unable to vent its feelings to higher authority. The amendment creates a direct, formal requirement for the assembly to listen to local government throughout Wales. The benefit of such networking cannot be underestimated. Local government officers and councillors often have to implement decisions made higher up, but there is every reason to suppose that they can add value to assembly debates as national Welsh policy is formed.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) spoke about good and bad councillors. We should set our sights on having good councillors in Wales and good Members of the Assembly. We must assume that the public know what they are doing when they vote and that the people they elect are capable of adding the sort of value that I have described. The hon. Gentleman also said that the amendment would tie the assembly's hands. I disagree: a visionary and self-confident assembly would recognise the merit of hearing views from outside the assembly—from those who often have to bear the brunt of public dissatisfaction about bad decisions. If the assembly believes in itself, it should also believe in the ability of local government to improve decision making. Come on Minister, give us confidence that you have faith in local government by accepting the amendment.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said when he ably moved and spoke to his amendment, its purpose is to place a statutory duty on the assembly to have regard to the published plans and strategies of Welsh local authorities when taking decisions that will affect particular communities. It is to be expected that the assembly will always attempt to ensure that its actions and decisions are sensitive to local needs and aspirations.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned the abolition of Tai Cymru and the assignment of its housing function, ultimately, to the Welsh assembly. As he said, Tai Cymru provides finance after engaging in a process in which it pays due regard to local authorities' housing strategies. It also provides a good example of how a partnership can work without specific statutory goals or requirements. Furthermore, such a partnership exists also in the planning sphere.
      932
      9.15 pm
      The amendment is unnecessary, particularly because the Bill provides for a Partnership Council. The hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) raised important issues that should be examined in the context of the Partnership Council, which will call for the assembly to work closely with local authorities in a spirit of partnership, with mutual respect for each other's role. Discussions at the council are likely to cover the key strategic issues that face the assembly and the major quangos in Wales, which provide an important interface for local authorities.
      We have to look ahead a little further. The Government have separate proposals for strengthening local government that, this summer, will be the subject of a White Paper for Wales. I cannot reveal the contents of the White Paper—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh, go on."] As I am in Committee and not at a press conference, perhaps I can say one or two things.
      The White Paper is likely to propose a duty on local authorities to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of local communities. Ultimately, that proposal will enable individual local authorities to influence more effectively the local plans and priorities of a wide range of public bodies. We believe that the proposal, combined with the Partnership Council, will adequately address the issues raised by amendment No. 469, which would take a step too far the already innovative and ambitious project of a partnership between central and local government. The Government have already introduced that partnership, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already signed an agreement on how it will work between local government and the Welsh Office.
      In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that part of the purpose of his amendment is to achieve a healthy and developing partnership between central and local government. Because of the actions of my right hon. Friend, the Bill's proposal to establish a Partnership Council and proposals in the White Paper—
      which will be published early in the summer—to strengthen the role of local authorities, we believe that the amendment is a step too far.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will accept that the Government have a very positive agenda and that his amendment—although we are sympathetic to its desired aim—is not strictly necessary.
      Mr. Llwyd: We have had a short but interesting debate, and the Minister's response has been quite encouraging. It is also getting late. If I had know about the imminent White Paper I might not have tabled the amendment. In the new spirit of inclusiveness, we get to hear things a bit earlier nowadays. Perhaps it will be earlier still in future. Bearing that in mind and the fact that we have had a useful debate and a positive response from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 355, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 42.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 376.
      No. 359, in schedule 7, page 84, leave out from beginning of line 3 to end of line 31 on page 85.
      Government amendments Nos. 377 and 378.
      No. 470, in page 84, line 21, at end insert—
      '(1 A) The members appointed under sub paragraph (1) shall include one member nominated by each county council and county borough council in Wales.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 379 and 380.
      No. 358, in page 84, line 35, at end insert—
      '(6) Members of the Partnership Council shall not be paid remuneration or expenses by the Assembly, any local authority or otherwise out of public funds in respect of any of their activities as members.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 381 to 385.
      No. 471, in page 85, line 15, leave out 'once' and insert 'three times'.
      Government amendment No. 386.
      Mr. Evans: We have many amendments to consider in a relatively short debate, but I am delighted to speak to amendments Nos. 355, 359 and 358 in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. We have spoken at some length about local government this evening, and it is important for devolution to ensure a vital role for local authorities.
      I understand the importance of local authorities as I was a county councillor for six years, first for Sketty and then for Ty Coch, knocking on doors and representing the grass-roots feelings of the people in those areas on West Glamorgan county council. I recall two particular issues on which I sought meetings with the Welsh Office. One concerned the 24-hour opening of the accident and emergency unit at Singleton hospital.
      Mr. Ron Davies: When was that?
      Mr. Evans: It was between 1985 and 1991—in those halcyon days.
      Mr. Davies: That was a long meeting.
      Mr. Evans: It was, but we got we wanted in the end. The other meeting concerned some land in the Ty Coch area that we were seeking to prevent from being sold and retain for the use of Sketty school. We were certainly successful in that bid. It is important to have an open-door policy so that local representatives can go to the Welsh Office, as I did in regard to the land in Ty Coch. I saw the then Secretary of State for Wales, David Hunt, who was very receptive to what I, other local councillors and parents at the school had to say.
      I assume that in future there will continue to be delegations to the Secretary of State. Some local councillors will lobby the Secretary of State for Wales in regard to his lobbying the Treasury for the biggest possible settlement for Wales. There will also be local
      934
      authority delegations to the leader of the assembly to ensure that there is no top-slicing and that each area gets as much money as possible.
      Clause 110 is disappointing in the extreme, especially in the light of the high goals for the relationship between the two tiers of government that were set out in the White Paper. On page 9, it refers to
      "specific grants to local government"
      in order to
      "promote new initiatives … by providing funding which is not linked to specific services"
      resulting in greater flexibility and discretion for local authorities. It also states that the assembly
      "will gain the trust of the Welsh people only if it conducts its affairs openly and properly."
      On page 10, it
      "has regard to the interests of local authorities, business, unions and the voluntary sector, and works in partnership with them to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of Wales."
      On page 15 it says:
      "The Assembly will promote and foster local government in Wales."
      It promises that both tiers of government will work together to serve the people of Wales. The Government promise to
      "ensure that the Assembly regularly reviews with local government how effectively this commitment"—
      to fostering local government—
      "is being observed."
      We have heard how local government in Wales has been overlooked. That, we are promised, will be replaced by mutual respect from the two bodies for their legitimate roles. After such a build-up, we were disappointed by the Bill. We want a more constructive approach to giving local authorities a proper role and establishing their relationship with the assembly.
      Some cynics—not me, obviously—might suggest that the Partnership Council was PC by name and PC by nature. It gives the appearance of fulfilling the White Paper contract, but on closer inspection it fails by a mile to deliver the goods. Clause 111 on voluntary organisations is less prescriptive, allowing the assembly to set up a scheme with complete flexibility, consulting the appropriate bodies.
      Clause 110 is more prescriptive. We do not want to delete subsection (1). We agree that a scheme needs to be put in place, but it must be real, not just lip service to creating something. There must be more substance.
      What do we see behind the ideal of an inclusive assembly and its balanced relationship with the local authorities in the clause and schedule 7? The assembly will make the Standing Orders. The assembly will set up the Partnership Council. The assembly will decide on the size of the Partnership Council. This is one area in which size counts. There are 22 county councils and county borough councils, as well as other bodies, such as national parks, the police and the fire services, that could be included.
      Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he will support my amendment, which would provide for one member from each unitary authority in Wales to be on the Partnership Council?
      Mr. Evans: No, because our amendments go wider than the nationalist amendments. I would have a

      935
      troublesome night if I went along with them. However, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. We do not know the size of the Partnership Council. We know only that there will be equal representation between Members of the Assembly and representatives of other bodies. If the council had 40 members, there would be 20 from each. That would mean that not every local authority could send a representative. The council could be smaller than that—
      Mr. Ron Davies: How about 44?
      Mr. Evans: Or it could be larger, but even if there were 44 members, there would still be the police, the fire authorities, the national parks and other bodies to be considered.
      To give due regard to the regional nature of the Partnership Council, it would be useful if the Bill were more prescriptive. We would like an assurance for people from the regions that they will have representatives on it. The council is an advisory body, so there is nothing to fear. Local government is important throughout Wales, not just in certain parts. All the regions should be represented.
      Schedule 7 says:
      "The Partnership Council must meet at least once a year."
      It is a vital body that will do so much for Wales, bringing the democratic system closer to the people, but the Bill says only that it should meet at least once a year. That is quite pathetic. If we are to set up such a body, I hope that it would meet a little more than once a year.
      Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore support amendment No. 471, which I tabled, which suggests that the Partnership Council meets three times a year at least?
      Mr. Evans: If size is important, frequency is, too. Whereas three times a year would be three times better than the minimum proposed, the hon. Gentleman's amendment still does not go far enough for me. I react to the hon. Gentleman's question in the same way as somebody standing up in a law and order debate at a Conservative conference who says that he wishes to oppose the amendment because it does not go far enough.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Swayne: Would it not be preferable if, as the Opposition amendments state, the Partnership Council did not meet at all?
      Hon. Members: Ah.
      Mr. Evans: Well—[Interruption.] This is an important issue. As the Bill stands, it may be preferable for the Partnership Council not to meet at all. As far as I can see, there are no guarantees of how large the body will be or whether it will be all-inclusive and representative. The only thing proposed for it is in schedule 7: that it should meet at least once a year. That is not good enough. If we are setting up the body, we would hope to give it certain powers.
      Mr. Ron Davies: Ah: "we".
      Mr. Evans: I speak as one in this Parliament. We are certainly not opposing the advisory Partnership Council;
      936
      we are saying that it should be improved. It is wonderful to have the Secretary of State in the Chamber for our proceedings. I am grateful that he is present for my speech. If he waits a moment and I am able to elaborate, he might even agree with me. I cannot recall his experience of local government. I am sure that it is longer than mine. I am sure that he also values the role of local authorities in Wales and will want to ensure that, if we are going to the trouble of including the proposal in the Bill, the organisation is meaningful.
      We have tabled our amendments in good faith so that the Minister may look at the issue again. Brilliant as our idea may be, he may wish to take it away, fine-tune it, bring it back and claim it as an idea of his own.
      Mr. Öpik: This may seem a very trivial detail, but my understanding of the Opposition amendments is that they remove the Partnership Council entirely.
      Mr. Evans: We are saying that, given the current drafting of the Bill, it would be better, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, if the body did not meet at all. We have tabled the amendments so that the Minister can consider something that will be constructive for local authority representatives, and so that a meaningful body can be established which represents people throughout Wales. If we are to give birth to the organisation, let us ensure that it is something of which the parents will be proud. Let us take the opportunity.
      A cynical view might be that, given the Bill, the assembly might not be seen by the Partnership Council as a body akin to heaven, which is how it has been described over the past few days and was described during the referendum campaign. We were led to believe that once the assembly was set up, the sun would always shine in Wales and there would be very few problems. Since the Partnership Council has been given the opportunity to advise the assembly and local government, as an offspring, it may at times be critical. Stipulating that it meets only once a year does not give it much authority.
      Mr. Llwyd: How many times would it meet?
      Mr. Evans: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. If he waits just one moment, I shall refer to that point in my speech.
      I ask the Minister to look again at the matter and give the body a raison d'être. The new Partnership Council should contain a broad spectrum of local interests. The Secretary of State seems to be reacting to the phrase "raison d'être". It is French. I am talking about giving the assembly a real reason for existing. We have heard much about bilingual translation—I can do it myself.
      The Partnership Council should meet regularly. If it is to have a real opportunity to take on board the views of the local authorities—including the national parks, the police, the fire brigade and any other body that is deemed important enough under subsection (7)—it should meet at least once a month. It is especially important to Members

      937
      of the Assembly who do not have local authority experience that there should be a fair exchange of views, particularly in the early years of the assembly.
      Ms Julie Morgan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if the Partnership Council met once a month, it would meet more often than the full councils of some of the local authorities involved?
      Mr. Evans: Not all local authorities have the same cycle.
      I suggested that the Partnership Council meet once a month, but there may be periods, such as in the summer or over Christmas, when it does not meet, so there might be as few as eight or 10 meetings a year. It is important that it meet more regularly than the rather fleeting suggestion in the Bill of at least once a year.
      Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend accept that the council's role is to establish and promote the relationship between the assembly and local government? That is a critical function; the council is not merely a liaison committee that may or may not meet once a month.
      Mr. Evans: I find the attitude of Labour Members puzzling. All we have heard in Committee is the importance of the assembly to democracy. The White Paper, which was so influential during the referendum campaign, said that close links would be established between the assembly and local authorities, yet the Bill makes only fleeting reference to the Partnership Council and says that it should meet once a year.
      Many Labour Members have experience of local authorities, so I would expect them to want to ensure that the Partnership Council meets regularly to discuss common problems, so that there can be a better understanding of what the assembly and representatives of local authorities—in the wider context laid out in the Bill—want.
      If one of the objectives of creating this new tier of government is to bring democracy closer to the people, let us do just that and stop the window-dressing nonsense, which is nothing more than a sop to the Welsh people and an insult to local democracy.
      Ms Jackie Lawrence: I oppose the amendment and amendment No. 470. Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken this evening, I shall be brief.
      The amendment goes even further than amendment No. 469, in that it denies the very possibility of an equal partnership between the assembly and local government. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to democracy, which is fundamental to the Bill, but the amendment runs totally counter to it.
      Mr. Hayes: The nature of partnership surely requires some definition of the expectations of the partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) pointed out that it will be difficult to form a useful partnership when the size, nature and frequency of meetings of the body are ill defined.
      Ms Lawrence: Partnership is a coming together of equal partners, but amendment No. 355 would deny the
      938
      possibility of bringing the partners together. Amendment No. 470 would extend membership and would make the Partnership Council unmanageable, thereby threatening its democratic role.
      I should like the Minister to address questions about national park representation, especially on planning matters, funding and environmental issues. Pembrokeshire has the highest density of population in a national park area, and specific concerns. Amendments Nos. 355 and 470 would affect the partnership of equals and the size of the body, and should therefore be rejected.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: At first sight, the Partnership Council appears to be a harmless proposal, but it is a talking shop for Members of the Assembly and local councillors. One might ask where the harm is in that. Well, after all the build-up in the White Paper, we might have hoped for more. The proposal is symptomatic of a gaping hole at the heart of the Bill and the proposals for a so-called National Assembly for Wales. We have heard so much recently about a constitutional revolution in our country, after various charter movements. That is not true for Wales, because the Bill is largely an administrative device: the proposal for a Partnership Council reveals that.
      Neither the Bill nor the Partnership Council will make any difference to the lives of the people in Wales. The Partnership Council proposal shows the true interests of those who are framing the legislation and those who will take part in the assembly. They love creating bureaucratic, interlocking mechanisms between local authorities, officers and councils. At best, those mechanisms are forums; at worst, they are more sinister, as we have seen in other parts of the country.
      As a glorified county council, the national assembly is perfect for such people. When politicians are desperate to create something but have no inspiration, they create a Partnership Council. Just as Maastricht created a forum of the regions—ftIoN. MEMBERS: "Ah!"1 That is a pointless talking shop, and the Partnership Council will be another.
      Clause 110(4)(a) provides that the Partnership Council would
      "give advice to the Assembly".
      Why do we need yet another council to give advice to yet another assembly? How often will the council meet? The council will also
      "make representations to the Assembly".
      Why cannot councillors make representations directly to the assembly? That has been done adequately in England, Wales and Scotland for many years. Why will Members of the Assembly be elected if not to make representations directly to local authorities and the general public?
      Mr. Öpik: Since the hon. Gentleman evidently disagrees with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who said that the proposals could be a useful part of the Bill with a few small changes—
      Mr. Evans: A few major changes.
      Mr. Öpik: I am sorry. What advice would the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) give his colleague about amending the Conservatives' position?
      Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has not been long in the House if he thinks that I always agree with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—I do occasionally have an independent point of view.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend's point requires amplification. He is actually saying that local authorities

      939
      that are represented on the Partnership Council may have access to the assembly to give advice or to offer comment, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, local authorities and the parts of Wales that are not represented will not have the ability to give that sort of advice. That is the inequality that the Partnership Council engenders.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), with whom I normally agree on everything. The trouble with bureaucratic mechanisms is that either one makes the thing so loose as to be meaningless in an attempt to include everybody, or one starts to exclude people.
      Clause 110(4)(c) states that the council can "give advice" to local authorities. Why should local authorities want to be lectured by yet another council? Are they incapable of running their own affairs?
      Of course, "partners" is a politically correct word. We no longer have spouses, husbands or wives with lifetime commitments—we have partners and sometimes rather odd ones. We have European partners and now we are to have a Partnership Council in Wales. Perhaps we should have Partnership Councils in England—but, on second thoughts, no thank you.
      At first, the whole concept of the Partnership Council seems entirely harmless, but it is bogus and symptomatic of the real problems within the Bill. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Partnership Council actually means something—that it is a serious attempt to create powerful regional bulldozers in an unstoppable drive to establish real local and regional power. Let us assume that that is the case. We know it is not, because it is a sham, but if it was the case, it would be a serious step down the road to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The Partnership Council is, at best, a sham, a talking shop and a waste of time. The clause has been badly drafted, and the Committee should reject it.
      Mr. Livsey: We believe that it is absolutely right to have a Partnership Council. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), in his own endearing and unique way, appears to be not only a Unionist, but an empire builder. The clause states that assembly must
      "sustain and promote local Government in Wales"
      which is very important.
      I, like the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence), am concerned about representation of the national parks, and I hope that, because of national parks' functions in planning and other matters, they will be drawn into the Partnership Council. The other bodies listed—police and fire authorities—are also important. Amendment No. 470, which specifies that there should be one representative from each county, is extremely important and we would wish to support that amendment.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The debate has been important, if only because it shows that the Conservative party is totally divided on this point—in fact, the hon. Member
      940
      for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) appears to be totally divided within himself. At first, I thought his speech was constructed in a dream, but I then realised that it must have been a nightmare. He started by claiming that his concern in tabling an amendment to destroy the Partnership Council was to promote the interests of local government. Before he put his contribution together—if that is what actually happened—did he actually speak to any local government leader or councillor in Wales?
      Mr. Evans: I was one.
      Mr. Griffiths: Did the hon. Gentleman speak to any present members of local authorities in Wales? I wonder whether he spoke to any of them, because they have backed the proposal. They are extremely happy about the establishment of the Partnership Council, which they want.
      Mr. Evans: It is a sop.
      Mr. Griffiths: The purpose of the clause is to establish the Partnership Council which, in conjunction with the assembly and local government, will have the duty to sustain and promote local government in Wales. If that is a sop, it is a funny sort of one. The very idea that the hon. Gentleman could think that explains the tone of his speech. If he was so concerned about creating an alternative to that Partnership Council, why on earth did he not table any amendments to that effect? All we heard from him was a rant about how the Partnership Council was not strong enough, and did not provide a large enough role for local government, but that it should meet at least eight times a year. That is his opinion, yet he tabled no amendments to that effect. He missed out on a glorious opportunity to do so.
      Mr. Evans: The real nightmare is listening to the Minister's response to any of our constructive suggestions. We know that Ministers could consider our amendments, turn them around, slightly tweak them and then suggest that they were their own. If the Minister wants to establish a Partnership Council that is responsive to the needs of local authorities throughout all parts of Wales, he should look carefully at our suggestions and give that council a true purpose. It should not just be a sop to meet the aims contained in the White Paper, which are sadly missing from the Bill.
      Mr. Griffiths: The tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks tonight were destructive. He did not offer one positive proposal apart from suggesting that the Partnership Council should meet eight times a year, even though he was proposing its destruction—that is the main thrust of his amendments.
      The proposed Partnership Council has been widely welcomed by all the Welsh local authorities. Which authority representatives to whom the hon. Gentleman spoke provided any evidence for his rant? The answer is none of them.
      The establishment of the Partnership Council is a positive step towards restoring the trust between central and local Government, which was sadly destroyed by the Conservative Government—the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was a member of it. It was lost because of their actions. Since the election, we have already developed a

      941
      new, strong working relationship with the Welsh Local Government Association. All the Welsh local authorities, apart from two, are also involved with the Central Local Partnership Wales Forum, whatever their political complexion. Of course none of those authorities is Tory, because even if we put all the Tories on one council, they would still not make a majority.
      Mr. Llwyd: On that happy note, may I ask the Minister whether he has any idea how many people from the unitary authorities will be invited to take part in the process? Can he give us any idea of the number of times a year when the Partnership Council will sit?
      Mr. Griffiths: We would want all of Wales to be represented. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about proper regional representation and we would anticipate relevant proposals from the Welsh Local Government Association to achieve that aim. It is obvious that not just local authorities, but the fire service, the police authorities, the national parks and the Welsh community councils should be represented on that council. County and borough councils will also be represented. We will discuss the relevant numbers with representatives of Welsh local government to ensure that they are happy with their representation.
      Mr. Hayes: Those are the points that have been brought out by Conservative Members during the debate. Will the Minister now confirm in slightly more specific terms—or at least speculate with some authority on—the size of the council, the frequency of its meetings and the nature of the relationship between the council and the assembly, which is not defined in the Bill? It is no use the hon. Gentleman drooling about the enthusiasm of Welsh local authorities to be involved in the council if he has not given those details even to us, let alone to Welsh local authorities.
      Mr. Griffiths: To which local authorities in Wales has the hon. Gentleman spoken about this proposal? I have already emphasised that they are all totally behind it. [Interruption.] As there are only 22 of them, it would not be too difficult. The hon. Gentleman has not spoken to one.
      We have provided a minimum from which Welsh local government, other partners and the assembly can build up. We have said that the council should meet at least once a year, but if it wants to meet twice—or 10 times—that will be up to it. If it decides that adequate representation for the Welsh counties and county boroughs would be about eight, drawn from all parts of Wales, we can build on that. However, it will be a debate with them, to ensure that they feel that they are properly represented. That is the commitment that I make.
      Amendment No. 358 was tabled to try to destroy the possibility of anyone receiving any payment for participating in the council—another wrecking amendment. We say, let us go ahead with the Partnership Council, because we know that that is what Welsh local government wants. We hope that amendment No. 471, which says that the council should meet a minimum of three times a year, and amendment No. 470, which says that there should be at least one member from each local authority, will be withdrawn, because we are confident that, on both subjects, we can get the agreement of local government as to what is appropriate.
      942
      During the debate, we had a beacon of common sense and thoughtfulness in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence). It was refreshing in the light of the rant that we heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), which was directly contradictory to the views being expressed by Conservative Front-Bench Members, who, although they were seeking to destroy the Partnership Council, tried to claim that they were building a new relationship but had no idea what they would want except that the Partnership Council should meet at least eight times a year and be represented regionally.
      Our Government amendments are essentially technical in nature. In amendments Nos. 376 to 386, we use the word "authorities" to tie in with the use of local authorities elsewhere. We want to ensure that the assembly can use common sense in seeking nomination so that if, for example, a local government vacancy were created, someone from local government would fill that vacancy, making a trawl throughout Wales unnecessary.
      We hope that all hon. Members will feel, having inspected these amendments closely, that they add clarity to the Bill, to ensure that the Partnership Council works properly. Given that it would appear that hon. Members are happy with the proposal that these amendments technically improve the Bill, I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will be prepared to withdraw amendment No. 355 and not press the other amendments to a vote, because they are simply wrecking amendments and not designed to promote and strengthen the role of local government with the new National Assembly for Wales.
      Mr. Evans: I listened carefully to the Minister. I am not sure whether he was trying to win me over when he referred to my excellent speech as a rant. The fact that he may not agree with what I say—and because I say what I say and say it passionately—does not make it a rant.
      We were suggesting a real partnership between local authorities and the assembly Members in Wales to ensure that the body would mean something. What the Government have suggested is a sop. They put the measures in the White Paper to try to win the support of the people in Wales, and that has not worked. We are not persuaded by what the Minister said, and we shall press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 331.

      Division No. 147]

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Amess, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burns, Simon

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Bercow, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chope, Christopher

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clappison, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Boswell, Tim

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Brady, Graham

      Collins, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Colvin, Michael

      943

      Cran, James

      Mates, Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Day, Stephen

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan, Alan

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evans, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Faber, David

      Norman, Archie

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Flight, Howard

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Prior, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gill, Christopher

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gray, James

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Damian

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Greenway, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Grieve, Dominic

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Spring, Richard

      Hammond, Philip

      Steen, Anthony

      Hayes, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Syms, Robert

      Horam, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Townend, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tredinnick, David

      Key, Robert

      Trend, Michael

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Viggers, Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Walter, Robert

      Lansley, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Leigh, Edward

      Wells, Bowen

      Letwin, Oliver

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Lidington, David

      Willetts, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Woodward, Shaun

      Luff, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      MacKay, Andrew

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Madel, Sir David

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Maples, John

      Mr. John Whittingdale.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Allan, Richard

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Browne, Desmond

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Burden, Richard

      Ashton, Joe

      Burgon, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Burnett, John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burstow, Paul

      Austin, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Byers, Stephen

      Banks, Tony

      Caborn, Richard

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cann, Jamie

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Caton, Martin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Berry, Roger

      Chaytor, David

      Betts, Clive

      Chidgey, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Clapham, Michael

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Boateng, Paul

      944

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Connarty, Michael

      Hill, Keith

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Hoey, Kate

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Home Robertson, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cranston, Ross

      Hope, Phil

      Crausby, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cummings, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hutton, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Adam

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Denham, John

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Edwards, Huw

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Kidney, David

      Feam, Ronnie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fisher, Mark

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Flint, Caroline

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Flynn, Paul

      Laxton, Bob

      Follett, Barbara

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foulkes, George

      Linton, Martin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Livingstone, Ken

      Galbraith, Sam

      Livsey, Richard

      Gapes, Mike

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lock, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McAllion, John

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCabe, Steve

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Godman, Norman A

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Macdonald, Calum

      Goggins, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Gorrie, Donald

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Grant, Bernie

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McLeish, Henry

      Grogan, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hanson, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Mallaber, Judy

      945

      Marek, Dr John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Michael, Alun

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Milburn, Alan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Miller, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moore, Michael

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Spellar, John

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stevenson, George

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mountford, Kali

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mullin, Chris

      Stott, Roger

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stringer, Graham

      Norris, Dan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Oaten, Mark

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Timms, Stephen

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pearson, Ian

      Todd, Mark

      Pickthall, Colin

      Touhing, Don

      Pike, Peter L

      Trickett, Jon

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pond, Chris

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pope, Greg

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pound, Stephen

      Tyler, Paul

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Vaz, Keith

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Watts, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Webb, Steve

      Purchase, Ken

      White, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Raynsford, Nick

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Willis, Phil

      Wills, Michael

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wilson, Brian

      Rooney, Terry

      Winnick, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Roy, Frank

      Wise, Audrey

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Salter, Martin

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mr. John McFall and

      Sawford, Phil

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [2 February], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment made: No. 376, in page 53, line 39, leave out 'bodies' and insert 'authorities'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 7

      RELATIONS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Amendments made: No. 377, in page 84, leave out lines 9 to 11.
      No. 378, in page 84, line 12, after 'time', insert 'make an appointment to'.
      No. 379, in page 84, line 26, leave out 'or body'.
      No. 380, in page 84, leave out lines 31 to 35.
      No. 381, in page 84, line 47, leave out 'and bodies'.
      No. 382, in page 84, line 49, leave out 'or body'.
      No. 383, in page 85, line 5, leave out
      'Assembly shall make appointments under paragraph 2(1)(b)'
      and insert 'appointments shall be made'.
      No. 384, in page 85, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert—
      '(4A) Where a casual vacancy arises among the members of the Partnership Council appointed under paragraph 2(1)(b), the Assembly shall invite—

      (a) such local authorities in Wales, and

      (b) such associations of local authorities in Wales,

      as the Assembly considers appropriate to make, within a period specified by the Assembly, nominations of persons for appointment under paragraph 2(1)(b) to fill the vacancy.
      (4B) The appointment to fill the vacancy shall be made from among those nominated in accordance with the invitation unless no-one is so nominated.
      (4C) Where, pursuant to sub-paragraph (4) or (4B), the Assembly appoints as a member of the Partnership Council under paragraph 2(1)(b) a person nominated by an authority or association, the Assembly shall notify the authority or association of the appointment.
      No. 385, in page 85, line 13, at end insert—
      3A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person appointed as a member of the Partnership Council shall remain a member until the end of the day before the ordinary election following his appointment.
      (2) A person appointed as a member of the Partnership Council may resign at any time.
      (3) A person appointed as a member of the Partnership Council under paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 shall cease to be a member if—

      (a) he ceases to be an Assembly member, or

      (b) he is removed from membership of the Partnership Council by the Assembly.

      (4) A person appointed as a member of the Partnership Council under paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph shall cease to be a member if he ceases to be eligible for appointment under that paragraph.
      (5) Where the appointment of a person as a member of the Partnership Council under that paragraph was notified under paragraph 3(4C) to an authority or association—

      (a) the authority or association may require the Assembly to remove him from membership, and

      (b) he shall cease to be a member on being removed from membership by the Assembly in compliance with that requirement.

      (6) A person—

      (a) whose appointment as a member of the Partnership Council was notified under paragraph 3(4C) to an authority within paragraph (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (7) of section 110, and

      947

      (b) who was, on appointment, a member of the authority.

      shall cease to be a member of the Partnership Council if he ceases to be a member of the authority (even though he remains a member of an authority within paragraph (a) of that subsection).
      (7) The Assembly may not delegate the function of removing a person from membership of the Partnership Council under subparagraph (3)(b) or (5)(b) to—

      (a) a committee of the Assembly, or

      (b) a member of the Assembly's staff.'.

      No. 386, in page 85, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'that' in line 28 and insert
      'The standing orders of the Partnership Council may provide for the Partnership Council to establish committees.
      () The members of any committee established by the Partnership Council shall be elected by the Partnership Council from among its members so as to secure'.— [Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 111

      RELATIONS WITH VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 287, in page 54, line 23, at end insert—
      '() The Assembly may not delegate the function of making, or remaking or revising, the scheme to—

      (a) a committee of the Assembly, or

      (b) a member of the Assembly's staff.'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

      Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 112 to 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 8 agreed to.
      It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Road Traffic (New Drivers) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on llth December, be approved.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 0.

      Division No. 148]

      [10.16 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Beard, Nigel

      Ainger, Nick

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Allan, Richard

      Berry, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Betts, Clive

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Blackman, Liz

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Boateng, Paul

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      948

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Grant, Bernie

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Browne, Desmond

      Grogan, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Hain, Peter

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Byers, Stephen

      Hanson, David

      Caborn, Richard

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Healey, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Caton, Martin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cawsey, Ian

      Heppell, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chaytor, David

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clapham, Michael

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Home Robertson, John

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cranston, Ross

      Hurst, Alan

      Crausby, David

      Hutton, John

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Ingram, Adam

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jenkins, Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dowd, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Drew, David

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Etherington, Bill

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Fatchett, Derek

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Fisher, Mark

      Laxton, Bob

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Levitt, Tom

      Flint, Caroline

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Linton, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Livsey, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lock, David

      Foulkes, George

      McAllion, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Galbraith, Sam

      McCabe, Steve

      Gapes, Mike

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Macdonald, Calum

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonnell, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McIsaac, Shona

      Godman, Norman A

      McLeish, Henry

      Goggins, Paul

      McNulty, Tony

      Gorrie, Donald

      MacShane, Denis

      949

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sawfond, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marek, Dr John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Michael, Alun

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Milburn, Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miller, Andrew

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mitchell, Austin

      Spellar, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Moore, Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stringer, Graham

      Mountford, Kali

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mullin, Chris

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Norris, Dan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Olner, Bill

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Öpik, Lembit

      Todd, Mark

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Touhig, Don

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Trickett, Jon

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pearson, Ian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pike, Peter L

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Plaskitt, James

      Tyler, Paul

      Pond, Chris

      Vaz, Keith

      Pope, Greg

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pound, Stephen

      Wareing, Robert N

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Watts, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Webb, Steve

      Primarolo, Dawn

      White, Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rammell, Bill

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Willis, Phil

      Rendel, David

      Wills, Michael

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Wilson, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wise, Audrey

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wood, Mike

      Roy, Frank

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Salter, Martin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mr. John McFall.

      NOES

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Mr. Keith Simpson.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Mr. Belts.]
      Question agreed to.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at the sitting on Thursday 5th February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on any Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government Finance not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Betts.]

      SELECT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
      Ordered,
      That Mrs. Anne McGuire and Ms Hazel Blears be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and Mr. Jim Dobbin and Mrs. Rosemary McKenna be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Belts.]

      SELECT COMMITTEE ON MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Huw Edwards be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. David Drew be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Bens.]

      SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
      Ordered,
      That Fiona Mactaggart be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Helen Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Bens.]

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I ask hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly.
  Mr. Stinchcombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad to have this opportunity to raise the important subject of breast cancer screening, especially because this is Age Concern's week against age discrimination. Breast screening is one area of health policy in which discrimination against older patients is currently systemic, as I shall shortly demonstrate.
  The Government have committed themselves to placing the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer high on their list of health care priorities. That commitment was amply demonstrated by the £10 million that was allocated in September to improve the symptomatic breast cancer service. The commitment will deliver the real improvement in health care that we seek only if we act on the best available evidence. I sought this debate to bring that evidence before the House and to raise with the Minister two important areas in which much can and should be done to improve breast screening. Those areas are two-view mammography, otherwise known as two-view screening, and the upper age limit for automatic invitations to the breast screening programme.
  I make it clear that those two areas are not the only ones that should concern us as we seek to improve breast screening services. There are other related, important areas that must be addressed. They include worrying regional variations in the screening programme and the equally worrying take-up of screening opportunities by those in lower income and ethnic minority groups. There is also the acknowledged shortage of radiologists, oncologists and breast surgeons. Those are all areas for potential reform. However, for two reasons, I have decided to focus on the areas that I have specified.
  First, the time is apt, in this week of all weeks, to highlight any area of health care policy that discriminates against the elderly. Secondly, my research leads me to believe that changes to screening policy in those two areas would have the most significant effect on reducing breast cancer mortality, which is currently 14,000 a year—among the highest rates in the world.
  Before I deal in detail with the two principal areas upon which I wish to focus, it will help to set the factual context. About 80 per cent. of breast cancers in this country are discovered by women themselves. Approximately 35,000 breast cancers are diagnosed each year but only 6,000 to 7,000 are picked up by the screening programme. Three conclusions can be drawn from that startling fact. The first is that the health education programme in this area has been extremely successful, and that is a cause for some congratulation. Secondly, we should not be complacent. The programme must be extended and improved, especially for older women who, as I shall shortly show, are often oblivious to the fact that they are in the highest risk age category.
  952
  Thirdly and most importantly, the facts show that the existing screening programme is not being used to its full potential.
  Of course funding for research into new and better drugs is essential, and the £10 million that has been allocated to symptomatic breast cancer services is warmly welcomed, but ultimately, the success of those measures will be limited if more small cancers are not detected. Successful treatment of cancers depends upon successfully detecting them in the early stage. We must ask ourselves a simple question: "Can we save more lives by altering existing policies and practice to detect more small cancers?" The answer is yes, we can bring about improvements and detect more small cancers and save more lives. We can do that by expanding two-view screening and abolishing the current upper age limit for automatic invitation to the screening programme.
  In 1995, a directive was sent to health authorities requiring two-view mammography to be used for all first-round screens. Why? Because two-view screening detected more small cancers—the very cancers that must be detected if lives are to be saved. However, the improved detection of two-view screening is true not only of first-round screens but of each round of screening. That fact requires no more research or pilot study for it to be established, because the evidence already exists. The evidence shows us not only that two-view mammography detects 45 per cent. more cancers at the first-round screens, but also that it detects at least 25 per cent. more small cancers at incident rounds. Those figures cannot be ignored. They have to be acted upon, especially when one reviews the record of breast cancer screening across the country.
  Our target is a standardised detection ratio of one. If we reach that, we will achieve the mortality rate reduction that we seek. If the SDR is under one, we will be under-performing. Whereas the SDR for first-round screens exceeds one, the ratio for incident rounds is lower—between 0.75 and 0.85. That difference can best be explained by the fact that we have two-view screening for first-round screens but not for incident-round screens.
  So it is that, under current policy, only one in 10 health regions are meeting the national expected standards for incident-round detection ratios; so it is that many breast units fail even to meet minimum standards; and so it is that, each year, an estimated 450 women with small detectable cancers are given false reassurance, because single-view screens in incident rounds have failed to detect existing cancers. Those figures are deeply unimpressive, especially when the professionals already know how to improve them—by expanding two-view screening into incident rounds.
  We know that there will be financial implications, but we must consider two points. First, research shows that, despite the higher overall costs of two-view screening compared to one view, the average cost of screening per cancer detected is similar, so that two-view screening is as cost-effective as one view. Secondly, there is every indication that we will not meet our targets if we do not expand two-view screening.
  It follows that, if the targets are to serve any useful role, my hon. Friend the Minister must be able to answer some questions. Has research been done to confirm the number of additional small cancers that would be detected, and lives saved, by introducing that change into

  953
  screening policy? Do the Government have plans for their own cost-effectiveness study of compulsory two-view screening at all rounds of breast screening? Are the Government in a position properly to assess the relative costs and benefits of the earlier detection and treatment of small cancers that will be achieved by two-view screening at all screening rounds? To what extent, and on what basis, will the Government provide the resources and establish new national guidelines to meet the targets that have been set?
  Only when my hon. Friend the Minister can answer those questions will we have a solid basis on which policy on the matter can develop consistently and coherently—not incrementally or in a piecemeal manner—so that we develop a truly national breast-screening programme built on a fair distribution of resources, working to identical standards everywhere and using best shared practice: which means two-view screening at all screening rounds.
  The second matter that I should like to deal with is the current age limit for automatic invitations to screening. The target set in "The Health of the Nation" for breast cancer was to reduce by the year 2000 the rate of breast cancer deaths among women invited for screening by at least 25 per cent. That is a tough and a commendable goal. However, as a principle, as a guiding policy, it is both inadequate and discriminatory, because it excludes those women over 65 who are not invited to the screening programme. It excludes those women although in 1992, 63 per cent. of breast cancer deaths were in women over 65. It excludes them when half all new incidences of breast cancer each year are among women aged 65 and over. Not only are we failing to do all we can to detect small cancers in those whom we invite into the screening programme, we do not even automatically issue invitations to older women who are most at risk.
  The failure to issue invitations to older women has obvious consequences. Only about 3 per cent. of older women are screened on request during the three-year programme. Something must be done about that. Too often it has been claimed that no decision can be reached until the British pilot studies are completed, but the studies were designed to assess only the practical and logistical implications of extending the screening programme to older women and not the effect on mortality rates of doing so.
  We already have evidence on mortality rates. The Two Counties study from Sweden demonstrates that the overall reduction in breast cancer mortality for the 50 to 74 age group was 40 per cent. That is the very study upon which our standardised detection ratios are based. So we know that delay will cost lives.
  Too often also it has been claimed that invitations should not go out to older women because there might be a low response rate. The Swedish study refutes that. It finds an uptake of around 80 per cent. in the first round of screening for women aged up to 74.
  More importantly, however, what are the ethical implications of that argument? There is evidence to suggest that women from ethnic minorities in the 50 to 64 age group also have a low response rate to invitations. A study has shown the same to be true for women in inner north London. No one would argue that women
  954
  from ethnic minorities or from inner-city areas should be denied invitations to participate in the screening programme.
  Ms Julia Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for raising these concerns. Is he aware that Swedish research shows that if younger women aged 39 to 49 are invited for screening, the death rate in that age group can also be reduced? Does he agree that when the new institute for clinical effectiveness is launched, it should be asked to find out whether we should use that Swedish research and invite younger women for screening? I should like that to happen so that my constituents know that they can have the most effective assessment and treatment.
  Mr. Stinchcombe: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Yet again, she reveals her expertise in these matters. I am aware of the Swedish research and I understand that it found a 13 per cent. reduction in mortality rates in the 40 to 49 age group and that further research will be carried out. The research suggests that invitations to women in that age group will bring benefits, so we should promote that.
  We should not discriminate against older women or younger women. Invitations are a vital means of informing women of the risks and of their rights. Invitations should not be channelled just to parts of the population, but made available to all women for whom screening has been shown to be effective.
  There is, however, a special reason to send invitations to older women. Not only are they the group most susceptible to breast cancer, but they appear to be the least knowledgeable of the risks they face and the screening to which they are entitled.
  A recent Age Concern survey of 1,000 women aged 65 and over revealed that 28 per cent. of respondents believed that there was no risk of their getting breast cancer, when in fact they were in the highest-risk category. Only 30 per cent. thought that their age group was eligible for screening on request. The low take-up of older women for screening confirms that research.
  The figures make absolutely no case for denying older women screening invitations that could and would save lives, but they make a compelling case for taking steps better to inform them of the risks of breast cancer and their right to be screened to meet that risk.
  We should abolish the existing upper age limit for invitations and launch a targeted programme to educate older women, and similar programmes targeted at ethnic minority groups and lower income groups. The programmes should form part of a coherent strategy that involves GPs, social services and voluntary organisations and that is neither ad hoc nor partial, but carefully devised and implemented on a universal basis, albeit flexibly. It will have to be flexible, because there will be difficulties to address as to how to make the screening programme more accessible to older women without undermining its efficiency. The on-going pilot studies will help to guide us through those difficulties.
  However, we cannot wait for those studies before we signal our intentions and act on them. How can we wait when the current system sanctions and reinforces inequality in health care? How can we wait when it discriminates against older women—some of the most

  955
  vulnerable of our citizens? How can we wait when waiting costs lives—some estimate as many as 2,000 every year? There could be up to 6,000 preventable deaths while the practical implications of the pilot studies are being assessed.
  In the light of those figures, serious ethical questions would be raised by any decision not to change the existing discriminatory policy. Some may say that we cannot afford the change. With 6,000 lives at stake, I hope that the Minister agrees that we cannot afford to wait.
  10.45 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) for raising this important subject, which he has pursued several times through parliamentary questions and other means. He has given me the chance to stress once again the Government's commitment to improving cancer services. I should like to underline in particular our determination to ensure improvements in the screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer.
  We set out that commitment in our most recent White Paper, "The New NHS". One of the three milestones symbolising our new approach to the national health service was the pledge:
  "we will improve prompt access to specialist services so that everyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their GP deciding they need to be seen urgently, and requesting an appointment. The Government will guarantee the maximum two week waiting period for everyone with suspected breast cancer by April 1999 and for all other cases of suspected cancer by 2000."
  Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Early detection plays a vital role in maximising the chances of successful treatment. That is why the Government's pledge to ensure high-quality, speedy treatment will bring comfort to millions of women.
  The breast screening programme is saving women's lives. Last year, more than 1 million women had a mammogram. More than 6,500 cancers were detected. Since the breast screening programme was introduced in 1988, mortality from breast cancer has been falling faster than the European average.
  We are well aware that we must not be complacent. We are undertaking a range of initiatives to bring about further improvements in breast cancer services. We are exploring ways in which the breast screening programme might be extended so that women can be offered an even better service. In addition, within a few weeks of taking office we made available an extra £10 million for breast cancer treatment to help to speed up access to diagnosis and to reduce waiting times for treatment by a specialist breast cancer team. That will maximise the benefits of early detection through screening.
  The United Kingdom was the first country in the European Community—and one of the first in the world—to introduce a nationwide breast screening programme based on computerised call and recall. As my hon. Friend has made clear, all women between 50 and 64 are invited to be screened by mammography every three years, with screening for older women available three-yearly on request.
  956
  Evidence available when the breast screening programme was set up suggested that older women would not accept screening invitations. That is why they were not included in the routine call and recall programme. However, screening every three years is available on request to women over the age of 64. Indeed, the availability and importance of screening for older women is widely publicised.
  In the light of the references of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough to Age Concern, I am glad to underline that the NHS breast screening programme is working with Age Concern to encourage older women to request screening and to be breast aware. It has produced a leaflet, "65 or over: You are still entitled to breast screening", which is widely available. I was very pleased to hear that the number of women aged over 64 requesting an NHS mammogram has risen from 39,000 two years ago to more than 57,000 last year. It is clearly important that we get the message out to older women to encourage them to make use of this important service.
  I turn to the important challenge issued by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough to open automatic recall screening to women over the age of 65. The Government are funding pilot schemes in Brighton, Nottingham and Leeds to evaluate the effectiveness of extending routine screening to women aged between 65 and 69. One of those pilot studies will be completed next year, and the others by 2000. The studies should give a clear picture of the likely uptake among older women and, most important, the effectiveness in terms of the number of cancers detected. We will base any changes to policy on the evidence emerging from the studies. I reassure my hon. Friend of the Government's absolute determination to save women's lives, and to save women's lives by making available high-quality treatment based on the very best evidence of what is effective.
  In addition to the pilot studies, other research is under way to look at other changes that might be made to the breast screening programme to improve the service offered to women. In the light of clear evidence that taking two mammographic views of the breast detected 24 per cent. more invasive cancers than a single mammogram view at a woman's first screen—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough—all breast screening units are now required to use two-view mammography at a woman's first screen. A further study is being carried out to assess the benefits of two-view mammography at each screening round. My hon. Friend asked whether there were plans to look at the cost-effectiveness of two-view mammography at all screens, and if so, how many more cancers we could expect to be picked up. The study under way should provide the answers to those questions.
  Research has also been carried out into the effectiveness of reducing the interval between screens. In response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) about screening for younger women, I should say that our research extends to an assessment of the effectiveness of screening women under the age of 50.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister knows, as do we all, of our atrocious record compared with many other developed countries. The chance of survival is

  957
  20 per cent. less than in similar countries. Must women wait until 2000 before our own pilot scheme proves what has already been proven elsewhere?
  Ms Jowell: As I made clear, our intention is to assess very carefully in the light of the evidence the improved effectiveness of automatic recall for older women.
  It is completely consistent with our priority of improving cancer treatment and saving lives through early intervention and high-quality treatment that we should examine the results of the pilots. If it appears that women's lives will be saved, that will inform our policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough briefly mentioned the acceptance of screening invitations by women from ethnic minorities. Ensuring the proper take-up of screening by women from ethnic minorities is of considerable concern to the Government, because it is through extending access to and use of those services that we will meet one of our key health objectives: to tackle health inequalities.
  We are keen to encourage more women from ethnic minorities to be screened. Purposeful action is needed to ensure that that happens. A great deal of action is being taken. We need to work with ethnic communities, through the preparation of information material, such as multilingual leaflets, videos and audio cassettes, and through community-based initiatives. Only through such purposeful action can we increase uptake.
  The incidents at Exeter had a devastating impact on the confidence of women who relied on the service. We have taken action to put right what went wrong and to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, similar mistakes cannot occur elsewhere.
  The report into the breast screening programme at Exeter, published last November, concluded that there had been a failure to diagnose a number of cancers and to refer women for appropriate treatment. Major factors identified included the lack of a proper accountability framework and of proper responsibility for quality assurance.
  The Government acted quickly to rectify the shortcomings. In November, we announced an overhaul of breast screening to strengthen quality assurance; to
  958
  eliminate weaknesses in the organisation and management of screening; and to restore public confidence. The measures to make the quality assurance system more robust are especially important, because, if they go wrong, the consequences for women can be catastrophic.
  Mr. Stinchcombe: I am glad to hear that we responded rapidly after the events at Exeter, but we do not need to wait for further pilot studies on two-view mammography or on the upper age limit, because we know what will happen: lives will be lost. Why do we not anticipate events, rather than reacting to them?
  Ms Jowell: Research is already under way to establish the effectiveness of those measures, especially in relation to recall and the opportunity for older women to be screened. We are working with Age Concern to encourage that. When the NHS White Paper was published, we made it clear that improving quality and national consistency would be the hallmark of building a modern, dependable national health service. Those principles apply equally to breast screening services and to treatment services that women may need subsequently.
  The Government signalled their intention to improve cancer services and, since coming to power, made available as a first step £10 million for improvements in breast cancer services. That money is being used to support more than 300 initiatives to improve the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer throughout the country, building on the vital work of the breast screening programme, which is so important for the serenity and peace of mind of women and their families.
  Those are the steps that we are taking. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we will continue our work to provide breast cancer services of the very highest quality. We are determined to ensure that we save more lives by applying the evidence of what works in practice.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

TREASURY

  Labour Market Statistics
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are planned to labour market statistics. [27823]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government expects to publish the conclusions of the Office of National Statistics review of unemployment statistics. [27185]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Office for National Statistics is announcing today a new approach to the presentation of labour market statistics following widespread public consultation. This will deliver a more rounded assessment of the UK's increasingly complex labour market.

  From April, one news release a month will present a coherent picture of the labour market. It will use all available statistics. There will be no change to any definition of unemployment. But greater weight than previously will now be given to the Labour Force Survey which uses internationally agreed definitions as recommended by the International Labour Organisation. The release will focus on people in employment, on unemployed people who are seeking work and, people who are economically inactive. All three sectors are equally important in understanding the labour market.

  The programme of improvements is designed to make labour market statistics both user relevant and user friendly, and includes: an extension of the range of indicators on a monthly basis; LFS information will be released every month as an average of the latest three months' data; for the first time whole economy employment and ILO unemployment statistics will be published monthly on a consistent basis; the publication of labour force survey data on a UK basis; the incorporation of labour force survey data in the regional labour market first releases; the publication of new indicators relating to jobs and businesses derived from employers' survey; improved earnings data to reduce the number of revisions.

  The ONS will be organising a series of workshops and seminars. These will build on recently published articles explaining how the various statistical measures inter-relate.

  The announcement follows an extensive period of consultation with data users. Independent academic experts have been consulted about changes to the methodology ONS uses in producing its labour market statistics.

  Personal Tax Allowance
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total reduction in annual tax revenue, if the personal tax allowance was increased to £10,000. [26528]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated cost at 1998–99 levels of increasing both the non-aged personal allowance and the aged personal allowance to £10,000 is £29 billion.

  Bank of England
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the argument advanced by the Bank of England in the papers circulated at the symposium from 20 January on the application of regulations stemming from Article 109I of the Maastricht Treaty to the United Kingdom and their treatment by English courts; and if he will make a statement. [26720]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 January 1998, Official Report, column 158.

  Far East (Economic Instability)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the cost to United Kingdom public funds of support to Asia in respect of the recent economic problems; [26382]

  (2) if he will list the total cost to UK public funds of financial aid to the Far East arising from economic instability. [27061]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: To date, there has been no direct cost to the Exchequer of support to Asia in respect of the recent financial difficulties. The UK contribution to the financial assistance provided to several Asian countries has been through loans from the international financial institutions.

  Pensions
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior staff employed on short-term contracts with regulatory bodies established under the Financial Services Act 1986 are entitled to the full benefits of the public service final year salary pension scheme; and for what reasons they are so entitled. [26484]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are no senior staff working in the Financial Services Authority or any of the Self-Regulatory Organisations who are entitled to benefits under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

  Personal Investment Authority
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Chief Executive of the Personal Investment Authority gave notice of her resignation; on what date it took effect; what was the basis of her financial settlement with the Authority; and what would have been the saving to public funds if she had been paid within the strict terms of her contract. [26486]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Personal Investment Authority is a private body. No public funds are involved.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if lone parents will be allowed to hold ISAs in excess of £50,000 in the event of transfer of savings or resources from an absent parent as part of a divorce or separation settlement. [22972]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  No such proposal is included in the consultative document on the individual savings account (ISA) published on 2 December.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the holder of the new individual savings account who invests up to the proposed £50,000 limit and whose investment increases beyond the limit will be able to withdraw the excess and re-invest it irrespective of the limit on annual contributions. [26235]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The £50,000 overall limit for the ISA is a limit on contributions. An ISA will be able to grow to over £50,000 and full tax relief will be given on it. As proposed, any amounts withdrawn from the ISA will be able to be re-invested subject to the annual and overall investment limits.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue implications if(a) 50 per cent. and (b) 75 per cent. of those holding more than £50,000 in TESSA and PEP investments transferred into the new individual savings account transferred the excess into tax-favoured national savings products. [26232]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The cost would depend on the amounts individuals held above the proposed £50,000 overall investment limit for individual savings accounts, and the extent to which they were able to take advantage of the different limits for the various tax favoured national savings products.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to establish the level of savings providers' proposed administrative and selling charges to savers of up to(a) £100, (b) £250 and (c) £1,000 per annum under the ISA scheme. [25226]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Charges will depend on the final form of the scheme. In designing the ISA we have sought to replicate so far as possible existing PEP and TESSA procedures, and we intend to keep costs to providers as small as possible.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to recruit additional staff in the Inland Revenue to administer the ISA scheme. [25231]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The number of staff required by the Inland Revenue will depend on the final form of the scheme.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax the Treasury expects to forgo annually with the introduction of ISAs and what tax has been forgone on an annual basis since the introduction of PEPs and TESSAs. [22570]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Government are planning to spend at least as much on the introduction of individual savings accounts as on PEPs and TESSAs, and have budgeted accordingly. The estimated annual costs of PEPs and TESSAs since their introducion are as follows.572

  £ million

  Year

  PEPs1

  TESSAs

  Total

  1986–87

  Negligible

  —

  Negligible

  1987–88

  5

  —

  5

  1988–89

  15

  —

  15

  1989–90

  20

  —

  20

  1990–91

  65

  25

  90

  1991–92

  120

  200

  320

  1992–93

  170

  250

  420

  1993–94

  230

  300

  530

  1994–95

  325

  350

  675

  1995–96

  450

  450

  900

  1996–972

  600

  350

  950

  1997–982

  800

  450

  1,250

  1 Including the CGT cost of capital gains within personal equity plans.

  2 Provisional.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amendments required to legislation on(a) banknotes and (b) the Bank of England in the event of the UK adhering to stage 3 of EMU. [26071]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Under Article 105a(1) of the Treaty (Article 16 of the ESCB Statute) the Governing Council of the ECB has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of banknotes within the Community. The ECB and the national central banks may issue such notes. Banknotes issued by the ECB and the national central banks shall be the only such notes to have the status of legal tender within the Community. In the event of the UK proceeding to Stage Three of EMU, Article 105a(1) would apply to the UK.

  The Treaty requirements for central banks in Stage Three of economic and monetary union are described in Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty and in the ESCB Statute (Protocol No. 3 to the Treaty). In the event of the UK joining EMU, national legislation, including the Statutes of the Bank of England, would have to be made compatible with the Treaty and the Statute. The Bank of England would also have to meet the Treaty specification for central bank independence.

  Own Share Purchases
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public limited companies bought back their own shares between(a) 1 July and 31 December 1997, (b) 1 July and 31 December 1996 and (c) 1 July and 31 December 1995. [22892]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Companies House does not record share buy-backs by type of company. The London Stock Exchange records "purchases of own securities" by listed companies, but these include other securities as well as shares.

  Companies House does not provide a break-down by type of company for those who have bought back their own shares. It does, however, have a form ("Section 169") which a company is required to return to Companies House when it undertakes the purchase of its own shares.

  Total returns from all companies (including private as well as public limited companies) recorded under "Section 169s", for the dates asked for were as follows:
  1 July—31 December 1997: 1,610

  573
  1 July—31 December 1996: 1,349
  1 July—31 December 1995: 1,470.

  The London Stock Exchange records the number of announcements made by listed companies identified as "purchases of own securities". These include other securities as well as shares. The announcements for the dates asked for were as follows:
  1 July—31 December 1997: 576
  1 July—31 December 1996: 306
  1 July—31 December 1995: 228.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants in his Department at grade 3 or above have(a) resigned, (b) retired before pensionable age and (c) moved to different responsibilities within the Department since 1 May 1997; if he will indicate the Ministers to whom each was responsible; and if he will make a statement. [26918]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is as follows in respect of Treasury officials:

  (a) one has resigned;

  (b) none have retired before pensionable age; and

  (c) two have moved to different responsibilities within the department.

  All are responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress to date in implementing the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [27170]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Executive Boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have reached decisions on the timing and scale of relief for four countries under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. Uganda will be provided with relief in April this year. Bolivia will benefit in September, and Guyana will be the third beneficiary in December. Agreement has also been reached that Burkina Faso will be granted HIPC relief in April 2000 if it too continues with its IMF-backed economic reform programmes. Decisions by the Boards in favour of granting HIPC relief to Mozambique, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Mauritania are expected to be made soon.

  National Register of Assets
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assets have been identified in the National Register which are surplus to requirements; and what is the timetable for their disposal. [26808]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  It will be for each department individually, as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, to identify those assets which are surplus to requirements and make arrangements for their disposal.

  TESSAs and PEPs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate (i) the revenue forgone in the operation of(a) PEPs and (b) TESSAs in each full year of their
  574
  existence, (ii) the take up of TESSAs and PEPs in (1) each decile of income and (2) each region and nation of the United Kingdom and (iii) the revenue forgone in respect of CGT separately. [23659]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Available information is in the tables. The regional distribution of take-up is based on current estimates that about 4 1/2, million people have a TESSA, and over 3 million people have one or more PEP, representing 10 per cent. and 8 per cent. of the UK adult population respectively.

  Estimated cost of tax relief for PEPs and TESSAs

  £million

  Year

  Income tax

  PEPs CGT

  Total

  TESSAs

  1986–87

  neg

  neg

  neg

  —

  1987–88

  5

  neg

  5

  —

  1988–89

  15

  neg

  15

  —

  1989–90

  20

  neg

  20

  —

  1990–91

  45

  20

  65

  25

  1991–92

  90

  30

  120

  200

  1992–93

  120

  50

  170

  250

  1993–94

  140

  90

  230

  300

  1994–95

  200

  125

  325

  350

  1995–96

  300

  150

  450

  450

  1996–971

  400

  200

  600

  350

  1997–981

  500

  300

  800

  450

  1 Provisional.

  neg=negligible.

  Per cent.

  Region

  Estimated regional take-up1 of

  TESSAs

  PEPs

  United Kingdom

  10

  8

  England

  11

  8

  North

  10

  7

  North West

  9

  7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  7

  East Midlands

  10

  6

  West Midlands

  10

  7

  East Anglia

  12

  9

  South East

  11

  9

  South West

  10

  10

  Wales

  10

  7

  Scotland

  8

  7

  Northern Ireland

  10

  5

  1Based on the population aged 18 and over.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of void(a) PEPs and (b) TESSAs identified in each year of the last three years and the average number of years of tax liability recovered in respect of each void PEP or TESSA. [23658]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Numbers of PEPs and TESSAs made void because the holder had subscribed to more than one PEP or TESSA in a tax year are as follows:

  PEPs

  TESSAs

  1994–95

  1,118

  1,406

  1995–96

  1,028

  473

  1996–97

  1,954

  905

  575
  Figures for PEPs and TESSAs made void for other breaches of the PEP and TESSA Regulations, and for the average number of years of tax liability recovered, are not available.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the distribution of (i) TESSA and (ii) PEP holders and the tax revenue forgone to those holders amongst the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. [23660]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Regional distributions of PEP and TESSA holders based on Inland Revenue records for 1995–96 are given in the table. The value of funds held in TESSAs follows the same pattern as the distribution of holders, and the regional distribution of the cost of tax relief is expected to be broadly similar. The regional distribution of the value of funds held in PEPs is not available from Inland Revenue records.

  Per cent.

  Region

  Regional distribution of holders of

  TESSAs

  PEPs

  United Kingdom

  100

  100

  England

  86

  86

  North

  5

  4

  North West

  10

  10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9

  7

  East Midlands

  7

  6

  West Midlands

  9

  8

  East Anglia

  4

  4

  South East

  34

  36

  South West

  8

  11

  Wales

  5

  4

  Scotland

  7

  8

  Northern Ireland

  2

  2

  Earnings
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the average weekly earnings(A) including and (B) excluding overtime for part-time workers in (a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain, broken down for men and women in (i) manual employment, (ii) non-manual employment and (iii) in total; [27331]

  (2) if he will list the proportion of full-time workers in (a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain with hourly gross earnings (A) including and (B) excluding overtime below (i) £6.61, (ii) £6.15 (iii) £4.61 and (iv) £3.80 broken down by (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) all workers; [27328]

  (3) if he will list the percentage of workers on adult rates of pay in part-time employment whose hourly earnings (A) including and (B) excluding overtime pay are less than (i) £4.61 per hour, (ii) £6.15 per hour, (iii) £6.60 per hour and (iv) average weekly earnings in (a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain, broken down by (1) male manual, (2) male
  576
  non-manual (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) all workers; [27330]

  (4) if he will list the percentage of full-time workers in
  (a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain earning in gross (A) including and (b) excluding overtime less than (i) £249.97 per week, (ii) £233.13 per week and (iii) £174.85 per week broken down by (1) male manual (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) all workers; [27327]

  (5) if he will list the average gross weekly earnings (i) including and (ii) excluding overtime for full-time workers in (a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain for (1) all manual, (2) all non-manual and (3) all workers; [27326]

  (6) if he will list for (a) Scotland, and (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (1) average weekly earnings, (2) weekly median earnings and (3) the distribution of earnings for those earning (a) under the point below which 10 per cent. of earners fall, (b) the point above which 10 per cent. of earners exceed, broken down by (i) manual, (ii) non-manual and (iii) all workers. [27329]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Rachel Squire, dated 3 February 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent questions (27326, 27327, 27328, 27329, 27330 and 27331) on earnings in the unitary local authority areas in Scotland, Scotland as a whole and in Great Britain.
  The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost. There is a considerable amount of data available in the House of Commons library. This provides various distribution ranges of hourly earnings excluding overtime, by location. Areas covered range from parliamentary constituencies and local authority districts to Government Office regions and Great Britain.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the numbers of lone parents in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995 in each region and nation, together with an estimate of what proportion of families with children such lone parents represent; and what proportion are (i) under 18 years, (ii) under 25 years, (iii) 26 to 40 years and (iv) 40 years and above. [26942]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 3 February 1998.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your question on numbers of lone parents.

  577
  Estimates of the number of lone parents are not regularly available by region and nation, although estimates of the number of one-parent families with dependent children, OPFs, in Great Britain have been made:

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  Number of OPFs (thousands)

  830

  970

  1,230

  11,570

  OPFs as a percentage of all families with dependent children

  12

  14

  18

  22

  1 Provisional estimate.

  Estimate of the numbers of one-parent families in the countries, regions, and counties of Great Britain in 1991, derived from census data, were published in Population Trends, 78 (Table 8, page 15)a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  The available information on the age profiles of lone parents is as follows (based on 1992–95 data for Great Britain):

  Percentages

  Age group

  Lone mothers

  Lone fathers

  16–19

  2

  1

  16–24

  16

  2

  25–39

  59

  34

  40–59

  25

  64

  Under-fives
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children under five years of age there are in the United Kingdom; and what are the projections for such numbers in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [27073]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, dated 3 February 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to reply to your recent question on the number of children under five years of age.
  There were an estimated 3.763 million children aged under five in the United Kingdom in 1996. The Government Actuary's 1996-based projections are for (a) 3.673 million in 1998, (b) 3.631 million in 1999 and (c) 3.611 million in 2000.

  Government Surveys
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use is made of (i) computer-aided personal interviewing and (ii) remote telephone or postal interviewing in(a) the Family Expenditure Survey, (b) the Family Resources Survey, (c) the British Household Panel Survey, (d) the New Earnings Survey, (e) the General Household Survey, (f) the Social Attitudes Survey and (g) other government surveys. [26086]

  Inactivity by age and whether available to start work within two weeks

  Great Britain

  All working age1

  16–24

  Age 25–44

  45–54

  55–59

  60–64 (men)

  Total economically inactive (thousands)

  7,174

  1,452

  2,670

  1,360

  1,059

  635,000

  of which

  Available

  741

  189

  317

  116

  66

  52

  578
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. John Swinney, dated 3 February 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on types of interviewing used in surveys.
  All main interviewing on the Family Expenditure Survey, the Family Resources Survey and the General Household Surveys are carried out by computer assisted personal interview (CAPI). Neither telephone nor postal methods are used on any of these surveys except occasionally to follow up queries or to carry out routine probity checks. Telephone interviewing is used for interviewing on waves 2–5 of the Labour Force Survey wherever possible although the initial wave is carried out by CAPI. Most other surveys carried out by ONS are done by CAPI. The main exceptions are the National Food Survey and the International Passenger Survey. From time to time there are also some ad hoc surveys for which the most appropriate design involves telephone or postal interviewing methods.
  The New Earnings Survey is carried out by postal questionnaire to employers. At present there is no use of CAPI and there are no plans to introduce it in the immediate future.
  Information regarding the British Household Panel Survey can be obtained from Nick Buck (01206 873 066) at the ESRC Research Centre on Micro-Social Change at the University of Essex.
  The Social Attitudes Survey is conducted independently by Social and Community Planning Research. Information regarding the survey can be obtained from Lindsay Brook (0171 250 1866) at Social and Community Planning Research.

  Economically Inactive People
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of people of working age who are economically inactive who are aged(a) 25 or under, (b) 26 to 45, (c) 46 to 54, (d) 55 to 59 and (e) 60 to 65 years who are (i) available for work, (ii) long-term sick/disabled, (iii) looking after family home, (iv) carers, (v) students, (vi) early retired and (vii) other. [26185]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Linda Perham, dated 3 February 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on those who are economically inactive.
  The latest estimates from the quarterly Labour Force Survey are shown in the table. Please note that the age groups shown are slightly different from those requested in order to be consistent with standard age groups. For example the upper age band has been taken as 60–64 (and refers only to men) because men aged 65 and all women aged 60 and above are over working age.
  579

  Inactivity by age and whether available to start work within two weeks

  Great Britain

  Age

  All working age1

  16–24

  25–44

  45–54

  55–59

  60–64 (men)

  Not available2

  6,434

  1,262

  2,352

  1,244

  993

  583

  Long term sick/disabled

  1,988

  73

  548

  600

  473

  295

  Looking after family/home

  2,266

  254

  1,424

  377

  194

  17

  Students

  919

  767

  140

  12

  3—

  3—

  Retired

  477

  3—

  3—

  54

  191

  232

  Others

  779

  168

  239

  202

  132

  38

  Total inactive (per cent.)

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  of which

  Available (per cent.)

  10.3

  13.0

  11.9

  8.6

  6.3

  8.2

  Not available2 (per cent.)

  89.7

  87.0

  88.1

  91.4

  93.7

  91.8

  Long term sick/disabled (per cent.)

  27.7

  5.0

  20.5

  44.1

  44.7

  46.4

  Looking after family/home (per cent.)

  31.6

  17.5

  53.4

  27.7

  18.3

  2.6

  Students (per cent.)

  12.9

  52.8

  5.2

  0.9

  3—

  3—

  Retired (per cent.)

  6.7

  3—

  3—

  3.9

  18.1

  36.6

  Others (percent.)

  10.9

  11.6

  9.0

  14.8

  12.4

  6.0

  1 Working age is defined as men age 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  2 Not available to start work in the next two weeks including a few people who could not state whether or not they are available. Includes all those not wanting work.

  3 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, summer 1997.

  Carers, defined here are those who are inactive because they look after a dependent adult, are a subset of those looking after family/home.

  Information about carers is only collected in the autumn LFS. In autumn 1996 in Great Britain an estimated 6 per cent. of those who were unavailable for work because they are looking after family/home were carers.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of prosecuting children under the age of 16 years for soliciting in the last year for which figures are available. [26167]

  The Attorney-General
  The information sought is recorded only on individual case files and is not collected or collated centrally. This information requested could therefore be collected by the Crown Prosecution Service only at disproportionate cost. Home Office statistics from 1989 and 1994 show a decline in convictions for this offence in the 14 to 17 year old age group.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will cease the prosecution of children under the age of 16 years who engage in prostitution; and if he will make a statement. [26168]

  The Attorney-General
  Prostitution itself is not a criminal offence. However, a person who loiters or solicits for the purposes of prostitution does commit a criminal offence. The overriding principle is that the young person is protected from harm. In such cases the public interest may require the prosecution of a young person who persistently and voluntarily returns to prostitution. Each case is considered on its own merits.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to use the same definition of partner 580
  when deciding whether a Minister can be accompanied on an overseas visit at public expense by someone other than his or her spouse as is used in immigration cases. [25866]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: No. Where a Minister wishes to be accompanied on an overseas visit at the public expense it must be for official purposes; it must be in the public interest; and it must receive my prior approval.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will state, for the purpose of authorisation of ministerial travel, the definition of partner. [26691]

  The Prime Minister
  The key principle governing travel remains the same as that which applied under the previous Administration: anyone who accompanies a Minister at a cost to the public purse, be they spouse, partner or official, must do so for official purposes; it must be in the public interest; and it must be with my prior approval. The Government will continue to adhere to this principle.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister when permission was first given under paragraph 83 of the Ministerial Code for someone not married to a Minister making an overseas trip to accompany him or her at public expense. [25772]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: It is not the practice to disclose details of Ministerial correspondence.

  Security and Intelligence Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason he does not identify budget heads separately for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ within the Cabinet Office (Security and Intelligence Services) Class XVIII Vote 2. [26281]
  581
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: The individual budgets for the Intelligence and Security Agencies have not been identified within the Single Intelligence Vote for reasons of national security. I keep this under review.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister how many career civil service posts have been filled by special advisers since 1 May 1997. [26938]

  The Prime Minister
  Two Special Advisers in my office-Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell-are employed under the terms of the amended Civil Service Order in Council allowing them to undertake some duties which would previously have been performed by career civil servants.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that the Minister responsible for co-ordinating the green Ministers is a member of the Cabinet. [26788]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions leads our "greening Government" initiative, and chairs the Cabinet Committee on the Environment.

  Correspondence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 1998, Official Report, column 67, relating to the letter sent to him by Mr. Graham Horwood of 66 St. Andrews Road, Shoeburyness, on 17 August 1997, when the letter was forwarded to the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry; and when a reply was sent by that Minister to Mr. Horwood. [26509]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: The letter was inadvertently forwarded to the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions before being passed to the Department of Trade and Industry for reply at official level. Unfortunately, there is no record of receipt of this letter, but action was initiated on receipt of Mr. Horwood's later letter and I understand a response has been sent.

  European Council Meetings
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from other member states concerning note-keeping procedures at European Council meetings. [27258]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Grant
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to allocate police grant in 1998–99. [27704]
  582
  Mr. Straw
  I laid before the House yesterday the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1998–99 (HC 492). The Report sets out my determination for 1998–99 of the aggregate amount of grants that I propose to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to each police authority including the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

  Allocations for each police authority are set out in the table. The table also shows allocation approved by Parliament for 1997–98.

  £ million

  Police authority

  1997–98 allocation1

  1998–99 allocation1

  English Shire forces

  Avon and Somerset

  158.7

  164.3

  Bedfordshire

  58.9

  60.9

  Cambridgeshire

  68.2

  71.9

  Cheshire

  101.1

  104.7

  Cleveland

  75.2

  80.4

  Cumbria

  58.6

  59.0

  Derbyshire

  95.3

  97.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  158.6

  167.4

  Dorset

  66.6

  67.8

  Durham

  73.3

  78.1

  Essex

  155.9

  158.4

  Gloucestershire

  60.1

  61.5

  Hampshire

  180.0

  189.1

  Hertfordshire

  92.4

  94.1

  Humberside

  105.9

  110.6

  Kent

  168.5

  178.9

  Lancashire

  167.7

  174.9

  Leicestershire

  97.3

  99.1

  Lincolnshire

  61.5

  60.7

  Norfolk

  78.1

  80.9

  North Yorkshire

  71.9

  75.6

  Northamptonshire

  60.0

  62.8

  Nottinghamshire

  119.3

  123.0

  Staffordshire

  111.8

  111.1

  Suffolk

  63.4

  66.0

  Surrey

  91.8

  84.2

  Sussex

  155.2

  162.6

  Thames Valley

  208.2

  219.3

  Warwickshire

  50.6

  51.1

  West Mercia

  106.3

  110.0

  Wiltshire

  62.2

  63.4

  English Metropolitan forces

  Greater Manchester

  351.2

  364.8

  Merseyside

  227.3

  233.3

  Northumbria

  193.4

  205.4

  South Yorkshire

  158.8

  165.4

  West Midlands

  353.4

  371.9

  West Yorkshire

  267.5

  279.5

  London forces

  Metropolitan Police2

  1,688.0

  1,715.3

  City of London3

  61.6

  57.1

  English total

  6,483.9

  6,682.6

  Welsh forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  49.9

  51.1

  Gwent

  64.5

  67.3

  North Wales

  71.2

  73.2

  South Wales

  155.1

  161.3

  Welsh total

  340.8

  353.0

  Total

  6,824.7

  7,035.5

  1Rounded to the nearest £100,000. The Allocation is the sum of all police grant, SSAs and damping grant.

  583
  2 Figure for the Metropolitan Police does not include funding allocated to the Receiver under the Other Services Block SSA for school crossing patrols, Magistrates' Courts and the Probation Service.

  3Figure for the City includes Police SSA and Grant, but excludes other SSAs e.g. Capital Financing which are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  Rohypnol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of rapes in 1997 which involved the drug Rophypnol. [26469]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are insufficient data on which to make such an estimate.

  Parliament (State Opening)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the costs of policing the state opening of Parliament in each of the last five years; and how many police manpower hours were used. [26477]

  Mr. Michael
  The policing costs for the state opening of Parliament for 1993 are not available. The policing costs for 1994 to 1997, at current rates, are as follows:

  £

  Police manhours

  1997

  376,328

  14,712

  1996

  345,293

  13,384

  1995

  350,390

  13,536

  1994

  350,709

  13,544

  These costs reflect the direct opportunity policing costs incurred on the day. They exclude the costs incurred by the Metropolitan Police in providing the permanent security service within the grounds and buildings of the Palace of Westminster but include an estimate of the overtime costs incurred by these officers. They also include catering costs and erection of barriers. They do not include the opportunity costs involved with pre-event planning and post-event debriefs.

  Cannabis offences dealt with by type of offence, United Kingdom, 1986–1995

  Type of offence and how dealt with

  Unlawful possession

  Procession with intent to supply unlawfully

  Unlawful supply

  Year

  Caution

  Prosecution

  Fine

  Custody

  Caution

  Prosecution

  Fine

  Custody

  Caution

  Prosecution

  Fine

  Custody

  1986

  4,048

  11,493

  7,998

  983

  16

  954

  141

  598

  31

  849

  166

  495

  1987

  5,778

  11,878

  8,130

  929

  9

  1,122

  152

  676

  48

  1,046

  216

  522

  1988

  8,273

  14,049

  9,752

  987

  10

  1,146

  185

  660

  55

  943

  200

  441

  1989

  11,674

  17,654

  12,329

  1,145

  53

  1,514

  266

  758

  58

  1,101

  244

  513

  1990

  16,185

  19,281

  12,975

  909

  43

  1,638

  340

  685

  129

  1,277

  294

  519

  1991

  19,256

  18,470

  11,514

  1,041

  60

  1,605

  338

  631

  145

  1,212

  262

  470

  1992

  21,824

  14,875

  8,828

  717

  101

  1,648

  291

  619

  203

  1,045

  197

  389

  1993

  30,404

  18,846

  10,010

  614

  207

  2,292

  282

  686

  313

  1,405

  191

  384

  1994

  38,602

  24,025

  13,358

  769

  234

  2,883

  351

  873

  394

  1,532

  190

  450

  1995

  40,391

  24,386

  13,355

  930

  271

  3,294

  299

  1,125

  349

  1,893

  220

  575

  Note:

  "Dealing" has been taken to mean possession with intent to supply unlawfully and unlawful supply.

  Source:

  Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, Crime and Criminal Justice Unit.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the changes in the numbers of(a) cautions for cannabis possession or dealing, (b) prosecutions for cannabis possession or dealing, (c) fines for cannabis possession or dealing and (d) prison sentences for cannabis possession or dealing in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [26482]

  (2) how many (a) cautions for cannabis possession or dealing, (b) prosecutions for cannabis possession or dealing, (c) fines for cannabis possession or dealing and (d) prison sentences for cannabis possession or dealing there were in each of the past 10 years. [26481]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information for 1986 to 1995 (the latest available) is given in the table. Data are not available in the form requested before 1986.

  Between 1986 and 1995, the number of cautions for possession of cannabis increased nine-fold. The number of prosecutions doubled. The use of fines went up by two-thirds and the number of custodial sentences stayed much the same but with variations from year to year.

  The use of cautions for possession with intent to supply cannabis unlawfully increased sixteen-fold and the number of prosecutions went up two and a half times. The use of fines and custodial sentences for such offences about doubled over the period covered with variations from year to year.

  Cautioning for the unlawful supply of cannabis showed a ten-fold increase, while prosecutions doubled. Like offences for possession with intent to supply unlawfully, the use of fines and custodial sentences varied from year to year but essentially stayed about the same over the period.

  As a proportion of those dealt with for possession of cannabis, the use of cautioning increased from 35 to 62 per cent. The equivalent figures for possession with intent to supply unlawfully rose from less than 2 per cent. to just under 8 per cent.; for unlawful supply the respective figures were less than four and less than 16 per cent. The use of fines for simple possession offences fell from just over a half in 1986 to about one fifth in 1995.

  Employment Offers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to accept offers of outside employment have been made by officials of his Department which have been(a) approved, (b) approved with conditions and (c) disapproved; how many offers of employment have been reported (i) in total, (ii) by officials in procurement and contract work where there was an intention to take up the offer and (iii) by officials in procurement and contract work where there was no intention to take up the offer; if he will set out the information by category of employer; and if he will make a statement. [25980]

  Mr. Straw
  The Business Appointment Rules in their current form were introduced with effect from 1 April 1996. Since then, 24 applications to accept offers of employment have been approved, two of which were approved with conditions. No applications have been refused.

  There have been reports of offers of employment (which did not lead to applications) from five members of staff across the Department and the agencies (but comprehensive information is not available from the Prison Service). No applications have been received in the period from staff engaged exclusively in procurement and contract work.

  The variety of prospective employers is such that they do not fall into readily identifiable categories for purposes of presenting this information.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been waiting for(a) more than one year, (b) more than three years and (c) more than five years for an initial decision on their asylum applications. [26711]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 31 December 1997, there were 51,795 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, awaiting an initial decision. The available breakdown of these cases, by year of application, is given in the table.

  Asylum applications awaiting an initial decision as at 31 December 1997, by year of application1

  Year of application

  Percentage

  Pre 1994

  25

  1994

  15

  1995

  25

  1996

  15

  1997

  20

  Total

  51,795 (100)

  1Estimates rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates of recorded attempted suicides in Lewes Prison since 1 January 1997. [26826]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: There have been no incidents of attempted suicide reported at Lewes prison from 1 January 1997 to date.
  586
  Since 1 April 1997, attempted suicide has not been used as an incident reporting category. These incidents are now subsumed under the category of deliberate self-harm. There has been a number of incidents of self-harm recorded at the prison between 1 January 1997 to date. The dates of these incidents are given in the table.

  Incident date

  7 April 1997

  10 April 1997

  20 June 1997

  28 June 1997

  12 July 1997

  27 August 1997

  29 August 1997

  15 December 1997

  14 January 1998

  19 January 1998

  27 January 1998.

  Firearms (Compensation)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total value of compensation claims made under option C for the surrender of handguns; and how many claims are outstanding. [26341]

  Mr. Michael
  On 21 January 1998, there were 10,411 claims awaiting processing under Option C, the great majority of which came from claimants who have made mixed claims on which the Option A and B elements have been paid. In addition, a proportion of the 18,482 claims received but not yet examined will be mixed claims containing an Option C element. The total value of Option C claims will not be known until they have all been examined and the evidence of value provided is assessed under the terms of the compensation scheme.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce a date by which all outstanding payments under the compensation for handguns scheme will have been completed. [26731]

  Mr. Michael
  It is impossible to be precise at this stage, but we are on target to satisfy the projections which I reported to the House on 26 November 1997,Official Report, column 542–43. The great majority of claims submitted under Options A and B will have been settled by the end of March 1998, and the great majority of claims submitted under Option C will be paid by end of 1998.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it takes his Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date his Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27037]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: On average it currently takes my Department 35 days to reply to letters from hon. Members. Taking the Home Office, Immigration Service and United Kingdom Passport Agency together, 13 per cent. of replies meet the target

  587
  time of 15 days to answer. Her Majesty's Prison Service answers 18 per cent. of letters within its target of 20 days. The delivery of a reply depends, among other things, upon the availability of a Minister for its signature upon return from typing. Signed replies are then delivered to the House. There has been a significant increase in correspondence since last May, and one result is that average times have increased.

  I am not satisfied with the way my Department deals with correspondence from hon. Members, and a project to improve the handling of correspondence is therefore underway, which should ensure a more timely and efficient service both to hon. Members and to the public.

  Immigration
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the immigration status of those same-sex couples in registered partnerships from Denmark, Greenland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands(a) where both of the partners are EU citizens, (b) where one partner is of non-EU origin, (c) where one partner is of non-EU origin and has gained the right of abode in an EU country by virtue of the registered partnerships and (d) where one partner is of non-EU origin and has been granted citizenship of an EU country by virtue of the registered partnership; and if he will make a statement. [26778]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All couples wishing to reside in the United Kingdom by virtue of their unmarried relationship must meet the requirements of the unmarried partners concession which was announced on 10 October 1997. This includes couples whose partnerships have been registered in Denmark, Greenland, Norway, Sweden or the Netherlands. The concession would not necessarily apply to them because European Economic Area (EEA) nationals who are in the United Kingdom by virtue of the provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994 may reside here freely as long as they continue to be covered by the 1994 Order. This means that where the couple are both EEA nationals (regardless of their origins) they may both reside here by virtue of their nationality and would not have to qualify under the concession. Where one partner is of non-European Union origin they will need to qualify for admission under the concession even if they have gained a right to permanent residence in another EEA country.

  World Cup
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are taking in advance of the World Cup 1998 to ensure that crowd trouble at the event is avoided; what estimate he has made of the number of British fans who will travel to France for the World Cup; and how many tickets are available to English football fans for the World Cup games. [26491]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are determined to do everything possible to protect the interests and enjoyment of the respectable British football supporter attending the World Cup in France this summer and to prevent disruption of the tournament by hooligans. For this purpose, we have established a World Cup Co-ordination Group which brings together official, policing and football representatives from both England an Scotland. They are working closely with the French authorities, who 588
  are responsible for the management and security of the tournament, to ensure a co-ordinated approach to preventing crowd trouble among England and Scotland fans during the tournament.

  My right hon. Friend will also be hosting a seminar in Blackburn on the policing of football which will bring together relevant experts from across the European Union to discuss policing, safety and securing arrangements for the World Cup.

  There is no reliable estimate at this stage of how many supporters may travel to France. The strong advice of the Government to supporters is that they should not travel to France unless they have a ticket for the match. French legislation against touting is strict, and supporters should not expect to buy a ticket in France.

  The overall ticket allocation by the French Organisation Committee (CFO) has been as follows:
  60 per cent. have been sold to the public in France;
  12 per cent. CFO corporate sponsors and other commercial affiliates;
  8 per cent. for sale through 12 authorised tour operators;
  20 per cent. for the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to allocate to member associations, including those playing in the relevant matches.

  We understand that FIFA intend to divide the great majority of their allocation for each month between the football associations of the competing teams. We expect FIFA to announce details of the allocation soon.

  Asylum Applications (Turkish Cypriots)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications by Turkish Cypriots for entry into the United Kingdom have been submitted in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [26349]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that Turkish Cypriots are not separately identifiable within the statistics. The available information relates to all asylum applications submitted by nationals of Cyprus.

  During 1997, a total of 495 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom were lodged by nationals of Cyprus. Of these, 455 were made at the port of arrival and 40 were made in-country. Equivalent information for the years 1993 to 1996 is given in table 2.2 of the Home Office Statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1996" issue 15/97, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Security Service Files
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many representations he has received in favour of the destruction of Security Service files from(a) Labour hon. Members, (b) Labour Peers, (c) Ministers, (d) trade union officers and (e) journalists; [23672]

  (2) what representations he has received from the Minister without Portfolio for his MI5 file to be destroyed; and if it is to be destroyed. [23621]

  Mr. Straw
  If I receive any representations from individuals about the possible existence of Security Service files, my practice is to explain the approach of the
  589
  Security Service to destroying files. It is not my practice to give information about any representations from hon. Members or Ministers or from the other sources listed any more than it would be for me to disclose whether the Service holds or has held files on any individuals.

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to his Department since 1 May 1997. [25852]

  Mr. Straw
  The number of casual, fixed term appointees and special advisers appointed since 1 May 1997 is 1,842. These figures include those appointed to Her Majesty's Prison Service, the United Kingdom Passport Agency, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the Fire Service College and the Forensic Science Service as well as the central Home Office.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews for his Department. [25903]

  Mr. Straw
  The policy aims of the Comprehensive Review, including enhancing sustainable economic growth, are reflected in the terms of reference for the Comprehensive Spending Review of the Home Office spending programme.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which regions or part of members states of the EU the sale of unpasteurised milk is banned. [27189]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 549.

  Milk
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present number of milk quotas in England and Wales. [26049]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 28 January 1998, there were 23,468 registered milk producers in England holding 10,053 million litres of milk quota. In Wales, 5,085 registered producers hold 1,443 million litres of quota.

  Vitamin Supplements
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the President of the Board of Trade on representations from United States senators about his proposed new restrictions on vitamin B6 supplements. [26356]
  590
  Mr. Rooker
  Officials from the Ministry have discussed with officials from the Department of Trade and Industry the representations received from the US senators on the Government's proposed new restrictions on vitamin B6 supplements.

  Tobacco Production
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid by(a) the EU and (b) the UK to subsidise the tobacco growing and marketing industries in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [26472]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1996 the EU spent 1,026 million ecu (£852 million)' on subsidies under the EU tobacco regime. None of these payments were made in the UK. There are no EU subsidies to the tobacco marketing industries.

  Note:

  11996 exchange rate used: £1=1.204 ecu.

  Over-thirty-months Scheme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to change current arrangements for OTMS cattle, with particular reference to the Meat Hygiene Service clean cattle strategy. [25625]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) Clean Livestock Policy is aimed at improving the standard of cleanliness of livestock presented for slaughter at all slaughterhouses in Great Britain. The slaughter of dirty and/or wet livestock can compromise the hygienic operation of the slaughterhouse. Appropriate action will be taken by MHS staff if dirty or wet animals are presented for slaughter.

  Action has been taken to implement the Clean Livestock Policy within the Over Thirty Months Slaughter Scheme. Slaughterhouses processing OTMS cattle are expected to work to the same hygiene standards as those killing for human consumption. This includes the application of the Clean Livestock Policy. However in the case of OTMS animals that would have been rejected for slaughter as too dirty or wet, these are not returned to the farm, but on animal welfare grounds are permitted to be slaughtered.

  This approach works well in practice and I have no plans to change the current arrangements as regards the application of the Clean Livestock Policy to OTMS cattle.

  Beef and Sheep Producers
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what rates of aid will be paid to beef and sheep producers as a result of the package announced on 22 December; and if he will make a statement. [27628]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I indicated in my statement that consultation with the Commission would be necessary. The Commission was not able to approve my proposals for an increase in HLCA rates for one year only, but Commissioner Fischler has co-operated with me in devising an acceptable alternative which maintains the overall value of the package at £85 million and divides
  591
  the benefit between sheep and beef producers as I had originally proposed. I shall now therefore be utilising £85 million of the EU compensation available to off-set the effects of sterling green rate revaluations. £72.5 million will go to suckler cow producers on the basis of their 1996 claims; £12.5 million will go to sheep producers on the basis of their 1997 ewe premium claims. The latter sum will be drawn from compensation to be calculated in respect of the livestock headage payments whose rate is determined each year by the green rate applying on 1 January.

  For suckler cows, the rate of aid will be £44.20 per head. Precise figures for sheep will be determined shortly but I expect them to be around 50p per head at the basic rate and 73p per head in the LFA.

  I will separately be laying an order maintaining HCLA rates for 1998 at their 1996 levels.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Brazilian Rainforest
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her G7 counterparts on the deforestation in the Brazilian rainforests. [27084]

  Mr. Foulkes
  As active participants in the G7 Pilot Programme to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest, we maintain a regular and extensive dialogue with our G7 counterparts, both at routine programme review meetings and on a continuous basis through our programme co-ordination office in Brasilia.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the International Monetary Fund regarding the misuse of funds allocated to regulate the logging of the Brazilian rainforest. [27088]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have had no discussions with the International Monetary Fund on this subject.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the World Bank regarding the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest. [27089]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Discussions with the World Bank and other participating agencies are held regularly in the context of the G7 Pilot Programme to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest, for which the World Bank has a co-ordinating role. The most recent Pilot Programme participants' meeting took place in Manaus, Amazonia, in October 1997.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will take steps to ensure that the funding that(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU Governments provide to Brazil to regulate the logging companies in the Amazonian rainforest is not directed to other purposes. [27095]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We seek to ensure that our (co-operation) programmes, both bilaterally and through the G7 Pilot 592
  Programme, assist the Brazilian Government to strengthen environmental policy and effectively implement Brazilian laws regulating logging in the Amazonian rainforest. This is done by the exercise of project management procedures which monitor progress against agreed objectives, and through partnerships with the EU and other donors. However, neither we nor, to our knowledge, other EU governments provide development funds directly for the purpose of regulating logging companies in Brazil.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what new proposals she has to prevent the destruction of the Amazonian rainforest. [27085]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In addition to our substantial existing programme of environmental assistance to Brazil, involving commitments of some £22 million, we are currently in the process of identifying new technical assistance proposals to help provide further help in preventing destruction of the Amazonian rain forest. This assistance will be provided under the UK's bilateral co-operation programme with Brazil, and also under the G7 Pilot Programme to conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest. The recent publication of the latest deforestation figures by the Brazilian Government has emphasised the importance of effective international co-operation in this area.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many civil servants in her Department at each grade for grade 3 or above have(a) resigned, (b) retired before pensionable age and (c) moved to different responsibilities within the department since 1 May 1997; if she will indicate the Minister to whom each was responsible; and if she will make a statement. [26930]

  Mr. Foulkes
  (a) None, (b) none, (c) three, each of whom reports to the Secretary of State and myself.

  Development Education
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what extra resources she proposes to make available to finance development education. [26747]

  Mr. Foulkes
  As outlined in the recent White Paper on International Development, the Government attach great importance to increasing development awareness in the UK, and the first meeting of the new Development Awareness Working Group will take place in March. The question of financial resources is currently being considered as part of the Resource Allocation Round within the Department.

  Burma
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department is giving to Burma. [26745]
  593
  Mr. Foulkes
  Under the terms of a European Union common position agreed in 1988, assistance is provided only for humanitarian aid and activities through NGOs. Our assistance for Burma came to £314,000 in 1996–97. Of this amount, £272,000 was in the form of emergency assistance, including relief for flood victims and support for refugees from Burma in border areas of neighbouring countries. Support is also being provided for an integrated community health project run by World Vision. A number of other proposals from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are presently being considered.

  Bananas
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 21 January 1998,Official Report, column 563, relating to her discussions with Commissioner Pinheiro concerning the marketing of bananas, (a) which rule of the World Trade Organisation prevents the continuation of the previous Lome arrangements for this market, (b) when and by which body that rule was agreed, (c) who represented the United Kingdom and interested Commonwealth Caribbean States, (d) who represented the United Kingdom and interested Commonwealth Caribbean States on the occasion when the World Trade Organisation appeal was decided and (e) what was the time and place of that appeal hearing. [27021]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) found that a number of the provisions of the EU regime were incompatible with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and of the General Agreement on Services (GATS). The reports of the Dispute Settlement Panel and Appellate Body of the WTO on the EU's arrangements for banana imports are lodged in the House of Commons Library. The two aforementioned Agreements were signed by all Contracting Parties to the Marrakech Agreement establishing the WTO in April 1994.

  As in all WTO cases where the EU's arrangements are challenged, the European Commission acted in defence of EU interests. The Commission represented the EU both in the Panel proceedings and in the subsequent appeal to the WTO Appellate Body; the hearings were attended by UK officials. The Commonwealth Caribbean States were represented by the Ambassadors to the WTO of Jamaica and the Eastern Caribbean and their lawyers. The hearing before the Appellate Body was held in Geneva on 21–23 July 1997.

  AIDS Vaccines
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department is making towards the international effort to test existing AIDS vaccines. [27247]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our collaboration with UK groups such as the Medical Research Council, with researchers in developing countries and with multilateral agencies (such as UNAIDS, the World Health Organisation and the EC) involves the generation, disseminating and sharing of new knowledge important in the development of a vaccine against HIV strains prevalent in poorer countries. Such work does not yet extend to vaccine testing.

  Development Assistance
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of GNP she will commit Her Majesty's Government to spending on official development assistance by the end of the present parliament. [26744]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2 February 1998 to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh),Official Report, column 472–73.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Empty Government Property
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much vacant office space, by reference to(a) the number of offices and (b) floor space, is unoccupied in (i) the Treasury building, (ii) the old MAFF building and (c) other Government buildings within the range of the House of Commons Division bell; and if he will make a statement. [26262]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Andrew Dismore, dated 3 February 1998:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service to reply to your question about vacant office space at the Treasury Building (Government Offices Great George Street); the MAFF building at Whitehall Place West and other Government buildings within the House of Commons division bell area.
  Since April 1996 departments have been responsible for their own accommodation. Under the terms of the Civil Estate Coordination Agreement PACE is required to maintain a database of Civil Estate properties. Data is provided by Departments whose responsibility it is to keep PACE informed of both surplus space and new requirements. There is currently no vacant space available in the Treasury Building or the old MAFF buildings.
  In answer to the final part of your question I enclose a schedule of Civil Estate properties within the sound of the division bell showing the amount of recorded vacant space.

  List of vacant properties within reach of the House of Commons division bell

  Property address

  Vacant area in m2

  Allington Towers Allington Street London SW1E 5EB

  600—available for 6 months prior to reoccupation by a government department

  Bridge Place 88–89 Eccleston Square London SW1P 1PT

  6,942

  Romney House 43 Marsham Street London SW1P 3PY

  14,956

  2 Marsham Street London SW1P 3EB

  56,085—due to be demolished prior to sale

  Old Admiralty Building Spring Gardens London SW1A 2AH

  20,554—impending major refurbishment prior to reoccupation by a government department

  Steel House 11 Tothill Street London SW1H 9LJ

  487

  595

  Property address

  Vacant area in m2

  Admiralty Arch The Mall London SW1A 2BE

  10,156—in need of major refurbishment prior to occupation

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is his estimate of the value of empty Government properties in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement; [26402]

  (2) what percentage of Government accommodation in (a) the SW1 postal district of London and (b) the remainder of the United Kingdom, is vacant; if he will estimate vacant space in square metres; and if he will make a statement. [26403]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for these matters have been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 3 February 1998:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, to reply to PQ 26402 and 26403 relating to the value of empty Government properties; and the percentage of vacant space both in the SW1 postal district of London and the remainder of the UK.
  From 1 April 1996, responsibility for individual properties was transferred to government departments. At the same time, PACE inherited wholly vacant properties that were at that time surplus to departments needs. Departments retain responsibility for all accommodation subsequently declared surplus.
  PACE only retains value information for the properties transferred to it for disposal; the remaining information rests with individual departments and is not held centrally. Our Annual Report and Accounts spells out the value of the surplus property for which we are responsible. Many of these properties are leaseholds with a nil or negative asset value. At 1/4/96 this stood at a negative value of £486m and at 31 March 1997 at £433.3m. So far as freeholds are concerned the opening valuation was £80.2m at I April 1996 reducing to £67.6m at 31 March 1997. This takes account of the disposals achieved during the year. Copies of our Annual Report and Accounts have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. Our second Annual Report and Accounts will report the position at 31 March 1998.
  So far as the percentage of vacant space is concerned we do maintain a data base of all Civil properties i.e. excluding MOD, NHS and the Prison Estate. To assist our role in providing advice to departments in managing their property they are required to keep us informed of both surplus space and new requirements. Our records show that in the SW1 postal district of London 10.5% (95,990m2) is vacant and for the remainder of the UK 9.5% (859,4832) is vacant.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Accommodation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many(a) hon. Members, (b) hon. Members' staff and (c) House of Commons staff are placed in office accommodation without natural light. [26770]
  596
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Twenty-five of the rooms in the Parliamentary estate, which are allocated to hon. Members and their staff, do not have the benefit of natural light. A further 39 rooms have natural light only via a skylight. The number of Members' staff using the rooms cannot be separately identified. Some 100 staff of the House of Commons are placed in office accommodation without natural light.

  Research Assistants (Passes)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what was the number of House of Commons passes issued to research assistants working for hon. Members at 1 January 1998. [27406]

  Mrs. Marion Roe
  390.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the President of the Council if she will publish a compliance cost assessment for each(a) public bill, (b) statutory instrument and (c) proposed EU directive or regulation, which affects business costs. [26197]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  It is already a requirement that a Compliance Cost Assessments is published alongside all draft primary, secondary and EC legislation having an impact on business when it is presented to Parliament. CCAs are placed in the Library of both Houses and a Command Paper is published every six months listing the CCAs published in the previous six months.

  Disabled Members
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Council what additions to hon. Members' allowances are paid to hon. Members with disabilities. [26293]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  None, although certain Members with disabilities are entitled to a higher limit of the Office Costs Allowance.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending review for his Department. [25905]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary revised the Department's objectives in line with his Mission Statement at the start of the CSR. These include objectives to improve economic opportunities for a prosperous UK through development and implementation of arrangements to further free, fair and sustainable international trade and economic relations: and to improve the quality of life worldwide
  597
  through effective international action to protect the environment. The CSR is tasked with looking at ways to improve the delivery of these objectives.

  EU Information Projects (Funding)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds are available from the European Commission to(a) the United Kingdom Government and (b) other organisations within the United Kingdom for information projects on (i) the EU and (ii) the euro; and if he will make a statement. [26521]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In the 1998 EC budget a total of 79.35 million ecu (£52.96 million at current exchange rates) is available for different types of information activity within the EU (budget lines B3–300, B3–301, B3–304 and B3–306). These budget lines are not broken down by Member State. It is therefore not possible to give an overall figure for the funds available for information projects in the UK.

  We believe that people have a right to accurate and easily accessible information about the EU's policies and activities. The Community budget has a legitimate role in the provision of such information.

  East Timor
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to send an ambassadorial mission to East Timor during the British presidency of the EU. [26843]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are discussing with our EU partners detailed arrangements for an EU Troika Ambassadorial visit to East Timor during our Presidency. The timing has yet to be decided.

  Ogonis
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on inter-ethnic disputes and difficulties with the security forces involving Ogonis outside Ogoniland. [26750]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received no recent reports of inter-ethnic disputes and difficulties with the security forces involving Ogonis outside Ogoniland.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth what reports he has received on persecution of the Ogonis by the Nigerian authorities solely on account of their origin or membership of MOSOP. [26751]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received reports that suggest that high profile members and MOSOP activists can be subject to harassment and persecution. However there is no evidence to suggest that Ogonis face persecution solely on their ethnic origin or membership of MOSOP.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Nicaragua. [26752]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Bilateral relations with Nicaragua are good. Through the EU/San José process, in which Nicaragua participates, we have given substantial economic and political support to the peace process in Central America. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) will meet the Foreign Minister, Dr. Emilio Alvarez, at the EU/San José Group meeting in San José on 10–11 February 1998.

  An investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (IPPA) was signed with Nicaragua in 1996. The value of Nicaraguan exports to the UK rose significantly in 1997, although UK exports to Nicaragua remain relatively low, valued at pounds 3.54 million in 1997.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department at grade 3 or above have(a) resigned, (b) retired before pensionable age and (c) moved to different responsibilities within the Department since 1 May 1997; if he will indicate the Ministers to whom each was responsible; and if he will make a statement. [26917]

  Mr. Fatchett
  No civil servants in this Department at grade 3 or above have resigned since 1 May 1997. Four people have retired before pensionable age since 1 May as part of an ongoing programme of senior management structure retirements on structural grounds; they reported to four different Ministers. All of these early retirements were approved before 1 May 1997. About a quarter of the officers at grade 3 and above have changed jobs since 1 May either as part of the normal rotation of ambassadors and other senior staff, interchange with other Government Departments or on promotion. Such moves are planned up to a year in advance especially to/from foreign postings or where training is required. A high level of mobility is a feature of FCO work and roughly a third of all UK based FCO staff change jobs in any given year. Statistics on the precise number of moves and which Ministers had responsibility for the posts and Departments people left could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Xinjiang
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the treatment of detainees in the ethnic riots that took place in Xinjian in 1997. [26771]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department has received no representations on this issue.

  Religious Freedom (China)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will encourage
  599
  the Chinese Government to accept the right to religious freedom in China, with particular reference to Xinjiang and Tibet. [26772]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During his recent visit to China, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights with Chinese leaders. We believe that the Chinese authorities should look upon religious freedom as fulfilling a basic human need, and not as a threat.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the extent of religious freedom in China. [26773]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department constantly monitors the human rights situation in China, including the freedom of religion, and has discussed the issue with the Chinese authorities. We believe that they should look upon religious freedom as fulfilling a basic human need, and not as a threat.

  Slovenia
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department expects the Republic of Slovenia to be admitted to full membership of the European Union; and at what stage Slovene citizens will acquire the right of abode in the United Kingdom. [26777]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Luxembourg European Council Decided that Slovenia will start EU accession negotiations this spring. The timing of Slovenia's accession will depend on the progress made in these negotiations.

  Upon joining the EU, Slovene nationals will be subject to the same immigration rules as citizens of the current Member States.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long on average it takes his Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date his Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27039]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: In the last quarter of 1997 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers replied to 2,215 letters from hon. Members, of which 95 per cent were replied within the target of 10 working days.

  Every effort is made to have letters copied, dispatched and delivered within 24 hours of signature.

  EU Presidency
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 136, what proposals are under consideration for changes in the note-keeping procedures of the EU presidency to address the problems noted in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 4 November (Q18) HC305-i of Session 1997–98. [27196]
  600
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer of 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 136, which he cites.

DEFENCE

  Food Procurement
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums his Department has expended on the purchase of(a) beef, (b) sheepmeat, (c) pigmeat, (d) poultry and (e) fish in each of the last three years or financial years and the current year to the latest available date; how much in each case has been spent on (a) United Kingdom procedure and (b) imported produce; from which countries the imported food came; and what was the cost of the imports from each country. [26805]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Naval Bases and Supply Agency (NBSA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Trewby to Mr. William Ross, dated 3rd February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Question about the supply of meat, poultry and fish to the armed forces.
  The procurement of food for the armed forces is contracted to Booker Foodservice who took over the contract from NAAFI on 1 October 1997. I regret that the information you request on past expenditure is not available. However, the breakdown of country of origin for beef, lamb and pork for the expected purchases for the 12 month period ending September 1998 was given in the answer to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on 13 January 1998, Official Report column 157. The value of those purchases is estimated at £6.7M, £4.6M and £3.7M respectively. The estimates for the values of gammon and bacon, poultry and fish are given below. All figures are subject to variation dependent upon markets providing the best value for money.

  Commodity

  Value (£ million)

  Country of Origin (percentage by value)

  Gammon and Bacon

  4.5

  UK: 50

  Danish: 30

  Dutch: 20

  Poultry

  3.0

  France: 70

  UK: 30

  Fish1

  1.0

  n/a

  1 Excluding processed products e.g. fish fingers.

  n/a Not available.

  Microbiological Agents
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests he has carried out on the dangers to humans resulting from the bombing of installations containing(a) Bacillus Anthracis (Cohn), (b) Bacillus Subtilis (Ehrenburg), (c) Clostridium botulinum Type A, (d) Clostridium Tetan, (e) Brucella abartus Biotype 3 and (f) Escherichia coli; and if he will place his evaluation in the Library. [26285]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.
  601
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Tam Dalyell, dated 3 February 1998.
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research agency (DERA) I have been asked to reply to your question about what tests have been carried out to look at the dangers resulting from bombing installations containing harmful bacteria.
  No specific field trials have been carried out to look at this subject. DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down carries out theoretical risk assessments on a range of micro-organisms that might be used as a biological weapon by an aggressor. It would, therefore, be possible to assess very quickly the specific risk associated with the release of bacteria from a bombed installation from the data already available.
  During the Gulf War, CBD conducted theoretical modelling, based on the worst case scenario, on the risk to military operations which might result from the destruction of enemy biological production and storage facilities. Such modelling is intended to ensure that the operational effectiveness of the UK Armed Forces is not compromised.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Asbestos
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reach a conclusion on the issue of financial assistance for ex-service personnel who were affected by asbestos while serving in the Armed Forces prior to 1987. [27312]

  Dr. Reid
  Ex-Service personnel who contract asbestos related diseases as a result of their service in the Armed Forces can claim a war pension. It is not easy to assess whether this provides the same compensation as former Civilian personnel, who can bring a claim for negligence and be awarded lump sum compensation.

  Nevertheless, I hope to reach a conclusion within the next few months.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how long on average it takes his Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date his Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27034]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has taken 14.75 days on average to answer letters from hon. Members for the period 1 April 1997 to 31 December 1997. The Department's target for replying to this type of correspondence is 18 working days, and it achieves this target in 71 per cent. of cases. No information is available for the length of time it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed.

  Official England Supporters Club
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent contacts the Government have had with the Official England Supporters Club. [26492]
  602
  Mr. Banks
  The England Supporters Club, formally known as the England Members Club, is part of The Football Association. I have regular meetings with senior representatives of the FA to discuss issues of mutual interest, most recently on 20 January.

  Overseas Conference Visitors
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the average amount spent by overseas conference visitors to Britain in each year since 1992. [26849]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The average amount spent by overseas conference visitors to the UK in each year from 1992 is as shown in the table.

  Average amount spent per visit by overseas conference visitors to the UK

  Year

  (£)

  1992

  600

  1993

  603

  1994

  602

  1995

  634

  1996

  656

  Source:

  British Tourist Authority, from International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many overseas conference visitors there were to the United Kingdom in each year since 1992. [26841]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The number of visits made by overseas residents to conferences in the UK in each year from 1992 is as shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of visits made by overseas residents to conferences in the UK

  1992

  417,000

  1993

  471,000

  1994

  482,000

  1995

  569,000

  1996

  720,000

  Source:

  British Tourist Authority, from International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Announcements
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how ministerial announcements have not been made in the first instance to the House; and of those how many were(a) speeches to outside bodies, (b) press releases, (c) press briefings and (d) made by other means, since 1 May; and if she will make a statement about her Department's policy in respect of making public ministerial announcements. [18902]
  603
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: The most important announcements of Government Policy are made, in the first instance, to Parliament. Since 1 May, other announcements have been made in a variety of ways reflecting the nature of the announcement. The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Speeches

  25

  (b) Press releases

  72

  (c) Press briefings

  12

  (d) Other means

  2

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the perceived religious affiliation by(a) number, (b) percentage and (c) gender for each public body to which her Department makes appointments. [25264]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Monitoring information on the religious background of appointees to public bodies in Northern Ireland has been collected only for those appointed from 1 July 1996.

  The Secretary of State's first Annual Report on Public Appointments in Northern Ireland, due to be published soon, will provide a statistical analysis on the community background by gender of those appointed to public bodies during 1996–97, in line with the Commissioner for Public Appointment's Guidance. The Report, when published, will be available in the Library.

  Terrorist-related Murders
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the number of terrorist-related murders in Northern Ireland(a) since the most recent IRA ceasefire and (b) in each of the last 20 years. [25272]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the most recent IRA ceasefire, from 1200 hours on 20 July 1997 to 25 January 1998, there have been 14 murders connected to the security situation.

  The tables provide the number of murders in Northern Ireland due to the security situation in each of the last 20 years.

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1978

  70

  1979

  108

  1980

  65

  1981

  83

  1982

  85

  1983

  67

  1984

  49

  1985

  48

  1986

  55

  1987

  82

  1988

  84

  1989

  57

  1990

  68

  1991

  88

  1992

  79

  604

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1993

  82

  1994

  61

  1995

  9

  1996

  14

  1997

  20

  1998 (until 25 January)

  6

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times each Minister at the Northern Ireland Office stayed overnight in Northern Ireland between 1 July and 31 December 1997. [26348]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is as follows:

  Ministerial overnights in Northern Ireland (1 July–31 December 1997)

  Number

  Dr. Mowlam

  76

  Mr. Murphy

  76

  Mr. Ingram

  51

  Mr. Worthington

  57

  Lord Dubs

  51

  Community Groups
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the community groups with whom her Department has had contact since 1 May and indicate the amount of any public funding given to each such group (i) directly and (ii) via NILVA. [26795]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: The information requested is not held centrally. To gather the information would involve an extensive administrative exercise generating a disproportionate cost.

  Police Authority
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the police Authority are perceived to be a member of each Northern Ireland political party. [26794]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 18 December 1997, Official Report, column 293.

  Family Expenditure Survey
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the cost of increasing the size of the Family Expenditure Survey sample to allow for accurate family expenditure statistics disaggregated to a Northern Ireland geographical level. [26092]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not made any estimate of the cost of increasing the size of the Family Expenditure Survey. Northern Ireland, because of its small population size, already has a larger sample than that required for the United Kingdom
  605
  Family Expenditure Survey. Separate family expenditure statistics are produced for Northern Ireland and are accurate for the purposes to which they are put.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the appointment of a chief executive to an NHS trust in Wales requires the approval of the NHS Trust Board. [26196]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The regulations for the appointment of a chief executive to an NHS trust in Wales are contained in The National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990, which stipulate that an NHS trust shall appoint a committee comprising the chairman and non-executive directors of the trust for the purpose of appointing a chief executive.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further measures he proposes to tackle waiting lists; and if he will make a statement. [26698]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have recently announced plans to develop a new approach to the problems of waiting lists and to deliver our manifesto commitment to reduce the length of time people have to wait for treatment.

  Information to the end of September 1997 shows that 92 per cent. of people waiting for an outpatient appointment are seen within 6 months and 90 per cent. waiting for hospital inpatient or daycase treatment received it within 12 months.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the role of community hospitals. [26699]
  606
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  "Community Hospitals in Wales—the Future", issued in October 1996, provided health authorities and trusts with advice regarding the potential of community hospitals.

  Community hospitals may be used to reduce the pressure on acute hospitals by providing outreach clinics, admitting patients who do not require the specialist facilities of acute hospitals and receiving patients from acute hospitals for rehabilitation and recovery.

  It is for each health authority, working with NHS trusts, to decide each hospital's precise function and the development of a precise, locally agreed role is vital to the future of each individual hospital.

  Hospitals (Violence)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of violent incidents in each Welsh hospital in each of the past five years. [26845]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  This information is not held centrally. Responsibility for monitoring and preventing violent incidents in Welsh hospitals rests with individual NHS trusts.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of starts for modern apprenticeships in 1998–99(a) in total and (b) in each TEC area within Wales. [27083]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 18 December 1997,Official Report, column 285.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of all the bids to be the site for the Assembly for Wales. [27188]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I will not place copies of private developer proposals in the Library. I will with consent make available copies of bids received from Local Authorities as soon as I have sufficient copies available.

  However, I have placed a list of the bids in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her policy in respect of the importation of spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing; and if she will make a statement. [26982]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: The question of whether to reprocess or to seek alternative options to deal with spent fuel should be a matter for the commercial judgment of the owners of the spent fuel, subject to meeting the necessary requirements laid down by the United Kingdom's regulatory authorities. Since 1976 all contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have included options for the return of waste arising from reprocessing. The United Kingdom Government intend that these options should be exercised.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the conclusions of the Review Panel on Electricity Trading announced on 28 January to report by July 1998 will be taken into account in her Department's implementation of its commitment to introduce electricity competition by September 1998. [27184]

  Mr. Battle
  The plans for the introduction of electricity supply competition are already in place. The overall purpose of the above review is to consider whether and what changes should be made to wholesale electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales. The conclusions of the Review Panel will not have any effects on the introduction of competition in electricity supply.

  Magnox Electric (Merger)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 22 December 1997, to the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg),Official Report, columns 514–16, if the transfer of the Government's shareholding in Magnox Electric to British Nuclear Fuels has yet been effected. [27868]

  Mr. Battle
  I am pleased to report that the Government's shareholding in Magnox Electric was transferred to BNFL on 30 January 1998. Magnox is now a wholly owned subsidiary of BNFL. Full integration of the combined businesses of the companies is expected to be completed early in 1999, subject to the companies meeting the requirements of the relevant regulators. I am today placing in the Library of the each House a copy of the financial undertaking which the Government have given to BNFL reflecting the arrangements presented to Parliament on 22 December.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Activity
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when regulations to implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) as it applies to offshore oil and gas activity will be laid before Parliament. [27867]
  608
  Mr. Battle
  The text of draft regulations to implement the 1985 Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) as it applies to the offshore industry has been revised following consultation in 1997.

  The revised text includes changes designed to ensure that the regulations are workable and enforceable. It simplifies the process for deciding when environmental statements are required and lengthens the minimum time available for public comments on such statements from fourteen days to four weeks. It also introduces penalties for knowingly providing inaccurate information in connection with an environmental statement or for failure to obtain consent or to observe conditions attached to a consent.

  I announced on 10 September 1997 that I saw no reason to wait until 1999 to introduce the thresholds introduced in the 1997 amending Directive above which environmental assessment will become compulsory for certain development and pipeline projects. The revised text therefore uses a provision in the 1985 Directive which allows Member States to select appropriate thresholds above which projects covered by the Directive must be subject to environmental assessment, to require assessments of relevant projects which exceed these daily production or pipeline size thresholds. The draft Regulations do not implement the 1997 Directive, which Member States are required to adopt by mid-March 1999.

  The revised draft is being circulated by Government Departments and to other organisations which responded to the consultation draft of 1997. The regulations will now be laid as soon as possible after this second round of consultation has been completed, probably in March this year.

  Emission Limits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations she held with power generators prior to the Environment Agency's recent announcement of accelerated emissions limits. [25483]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: No consultations were held with power generators prior to the issue of the Environment Agency's consultation document proposing new emission limits. It is an Independent Body and does not necessarily inform the DTI in advance of its consultative documents.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 20 January 1998, Official Report, column 473, if she will publish the programme of Lady Clinton-Davis when she accompanied her husband to Korea and Japan at public expense. [25597]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Lady Clinton-Davis accompanied the Minister for Trade on a number of engagements in his own programme and in addition undertook a number of separate official engagements.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, 1998 column 473, if she will publish the

  609
  programmes of her husband when he accompanied her to (a) India and Australia and (b) China, Hong Kong and Pakistan at public expense. [25596]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Along with a British business delegation in India, China and Pakistan, Mr. Beckett accompanied me on my own programme, except for a small number of meetings with overseas Ministers where matters were discussed in confidence.

  Insolvency Practitioners
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the insolvency practitioner whose name has been sent to her is currently on the register maintained by the Insolvency Service. [25353]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: If the hon. Member is referring to matters I answered on 27 January 1998, Official Report, column 162, the liquidator of GSW Stewart Ltd., Mr. S. P. J. White, is on the register.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licence applications are outstanding; and how many have been outstanding for(a) one month, (b) three months and (c) more than three months. [24117]

  Mrs. Roche
  At 24 December 1997, a decision had not yet been taken on 1,674 applications for new individual export licences received since 2 May 1997. These are broken down as follows:

  Applicants received between 2 May 1997 and 24 September 1997

  Applicants received between 25 September 1997 and 24 November 1997

  Applicants received between 25 November 1997 and 24 December 1997

  Standard individual export licenses

  457

  442

  599

  Open individual export licenses

  93

  58

  25

  However, this information should be considered in light of my answer of 30 October 1997 to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), Official Report, columns 256–58.

  Fishermen (Redundancies)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the amount contributed annually to the redundancy fund by the fishermen made redundant as a result of the loss of Icelandic fishing in 1976. [23460]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I am not aware of any such estimate by this Department. However, statistics on National Insurance contributions are a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Domestic Gas
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from(a) gas consumers and (b) organisations
  610
  representing consumers concerning the marketing techniques used by new entrants into the domestic gas supply market. [26243]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), on 29 January 1998,Official Report, column 358.

  Technology Foresight
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of trade if she will report to Parliament annually on the work of the technology foresight groups setting out details of their current work, any recommendations which they have made and the Government's response to them. [26733]

  Mr. Battle
  Information on these lines is already provided in the annual report on DTI Expenditure Plans and in OST publications. In addition, in publishing the report on the Foresight Audit, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced last October that the Government have set up a Ministerial Foresight Group, under my chairmanship, to provide top-level co-ordination of the Foresight Programme across Whitehall. The Group has asked for progress reports at six month intervals which I would expect to publish.

  Dart Engine
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the Government have received in repaid launch aid from their investment in the dart engine. [26814]

  Mr. Battle
  The total sum of levies received to date from sales of the Dart engine is £6,958,475.74.

  Power Cuts (Christmas Period)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many households in the MANWEB supply area qualified for compensation due to electricity cuts over the Christmas period; and how many households actually claimed this compensation. [26844]

  Mr. Battle
  The Office of Electricity Regulation cannot provide the information to enable this question to be answered at this stage. I have asked the Director General of Electricity supply to write to the hon. Member when it is available.

  Photocopier Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when and where the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs last met representatives of Copywatch. [24765]

  Mrs. Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: On 14 January, in Parliament, with the editor and assistant editor of "What to Buy for Business", during which they discussed the failure of—the BEUA—the photocopying advisers of the right hon. Member for

  611
  Workingham (Mr. Redwood)—to comply with company law in relation to its accounts, which were filed late, incurring a penalty of £250.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many children are in year 3 in maintained schools; and how many of those children are in classes where a majority of the children belong to another school year; [26857]

  (2) how many children are in year 2 in maintained schools; and how many of those children are in classes where a majority of the children belong to another school year; [26858]

  (3) how many children are in year 1 in maintained schools; and how many of those children are in classes where the majority of the children belong to another school year. [26860]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Astra Group Pension Scheme
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the performance of the Trustees of the Astra Group Pension Scheme; if he will make a statement on the timetable for producing the accounts of the Astra Group Pension Scheme for the years ended April(a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996 and (d) 1997; if he will review the actuarial valuation of the pension fund (i) before and (ii) after privatisation; and if he will make a statement on the privatisation. [27139]

  Dr. Howells
  The current pension fund trustees of the former Astra Group were appointed by Receivers following the collapse of the Company in 1993. Questions about the performance of the trustees should be addressed to the Liquidators. Production of the Company's accounts and any produced separately for the Pension fund following receivership are not matters for the Department for Education and Employment. The Secretary of State is unable to review any actuarial valuation of the former Company pension fund.

  The sale of a large element of the Skills Training Agency and its former Skillcentres to the former Astra Group was part of the previous Government's privatisation programme. No such set programme exists under the present Government, though privatisations continue where appropriate, subject to rigorous handling and detailed consideration by Departments. The Secretary of State is doing everything possible to assist former Department staff who lost their jobs with the Astra collapse and are still experiencing major problems with this and their Pensions values.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the expenditure on 612
  education (a) in current prices and (b) as a percentage of United Kingdom gross domestic product in the relevant year in (i) 1968, (ii) 1979 and (iii) 1996–97. [26094]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  1968–69 estimate

  1978–79 outturn

  1996–97 provisional outturn

  Spending in real terms at 1997–98 prices

  £21½ billion

  £28.7 billion

  £37.9 billion

  Spending as a proportion of GDP

  5 per cent.

  5.4 per cent.

  4.9 per cent.

  1. Figures for 1978–79 and 1996–97 are from PESA March 1997.

  2. Cash figures for 1968–69 are not readily available. The spending figure for that year is an estimate based on a provisional outturn figure at 1969 survey prices which appears in Public Expenditure 1968–69 to 1973–74, December 1969. This figure includes spending on local authority libraries. Because of the difficulties in estimating a cash figure and in repricing to current prices, the spending figure for this year is rounded to the nearest half billion and the figure for spending as a proportion of GDP is rounded to the nearest ¼ per cent.

  Dearing Report
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to implement recommendation 66 of the Dearing Report. [26799]

  Dr. Howells
  We are considering our response to the recommendations of the Dearing Report, including recommendation 66, and will announce our response in due course.

HEALTH

  Atomic Test Veterans
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the complaints of long-standing illness claimed by atomic test veterans and their families and forwarded to him by a national Sunday newspaper. [23810]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health has not received correspondence from a national Sunday newspaper about illnesses claimed by atomic test veterans and their families. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for issues involving atomic test veterans.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received in respect of compensation for haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood products; [24586]

  (2) if he will make a statement on Government policy towards haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C by contaminated blood products. [24669]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 2 May 1997 there have been five Parliamentary Questions, in addition to this one, and Ministers have received approximately 70 letters about the
  613
  issue of special payments for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through National Health Service blood products. Ministers have also met representatives of the Haemophilia Society to discuss the issue.

  This is a complex matter which needs full and careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has promised to write to the Haemophilia Society about it, and he hopes to be in a position to do so shortly.

  London Hospitals
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Turnberg Committee submitted its report on London Hospitals to him. [25894]

  Mr. Milburn
  November.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to expedite the collation of statistics relating to(a) reductions and (b) increases in waiting lists in the NHS. [26146]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are using the well established quarterly collection, and publication, of waiting list statistics from health authorities and trusts to monitor changes in the numbers of patients awaiting admission to National Health Service hospitals in England.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives the Government have taken since 1 May 1997 to increase the number of dentists offering NHS treatment, with particular reference to Berkshire. [26158]

  Mr. Milburn
  In September 1997 we launched our Investing in Dentistry initiative, with £9 million of new money. This initiative focuses help on those areas of the country where the problems of access to National Health Service dentistry and oral health inequalities are most acute by providing grants to enable dentists to expand existing practices and set up new ones. On 1 January we announced a further £10 million for 1998–99 to continue the Government's drive to tackle these issues through the initiative.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently approved funding under section 56 of the NHS Act 1977 to help a dentist set up a multi-surgery in Maidenhead.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists practise in West Sussex; what is the average number of people registered with each NHS dental practitioner in(a) West Sussex and (b) nationally; and what is the current average waiting time for routine dental treatment with NHS dentists in West Sussex. [27138]

  Mr. Milburn
  There were 300 General Dental Service dentists on West Sussex Health Authority's list on 30 September 1997. At the same date the average number of registered patients per dentist in West Sussex was 1,367 and in England the average was 1,599.

  Information is not kept on waiting times for dental treatment either locally or nationally.
  614
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dental services in West Sussex. [27137]

  Mr. Milburn
  There were 300 General Dental Service dentists on West Sussex Health Authority's list on 30 September 1997. The health authority can refer patients to a dentist willing to register them for National Health Service treatment.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of young people who have used an illegal drug by the time they have reached the age of 24 years. [26480]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information from the 1996 British Crime Survey shows that 49 per cent. of people in England and Wales aged 20–24 had taken drugs.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the numbers of cannabis users who(a) first use tobacco cigarettes as a gateway to cannabis and (b) use cannabis as their first gateway drug. [26475]

  Ms Jowell
  Although most problematic drug users will also have used cannabis and other substances, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report of May 1996 states that the vast majority of cannabis users do not progress to drug abuse or dependency, and most never try another drug. In the absence of clear evidence, the extent to which some substances may act as a gateway to others remains a matter of debate.

  NHS Care (Failures)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health the deaths of how many people have been found to have been caused by failures of NHS care in each of the past six years. [26479]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Mortality statistics are collected by the Office for National Statistics, but the information on cause of death is taken from death certificates which specify only the precise illness or injury. It is impossible to identify from that whether there was any indication of the death resulting from a failure in care or treatment.

  Residential Homes (Treatments)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the advantages of the electronic monitoring of the confused elderly in residential homes as an alternative to the use of anti-psychotic drugs. [26485]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are currently no plans to assess the advantages of the electronic monitoring of the confused elderly in residential homes as an alternative to the use of anti-psychotic drugs. It is for local authorities to decide, as part of their regulatory responsibilities, whether electronic monitoring is appropriate in any particular circumstances.

  Mental Health Care
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a mental health commission to oversee delivery of mental health care through community services; and if he will make a statement. [26782]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have established an Independent Reference Group (IRG) to give Ministers advice to help shape credible mental health services and build up public confidence. The IRG will advise Ministers from time to time on a range of important mental health matters. Their first task is to consider long stay hospital closure plans to help ensure that alternative care is in place before closures go ahead.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits for Alzheimer's sufferers from the drug Aricept; and if he will make a statement on the availability of Aricept in the United Kingdom; [27115]

  (2) what plans he has to issue guidance on the prescription of Aricept for Alzheimer's suffers; and if he will make a statement. [27116]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Standing Medical Advisory Committee is currently considering the benefits of the drug Aricept. Health authorities and clinicians already have access to a number of sources of information on Aricept, on which they can make decisions about the use of this drug.

SCOTLAND

  Waste Materials
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what controls are in place to monitor the(a) transportation and (b) dumping of waste materials; and how many cases of breaches of these controls have been recorded in the last five years. [22942]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: The following controls are in place to monitor the transportation of wastes:
  The Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure of Vehicles) Regulations 1991;
  The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991;
  The Special Waste Regulations 1996, as amended;
  The Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994.

  The following controls are in place to monitor the dumping of waste materials:
  The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991;
  The Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989;
  The Animal By-Products Order 1992;
  The Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997.

  Figures are not held centrally on breaches in respect of the spreading of sludge on agricultural land, or in respect of the Animal By-Products Order 1992. Information on breaches of legislation in respect of controlled waste is available from "The Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin on Waste Collection, Disposal and Regulation," copies of which are placed in the House Library. Statistics are
  616
  available for the years 1992, 1993 and 1994. The number of prosecutions for breaches of controlled waste legislation which resulted in a guilty verdict is as follows:

  1992:2

  1993:13

  1994:22.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the level of(a) sewage, (b) abattoir and (c) factory waste being transported by road; if he will make a statement on trends in such transportation; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on waste management. [22941]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: The amount of factory waste estimated to have been transported by road in Scotland in 1994 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) is approximately 4 million tonnes. This indicated an upward trend at that time. Figures are not held centrally for the amounts of sewage and abattoir waste transported by road.

  The Government are committed to the European Strategy on Waste and the principle of sustainable waste management. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is currently preparing the National Waste Strategy for Scotland, the final draft of which will be available by the end of the year.

  HIV-AIDS Drug Therapies
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what eligibility criteria have been drawn up for access to combination drug therapies for people with HIV-AIDS living in Scotland; and how these differ from guidelines in use in the rest of the United Kingdom. [26005]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: It is for individual clinicians to determine the appropriate treatment in consultation with the patients concerned and having regard to any locally agreed treatment protocols. I have recently set up an expert group, part of whose remit is to recommend appropriate treatment protocols for combination therapy for HIV patients.

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been paid in capital charges by the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh in each of the last five years; and what will be the unitary charge to the private sector in each of the next 20 years under the PFI scheme for the new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. [27096]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh has paid capital charges only since it was established as an NHS Trust on 1 April 1994. The sums paid by the Trust on its interest bearing debt and dividends on its Public Dividend Capital in the last three years is given in the table.

  £000

  1994–95

  6,010

  1995–96

  6,324

  1996–97

  6,167

  617
  Since the PFI contract for the New Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh has not yet reached financial close, details of the unitary charge payable to the private sector are still being negotiated.

  Family Expenditure Survey
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of increasing the size of the Family Expenditure Survey sample to allow for accurate family expenditure statistics disaggregated to a Scottish geographical level. [26093]

  Mr. Wilson
  The sample size and coverage of the Family Expenditure Survey is regarded as sufficient to support present uses of information from the survey, including analysis at Scotland level.

  The Scottish Office is currently considering carefully the need for survey and other statistical information to support the development and monitoring of the Government's policies in Scotland.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are taken by her Department to ensure consistency in the conduct of Benefit Integrity Project interviews and assessments. [26422]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with Benefit Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 2 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what steps are taken by her Department to ensure consistency in the conduct of Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) interviews and assessments.
  The BIP is looking again at some awards of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Information is collected either by visiting the disabled person at home or by sending them a questionnaire by post. In the interests of fairness and effective administration, it is important that visiting officers carry out interviews to a common standards and to this end they have been selected against common criteria and have all attended a specially designed training. The training course covers all aspect of visiting techniques, including a session prepared and delivered by members of the Disability Income Group.
  A further important source of consistency is that the information obtained from our enquiries, both by post and at visits, is recorded on the same form, DLA 250, which has been designed to ensure that, when completed, it provides a comprehensive picture of a person's circumstances and how their disability affects their daily life.
  As with all aspects of the work of the Benefits Agency (BA), checks are carried out to ensure that high standards are maintained. In the case of BIP, managers at the Disability Benefit Centres, where the visiting officers are located, are required to monitor the standard of completion of BIP questionnaires and to accompany visiting officers on a number of visits.
  618
  Once BIP enquiries are complete, an adjudication officer may be required to review the award of DLA. Adjudication on BIP cases is subject to the same rules and controls as any other DLA case, which means that cases are checked by the BA's Adjudication, Checking and Advice Team.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what will be the impact on the timetable for winter fuel payments of the need to send out new payments to those pensioners whose first payments were wrongly dated; [27069]

  (2) how many pensioners will still be due to receive this year's winter fuel payments after March 1998. [27072]

  Mr. Denham
  Winter Fuel Payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. This is the first time that any Government have made a payment to all pensioners towards their heating costs.

  This is an enormous and unprecedented exercise, involving the making of around 10 million payments to over 7 million pensioner households at a total cost of around £200 million.

  The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Bendel, dated 2 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking; what will be the impact on the timetable for winter fuel payments, of the need to send out new payments to those pensioners whose first payments were wrongly dated; and how many pensioners will still be due to received this year's winter fuel payments after March 1998.
  There will be no impact on the original timetable for Winter Fuel Payments. Arrangements were made to ensure those pensioners, whose first payments were wrongly dated, received replacement girocheques by 31 January 1998.
  Priority has been given to issuing payments to the poorest pensioners—those who are receiving Income Support or income based Jobseekers Allowance. A total of 1,441,614 payments of £50 have been issued, as at 31 January 1998. This does not include the small number of clerical payments made locally.
  It is estimated that almost a further 8.5 million pensioners will be entitled to payment of £20 or £10. Where there is only one eligible pensioner in a household, or they are of no fixed abode, they will receive £20; otherwise each eligible pensioner will receive £10.
  Around fifteen million computer records will be matched to identify each eligible pensioner and determine the correct amount due. Based on current planning assumptions, we expect this process to be completed by the beginning of March. The process of producing a payment for each eligible pensioner will then begin. The intention is to issue the payments as quickly as possible, but at the same time manage both capacity and continue to deliver normal benefit services. The great majority of payments will be made by the end of March, but we will continually review the project plan, with the aim of improving on the delivery timescales, if at all possible.
  Thank you for the opportunity to explain the position and I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to implement each of the recent recommendations made by the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. [26426]

  Mr. Denham
  Disability benefits are included in this Department's Comprehensive Spending Review which was announced on 11 June last year. The review is a first step in our plan to modernise and improve the Social Security system, so that it helps people to work as far as they are able, provides appropriate support to those who cannot work, and makes the most effective use of resources available. We have received a number of suggestions and recommendations from a range of bodies with an interest, including the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board, and they are being considered as part of the review.

  When we have identified specific proposals for disability benefits we will consult disabled people, their organisations and others with an interest. We will not implement any changes without first consulting them.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number of cold weather payments triggered in the current financial year by(a) weather station and (b) total value. [26797]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Weather station

  Number of triggers this financial year

  Estimated number of payments made

  Estimated total cost (£)

  Loch Glascarnoch

  1

  1,904

  16,184

  Sennybridge

  1

  44,318

  376,703

  Eskdalemuir

  1

  3,587

  30,490

  Totals

  3

  49,809

  423,377

  European Parliament (Women's Rights Committee)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her appearance before the Women's Rights Committee of the European Parliament; and if she will place in the Library a copy of her address to the EP Committee. [26984]

  Ms Harman
  On 2 February I made a speech to the Women's Rights Committee of the European Parliament which was well received. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the annual ratio between workers and pensioners in the United Kingdom for each year up to 2030; and if she will make a statement. [26088]
  620
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Ratio between people of working age and people over pensionable age in Great Britain

  Number of people of working age per pensioner

  1996

  3.4

  2001

  3.4

  2011

  3.2

  2021

  3.3

  2031

  2.6

  Notes:

  Working age is defined as between 16 and State Pension Age. The figures take account of the change in State Pension Age for women which will take place between 2010 and 2020.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department 1996—based national population projections.

  Benefits (Take-up)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will list the Government and Government-commissioned research into the factors affecting take-up of benefits specifically in rural areas, listing those who undertook the research and when; [26089]

  (2) if she will list the Government measures designed specifically to encourage take-up of benefits in rural areas.
  [26090]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We would encourage anyone who thinks that they may be entitled to benefit to make a claim, wherever they live in Britain.

  We are particularly concerned about the million pensioners who are not claiming the Income Support to which they are entitled, and from April we will be running a number of pilot projets, costing a total of £15 million, to find out how best to get help to them.

  We have also commissioned research to identify the most important barriers faced by pensioners not claiming their Income Support entitlement. This will look at any factors which may explain their reluctance to make a claim, including the type of area in which they live. It is being carried out this year by Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR).

  A review of research on the take-up of benefits which covered aspects of benefit take-up in rural areas amongst others was commissioned by the Department and published in 1995. (Corden, A., 1995, Changing Perspectives on Benefit Take-up, London: HMSO).

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged under 30 years are currently accruing rights under(a) the state earnings related pension scheme, (b) an occupational pension scheme, (c) a personal pension scheme and (d) no second tier pension; and what recent initiatives she has taken to encourage second tier provision aamong this group. [25544]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: For most people security in retirement comes from having two pensions, the basic State pension and a secure, funded second pension. That is why the Government have set out

  621
  clearly our plans for developing new Stakeholder Pensions for those who cannot join an occupational scheme or for whom personal pensions are not suitable. We will publish an initial framework for change in the first half of this year.

  In the tax year 1995–96, the latest year for which figures are available, the estimated number of people in Great Britain aged 16 to 29 was 11 million1. Of these, 5.1 million accrued no rights to a second tier pension, in most cases because they were in full-time education, employed with low earnings, unemployed or caring for children. The remaining people accrued pension rights as follows22.6 million people accrued rights under the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) based on their full National Insurance Contributions3.
  1.8 million people were in a contracted-out occupational pension scheme4.
  2.1 million people held Appropriate Personal Pension (APP) plans5.
  1 Source: Mid 1995 estimate from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Population Estimate Unit.
  2 Source: Numbers accruing rights to second rights to second pensions are from the Lifetime Labour Market Database, a 1 per cent. sample of the National Insurance Recording System taken at February 1997. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. People may accrue rights to more than one type of pension.
  3 A further 2.7 people accrued negligible amounts of SERPS. These were mainly people who chose to contract out of SERPS into other second tier provision. Also, prior to the 1995 Pensions Act provisions which changed the SERPS formulae for awards from April 2000, it was possible for the self-employed and those paying voluntary contributions to accrue small amounts of SERPS.
  4 Figures are not available for the number of people accruing rights in occupational pension schemes not contracted out of SERPS.
  5 An APP plan is a personal pension used to contract out of SERPS. This figure includes 0.7 million people where no minimum contributions were made by the Department into the plan in 1995–96. Figures are not available for the number of people accruing rights in non-appropriate personal pensions, i.e., personal pensions not contracted out of SERPS.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the(a) estimated average fuel consumption and (b) total mileage of ministerial cars travelling on official business in each year since 1989–90. [25796]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Andrew Stunell, dated 3 February 1998:
  Your Questions about (a) the estimated average fuel consumption and (b) the total mileage of ministerial cars travelling on official business in each year since 1989–90 to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Secretary of State for Social Security have been passed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has asked me in my capacity as the Chief Executive of the government Car and Despatch Agency to reply.
  Based on the usage for the current financial year from 1 April 1997, when the Agency was first formed, I estimate that in a full year ministerial cars allocated to the Department of the
  622
  Environment, Transport and the Regions will have an average fuel consumption of 26 miles per gallon, and will travel 86,000 miles on official business. Using the same basis, I estimate that ministerial cars allocated to the Department of Social Security will have an average fuel consumption of 26 miles per gallon, and will travel 53,500 miles on official business.
  The information for earlier years prior to the formation of the Agency is not readily available and can only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.
  Cars and drivers are allocated for the use of Ministers and their private offices. In addition to ministerial duties, they are also used for several other purposes such as the movement of documents and for use by officials as directed by the ministerial private office.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the local government finance settlement for local authorities in North Yorkshire. [24897]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Written representations on our proposals have been received from North Yorkshire County Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Ryedale District Council, Scarborough Borough Council and York City Council. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing also met North Yorkshire, Harrogate and York to discuss their concerns. I understand that the hon. Member was present at the meeting with York City Council.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on local government funding in Surrey. [24899]

  Ms Armstrong
  Written representations on our proposals were received from Surrey County Council, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, Runnymede District Council, Spelthorne Borough Council, Waverley Borough Council, and Surrey Heath Borough Council. I also met representatives from Runnymede District Council and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for the regions met Surrey County Council to discuss their concerns on the provisional settlement.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of local government in England to discuss local government finance. [24915]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I last met representatives of local government during the recent consultation on our proposals for local government finance in 1998–99.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will publish figures for every local authority in England showing the amount of revenue support grant which they would have received had their 1998–99 standard spending assessment increased by 5 per cent., compared with the adjusted SSA figure for 1997–98; and if he will show(a) in cash terms and (b) percentage terms how this differs from the actual amount of revenue support grant which they will receive in 1998–99; [27186]
  623
  (2) if he will publish figures for every local authority in England showing the amount of revenue support grant which they would have received had their 1989–99 standard spending assessment increased by 13 per cent., compared with the adjusted SSA figure for 1997–98; and if he will show (a) in cash terms and (b) in percentage terms how this differs from the actual amount of revenue support grant which they will receive in 1998–99. [27187]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have placed the information requested in the Library.

  Housing Development
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many square miles of green belt land have been subject to new planning approvals since 1 May 1997. [24898]

  Mr. Caborn
  About 620 hectares of Green Belt have been deleted by development plan changes. Over the same period local authorities have proposed adding some 33,000 hectares to the Green Belt. If they are all adopted that will mean over 32,000 hectares will have been added to the Green Belt—that is about three times the size of Bristol.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards housing development in the countryside. [24900]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are committed to protection of the countryside. This involves making the best possible use of brownfield sites in urban areas to accommodate new homes. Where development in the countryside is necessary, we have very strict controls on development.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on the proportion of new homes which should be accommodated on land which has been developed. [24909]

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps is he taking to encourage the use of brown-field sites. [24914]

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to maximise the use of brown-field sites for housing. [25602]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to make a statement to the House on the whole issue of household growth later this month. Meanwhile, national planning policy encourages local authorities to use previously developed sites for housing. This helps regenerate our towns and cities and helps to protect our countryside.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of additional dwellings required by 2018; and on what assumptions his estimate is based. [27135]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has made no estimate of the number of homes that need to be constructed by 2018. The latest 1992-based household projections, published in March 1995, indicate a 4.4 million increase 624
  in the number of households in England in the 25 year period from 1991 to 2016. However, these household projections should not be taken as an estimate of the number of additional houses which have to be built. Rather, they represent just one of the factors to be taken into account by local planning authorities when arriving at figures for housing provision to be included in regional guidance and development plans. The detailed assumptions underlying these projections to 2016 are set out in the Stationery Office "Projections of Households in England to 2016", a copy of which is in the Library. My Department is planning to compile revised, 1996-based. household projections around the end of this year.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Stunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to improve energy efficiency in low-income households. [24901]

  Angela Eagle
  This year the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme should improve the insulation of 400,000 homes of low income families, and next year reduced VAT within the scheme should boost that by about 10 per cent. Our Capital Receipts initiative and the new Environmental Task Force will further increase activity.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to develop the home energy efficiency scheme. [24892]

  Angela Eagle
  A review of the scheme is being carried out to find out if it is helping the right people in the most effective way. I will consider carefully any options for developing the scheme which flow from the review.

  Structure Plan (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has given to the request from the London Green Belt Council to discuss the Hertfordshire structure plan. [24902]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have declined the London Green Belt Council's request for a meeting because we have indicated to Hertfordshire County Council that we are unlikely to intervene in its Plan if it proceeds to adoption on the basis now proposed. It is now the County Council's responsibility to progress its plan.

  Housing (Repair and Renovation)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of housing in England he assesses to be in need of(a) major repair and (b) renovation. [24903]

  Ms Armstrong
  Around 7.5 per cent of dwellings are unfit for habitation and might be considered to be in need of renovation. About 3 per cent. of dwellings are unfit owing to disrepair and might therefore be considered to be in need of major repair.

  London Government
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish a White Paper setting out proposals for an elected mayor and assembly for London. [24904]
  625
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are currently considering the responses they received to the Green Paper "New Leadership for London" and intend to publish their proposals for a Greater London Authority in March.

  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the proposed referendum on a mayor and assembly for London. [24913]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A number of responses to the "New Leadership for London" consultation mentioned the proposed referendum. It is not possible to index all references in all letters. However, I believe that since the close of the consultation on 24 October, some 25–30 letters have made a reference to the referendum.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1997,Official Report, column 39, when he expects to receive (a) the first and (b) the final version of the report on the electoral system for the Greater London Assembly, commissioned from Professor Patrick Dunleavy; and if he will place copies of both the first and final versions in the Library. [27300]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A copy of the report, "Electing the London Mayor and the London Assembly", received by the Government from Professor Patrick Dunleavy and Dr. Helen Margetts, has been placed in the Library today.

  Rented Property
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department has to enable local authorities to increase their stock of rented property. [24905]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have already acted to provide additional resources for housing and housing-related regeneration under the Capital Receipts Initiative, and we expect the provision of new social housing in partnership with registered social landlords to be among local authorities' priorities for applying the extra spending power. Future investment in social housing is one of the factors being considered in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the representation of rural interests on the boards of the regional development agencies. [24906]

  Mr. Caborn
  Our White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity" made clear that outside of London each RDA Board will include at least one member who can contribute a strong rural perspective.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role he plans for regional chambers in the development of regional policy and regional economic development. [24907]

  Mr. Caborn
  Regional chambers will be a mechanism through which RDAs can take account of regional views and account for their activities. Each RDA will have regard to the chamber's views in preparing its economic 626
  strategy, will consult the chamber on its corporate plan and will give an account of its performance to the regional chamber.

  Smoking
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the work of the Health and Safety Executive in combating smoking and passive smoking in the workplace. [24908]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) enforces prohibitions on smoking where necessary for safety. HSE also recommends employers introduce policies on passive smoking, giving priority to non-smokers' needs. HSE will review policy on workplace smoking when the forthcoming report from the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health is published.

  Wildlife Sites
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to improve protection of important wildlife sites. [24910]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are currently considering how best to improve the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Officials are preparing a consultation paper seeking views.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the phased release of capital receipts. [24911]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have notified all local authorities in England that wish to receive resources under the Capital Receipts Initiative of their allocations of Supplementary Credit Approvals for both 1997–98 and 1998–99. £174 million in credit approvals has been allocated for 1997–98 and £569 million for 1998–99. These additional resources will be targeted on housing and housing-related regeneration schemes. Guidance issued on 2 October, which sets out how the Initiative will be taken forward, has been deposited in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy towards the siting of wind turbines. [24912]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Advice on the siting of wind turbines is contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 22, "Renewable Energy" (PPG22). This sets out planning policy in relation to renewable energy developments. The annexe to PPG22 on wind energy provides detailed advice on a range of issues that may affect decisions on the siting of wind turbines. That advice covers, among other things, the visual impact of wind turbines, the considerations that apply in designated areas, noise, access and safety.

  Road Safety (Children)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals to increase child safety on roads. [24923]

  Dr. Strang
  Improving child road safety is a key priority. We have a target to reduce the number of children killed on our roads by a quarter by the year 2000 on 1994 levels. We will be bringing forward further measures to improve child safety as part of our new road safety strategy.

  Light Rapid Transport Schemes
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on funding for light rapid transport schemes. [24925]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government are currently providing funds for the construction of the Midland Metro, Croydon Tramlink and the extension of Manchester Metrolink. We are giving careful consideration to the future funding of light rail schemes in our integrated transport White Paper.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Minister of Transport when he last met the chairman of London and Continental Railways to discuss progress on the channel tunnel rail link. [24926]

  Mr. Prescott
  I met Sir Derek Hornby and others from London and Continental Railways last Wednesday, 28 January. I subsequently made a statement to this House about the subject of that meeting.

  Traffic Targets
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Transport what is his policy on the introduction of targets to reduce the volume of traffic on the United Kingdom's roads. [24927]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Targets will be a significant feature in the Integrated Transport White Paper that we are publishing in the spring. We are considering carefully whether there should be further targets in addition to the range of relevant targets which already exist.

  Passenger Traffic
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to encourage passenger traffic to use the railways instead of the roads. [24928]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's overriding goal is to win more passengers and freight on to the railways. To that end, we will set up a new Rail Authority. Proposals for further action will be published with our Integrated Transport White Paper in the spring.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the enforcement of vehicle emissions standards by local authorities. [24930]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Seven local authorities have been given powers under regulations which came into force on 26 December 1997 to enforce vehicle exhaust emissions standards at the roadside. The seven authorities are Birmingham, Bristol, Canterbury, Glasgow,628
  Middlesbrough, Swansea and Westminster and offenders will be liable to pay a £60 fixed penalty. We will be reviewing the effectiveness of the regulations over the next twelve months or so with a view to extending the powers to all local authorities.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the health effects of pollution from road traffic. [24933]

  Dr. Strang
  The Department of Health Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants published a report on 13 January which attempted to estimate the impact on health of air pollution from all sources, including road traffic. The report estimated that air pollution precipitates the deaths of 12,000–24,000 people a year. A copy of the report is in the House Library. Our review of the national air quality strategy will take account of this report and it will look at the prospects for delivering cleaner air more quickly. Proposals for improving the strategy are due at the end of the year. Air quality issues will also form an integral part of our fundamental review of transport policy.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Transport what plans he has to encourage reductions in fares for rail passengers. [24931]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director has a statutory duty under the Railways Act 1993 to ensure that the interests of passengers are protected by requiring that rail fares are reasonable. We are conducting a thorough review of rail regulation to identify what improvements are needed to strengthen regulation in the interests of passengers.

  Public Transport (Disabled People)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on making public transport accessible to disabled people. [24932]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are committed to implementing the transport provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The regulations we will be making under the Act will require all land-based public transport to be accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users.

  Our detailed proposals for taxis, buses and coaches have been published. Draft regulations for rail vehicles will follow soon. Copies of all consultation documents are available from the Library.

  A1 (Traffic Volumes)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Transport what assessment he has made of traffic volumes on the Al though Newcastle and Gateshead. [24934]

  Dr. Strang
  The traffic flows on the Al are assessed using data collected from automatic traffic counters in the carriageway and on the slip roads onto the A I through Newcastle and Gateshead. The data are collected and collated as an ongoing process by the Highways Agency.

  Vehicles (Fuel Efficiency)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Transport what plans he has to increase fuel efficiency in road vehicles. [24935]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are a number of measures in place to increase fuel efficiency in road vehicles, including the 6 per cent. annual fuel duty increases announced by the Chancellor in July, the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force and negotiating a voluntary agreement with motor manufacturers at the European level. We will also be considering further measures as part of the climate change programme that we will be developing later this year.

  Traffic (Wyre Piddle)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Transport if he will visit Wyre Piddle to study local traffic conditions. [24936]

  Dr. Strang
  Owing to other prior commitments I shall be unable to visit Wyre Piddle in the foreseeable future.

  Rail Services
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the punctuality performance of route groups of train services in the last quarter of(a) 1997 and (b) 1996. [24937]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the last quarter of 1997 (14 September–6 December 1997) punctuality performance for 28 route groups of train services was better than in the last quarter of 1996 (13 October 1996—4 January 1997); for 27 route groups it was worse; and for two route groups performance was the same. (Changes to the structure of some of the route groups and the addition or deletion of some others mean that comparable information for nine route groups is not available). Details are shown in the quarterly bulletins published by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising on 15 January 1998 and 4 February 1997, copies of which are in the Library.

  The Franchising Director has expressed his concern about recent performance levels. We look to him to monitor train operators closely, to enforce the terms of the franchise agreements and to seek improvements in performance in the interests of passengers.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Minister of Transport how many route groups of train services performed with worse punctuality in the last quarter of 1997 than in the same period of 1996. [24940]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Twenty-seven route groups out of the 57 for which comparable information is available. Changes to the structure of some of the route groups and the addition or deletion of some others mean that comparable information for nine route groups is not available. Details are shown in the quarterly bulletins published by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising on 15 January 1998 and 4 February 1997, copies of which are in the House Library.

  Workplace Car Parking
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Transport what assessment he has made of the cost of policing and monitoring a system of taxing workplace car parking. [24938]
  630
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are considering whether a levy on non-residential parking should form part of the package of measures that will constitute its integrated transport policy. Among the issues being assessed are the administrative and enforcement implications of any such levy.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to introduce a charge on car parking spaces provided by employers. [27158]

  Angela Eagle
  Greater use of the price mechanism to influence travel choice, which might include a levy on non-residential parking, is one of the range of options being studied as part of the preparation of the forthcoming White Paper that will set out the Government's integrated transport policy.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Transport what plans he has to increase the percentage of journeys made using public transport. [24939]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Promoting the use of public transport, and reducing dependence on the car, is at the heart of the integrated transport policy the Government are developing. Our policies will be set out in detail in our White Paper when we have completed our fundamental transport review.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the contracts to build and operate the Birmingham Northern Relief Road have been signed; and if he will make a statement. [25940]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under their concession agreement of February 1992 Midland Expressway Ltd. are responsible for the detailed contractual arrangements for building and operating the road. These are matters they will need to consider further when, very shortly, the Statutory Orders relating to the scheme are made.

  Air Traffic Control Centre, Prestwick
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the dates that the air traffic control centre at Prestwick has(a) failed and (b) had an engineering-related occurrence during the last 12 months. [25978]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been informed by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. that there have been no failures at the Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick over the last 12 months. There were three engineering-related occurrences at the centre in the same period, on 17 January, 2 June and 23 October 1997, none of which resulted in either a lowering of safety standards or any delay to air traffic.

  Aviation and Shipping Policy
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instigate a strategic review of (i) United Kingdom aviation
  631
  policy and (ii) United Kingdom shipping policy as a separate exercise from his overall review of transport. [25965]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are carrying out a fundamental review of transport policy leading to the publication of a White Paper later this year. Our aim in the White Paper is to establish the overall framework of an integrated transport policy within which policies relevant to specific modes, including aviation and shipping, can be developed in due course. We believe that UK aviation and shipping have an essential role to play within a fully integrated transport system.

  In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister has established a Shipping Working Group in order to consider measures which could revive the UK shipping industry and increase British seafarer training and employment.

  Water Metering (Mid-Kent Water)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the continuing study of the effects of tnetering undertaken by Mid-Kent Water with particular reference to its findings as they concern the use of water by lower rateable value property occupants. [26069]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are aware of the research into metering in Mid Kent and other areas and we will take account of it in our review of the system of charging for water and sewerage services, on which we aim to publish a consultation paper shortly.

  Empty Housing Units (Sunderland)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of empty housing units in Sunderland in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997 (i) in total and (ii) by sector. [26535]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The numbers of vacant local authority and housing associations dwellings in Sunderland on
  1 April are set out below alongside the local authority's estimates of private and other public sector vacant dwellings.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Local authority1

  507

  592

  663

  Housing association2

  336

  113

  116

  Other public sector1

  3

  3

  2

  Private sector1

  716

  1,008

  1,933

  Total

  1,562

  1,716

  2,714

  1 Source: Annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns.

  2 Source: Annual HAR10/1 returns.

  Deep Sea Mineral Deposits
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental assessment he has made of proposals for the removal of mineral deposits from the surface of the deep ocean bed. [26489]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's jurisdiction over the seabed extends only to the British share of the European Continental Shelf. Within this area the only mineral deposits being removed from the surface of the 632
  seabed are aggregates which are dredged from a number of off-shore locations around the UK. This dredging is licensed by the Crown Estate as "custodian" of the seabed.

  By agreement, the Crown Estate submits every application for a dredging licence to a "Government View Procedure" ("GVP") which is administered by DETR and which enables the environmental effects of the proposed dredging, particularly on coastal protection, nature conservation and fishing interests to be fully assessed. Principal consultees under the "GV" are MAFF, DNH, the Environment Agency, English Nature and the Coastal Protection Authorities. Every application for a "GVP" is accompanied by a full Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by the applicants. A dredging licence will only be granted by the Crown Estate if a favourable "GV" is issued by DETR.

  The current maximum dredging depth is about 60m. Developing technology could increase dredging depths to 80m but such deeper dredging is not thought to be commercially viable at the present time and is not undertaken.

  Carbon Emission Permits
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have for pilot projects in relation to United Kingdom carbon emission permits following the Kyoto conference. [26692]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Kyoto Protocol allows developed countries to trade permits for greenhouse gas emissions. Rules will be agreed by the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention, the next meeting of which is in November 1998. The Government are working hard to ensure that emissions trading could be used constructively to achieve cost effective emission reductions consistent with the environmental objectives of the Kyoto agreement.

  The Government will be consulting on UK participation in emissions trading as part of their wider consultation later this year on measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the signed memoranda sent by Ministers to the Select Committee on European Community Legislation relevant to Community documents on genetic modification of plants, indicating for each the document's title and the date when signed, and the date of the Councils of Ministers meetings when the Community documents were considered. [26342]

  Angela Eagle
  Two Explanatory Memorandums have been sent to the Select Committee on European Community Legislation in respect of Community documents on the genetic modification of plants. They are:
  633
  12953/96 COM(96)639 Final: Commission report on the review of Directive 90/220/EEC in the context of the Commission's Communication on biotechnology and the White Paper. Signed January 1996. Discussed at the Council of Environment Ministers 3 March 1996.
  7894/96 COM(96)206 Final: Council decision concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified maize (zea mays 1.) with the combined modification for insecticidal properties conferred by the bt-endotoxin gene and increased tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Signed July 1996. Discussed at the Council of Environment Ministers 25 June 1996.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Diesel
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many more vehicles now run on ultra-low sulphur diesel than in April 1997. [26352]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No data are available on the total number of vehicles using ultra-low sulphur diesel. However, very approximate estimates suggest that the ultra-low sulphur diesel share of the diesel fuel market has risen from about 1 per cent. in April 1997 to about 2.5 per cent. today.

  Rate Support Grant (Westminster)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recent attempt by Westminster City Council to seek leave for judicial review over its proposed RSG settlement. [27325]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Westminster City Council applied to the Court on 28 January for leave to apply for judicial review. The leave application was refused.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give an estimate of the legal costs incurred in the recent court case brought by Westminster City Council against the Government over Westminster's proposed RSG settlement; and if he will make a statement. [27324]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Westminster City Council applied to the Court on 28 January for leave to apply for judicial review. The Secretary of State resisted the application for leave through Counsel. The leave application was refused and the Secretary of State's costs in the matter were awarded against the Applicants. The costs will be taxed by the Court in the usual way in due course.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions he will take to encourage rail freight. [25603]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government want to see more freight go by rail. We have already improved the take-up of freight grants and increased the budget for 1998–99 to £40 million. We have secured commitments from the French Government and Eurotunnel designed to increase international rail freight through the Channel Tunnel and beyond. Our white paper on integrated transport policy, to be published in the spring, will set out further measures to encourage rail freight, including the role of the proposed new Rail Authority.

  Taxis
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of taxis in the Government's Integrated Transport Strategy. [24999]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Taxis and private hire vehicles are an integral part of public transport and as such their role is part of our review of integrated transport.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1998,Official Report, columns 3–4, on the site for the Millennium Experience, if he will list the pollutants found on the site during the reclamation work. [25044]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  A large proportion of the Greenwich Peninsula site has been chemically contaminated to varying degrees as a result of former industrial activities, principally the generation of coal, gas and associated by-products. By-products included the manufacture of sulphuric acid and ammonium sulphate fertiliser in a dedicated chemical works as well as the production of coal tar and a range of organic chemicals such as benzene and naphtha in a separate tar works.

  As a result, the principal contaminants found on the site are: wastes from tar production and distillation including coal tars and a variety of derivatives; materials from gas purification including foul lime clinker waste and spent oxide; carboniferous materials including coal, coke and clinker.

  The contaminants were identified during a comprehensive site investigation undertaken both by the original site owners, British Gas, and by English Partnerships.

  Remediation has been carried out to ensure that adequate precautions have been taken, in line with legislation and Government policy, to protect ground and surface waters, construction workers, visitors, residents, and general public and building materials from future harm from these contaminants.

  Compulsory Purchase Agreements
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a code of practice for developers involved in compulsory purchase agreements, in respect of the interests of the seller. [26836]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Interdepartmental Working Group on Blight, in presenting its Final Report, submitted a draft Code of Practice on the dissemination of information during the various stages of major infrastructure developments. It is the Group's belief that the uncertainty surrounding major projects, and the disruption to the local property market which may ensue for those whose property may be eventually be subject to compulsory acquisition, or which may be adversely affected by the development, can be significantly reduced if relevant and timely information is made available at all stages. Copies of the draft Code are available in the Library.
  635
  Statute already provides protection for those whose property may be acquired by compulsion. In particular, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 sets out the procedure for the making and confirming of compulsory purchase orders, and this includes a statutory right for the person whose property is threatened with compulsory acquisition to object to the Secretary of State and to have that objection heard at a public inquiry. Guidance issued by my Department (particularly DOE Circular 14/94) provides further advice aimed at ensuring that all statutory procedures are followed correctly.

  Whether there is any need for clearer guidance will be considered in the light of responses to current consultation on the research findings on CPO procedures and on blight. However, I do not believe that any Code of Practice could offer further protection to the owner.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the present system of compulsory acquisition. [26835]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 17 December 1997 my Department published for consultation two important reports. One is the Final Report of research conducted by the City University into the operation of the compulsory purchase order procedures, the other is the Final Report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Blight. These are available in the Library. Together, they provide valuable evidence of the way the compulsory purchase arrangements work and identify elements of the system which are perceived by some to be inefficient, damaging to the wider public good or simply unfair.

  The Government wish to see a compulsory purchase system that is efficient in its administration and fair in its operation. We will consider whether changes need to be made to existing arrangements, which have been in place for many years, in the light of responses to the consultation.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 138, if he will make a statement on the work undertaken by his Department in co-operation with the Scottish Office on the preparation of the legislation in respect of Scottish devolution. [25297]

  Mr. Prescott
  My Department has continued to work closely with the Scottish Office to ensure that the legislation my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently introduced will accurately give effect to the proposals set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament".

  Vehicle-mounted Sensors
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow H/PSO/12079/97 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, what reply he has received from the vehicle engineering section relating to sensors mounted on vehicles intended to detect the presence of ice and/or water on the road ahead; and if he will make a statement. [25298]
  636
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has now considered the article from the New Scientist. The method described detects ice and water only a few centimetres in front of the front tyres, and this seems to be its major limitation. Ideally such a device should measure the grip a hundred metres in front of the vehicle, so allowing the driver to be warned in advance of any danger.

  While it is not the Department's intention at this stage to get involved in any further developments of this device, we will be pleased to hear if further work results in a sensor that can deliver useful benefits.

  Wynchavon Local Plan
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 1998,Official Report, column 327, if he will place in the Library copies of all representations he has received from residents of Fernhill Heath concerning the adoption of the Wynchavon Local Plan. [27156]

  Mr. Caborn
  Copies of all representations received relating to Fernhill Heath have been placed in the House Library.

  Driving Licences (Diabetics)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) of 1 December 1997,Official Report, columns 48–49, on driving licences for insulin-dependent diabetes sufferers, if he will list the scientific evidence which he assessed before reaching his decision. [25783]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State is advised by the Honorary Advisory Panel on Diabetes and Driving, comprising experts in this field. The Panel have assessed all the available evidence, including studies on the consequences of insulin treatment and the risk of hypoglycaemia occurring without warning.

  Council Tax
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates his Department has made of the average level of council tax increases in 1998–99. [24890]

  Ms Hilary Armstrong
  The level of council taxes will depend on the spending decisions of individual authorities. We are not in a position to know what authorities' decisions will be.

  Fire Safety at Sea
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to modify the regulations concerning the installation of fire-fighting and safety equipment on(a) merchant vessels and (b) fishing vessels. [24929]
  637
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Draft regulations are currently in preparation to implement a number of international and European requirements which bear upon the installation of firefighting and safety equipment on board merchant vessels and fishing vessels.

  British Board of Agrément
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the forthcoming financial management and policy review of the British Board of Agrement. [27467]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As part of the Government's programme of five-yearly Financial Management and Policy Reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department will this year conduct a thorough review of the British Board of Agrement. The last review was published in 1995 and recommended a further early review in 1998. We have accepted that advice. As with all reviews, the first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study. This will assess the extent to which the Board's functions are necessary for the achievement of the Government's policies, and whether these functions should continue to be carried out as at present, privatised, contracted out or transferred to another body to ensure best value.

  The progress made by the Board since the previous review in 1995 will be examined and the results of that examination and of the prior options study will inform a detailed review by the Department of the future of the Board.

  I expect the prior options study to be completed within four months. The time required for the more detailed review cannot be foreseen, but I would expect it to last no longer than a further six months.

  In carrying out the study my Department will consult widely with those with an interest in the Board's work.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the(a) estimated average fuel consumption and (b) total mileage of ministerial cars travelling on official business in each year since 1989–90. [25791]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Andrew Stunell, dated 3 February 1998:
  Your Questions about (a) the estimated average fuel consumption and (b) the total mileage of ministerial cars travelling on official business in each year since 1989–90 to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Secretary of State for Social Security have been passed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has asked me in my capacity as the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to reply.
  Based on the usage for the current financial year from 1 April 1997, when the Agency was first formed, I estimate that in a full year ministerial cars allocated to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will have an average fuel consumption of 26 miles per gallon, and will travel 86,000 miles on official business. Using the same basis, I estimate that ministerial cars allocated to the Department of Social Security will have an average fuel consumption of 26 miles per gallon, and will travel 53,500 miles on official business.
  The information for earlier years prior to the formation of the Agency is not readily available and can only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.
  Cars and drivers are allocated for the use of Ministers and their private offices. In addition to ministerial duties, they are also used for several other purposes such as the movement of documents and for use by officials as directed by the ministerial private office.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Scottish Nursery Education and Segregation
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received representations on the question of segregation of children attending pre-school education in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, we have received no formal representations on the question of segregation of children attending pre-school education in Scotland.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while he has had no formal representations made to him, the view has been expressed by the leaders of the Catholic Church in Scotland that nursery school children in the three-to-five age group should be segregated wherever possible? Will the Minister agree that if such representations are received, the Government will oppose segregation of children of that age group? Will he also agree that such a step would not only be expensive, but in Scotland it would be socially divisive also?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I can reply briefly to that point by repeating the comments made by my honourable friend the Minister for Education and Industry, Mr. Brian Wilson, who said that the Government do not believe it to be appropriate to organise pre-school education along denominational lines.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am pleased to hear that response? It would be a considerable error if we segregated nursery education in Scotland. Speaking for myself, I feel that it is time we thought seriously about ending segregation further up the school system. Is the Minister aware that that would be particularly helpful to Glasgow City Council, who, at the moment, are having to rationalise their school estate and are faced with having to close schools in deprived areas rather than amalgamate denominational and non-denominational and thus keep open schools in certain deprived areas?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, denominational schools, as opposed to pre-school education, are part of the historic settlement of 1918 which established a pluralistic form of school education in Scotland where parents can exercise choice. How they exercise that choice is a matter for them to decide. The Government have no plans to alter the
500
statutory framework. Where the amalgamation of denominational and non-denominational schools can be brought about as a process of consultation and agreement, it is to be welcomed.

Nuclear Weapons: Policy
2.40 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in pursuance of their policy of seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons and of their support and ratification of international conventions banning the manufacture, deployment and use of biological and chemical weapons, they will propose that nuclear weapons become the subject of a similar convention; and whether they will draft such a convention for consideration by the United Nations.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this Government made very clear their commitment to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. In the Strategic Defence Review and elsewhere we are examining all aspects of our nuclear policy, including what practical steps we might take towards that goal.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am glad to hear from my noble friend that that is the case and I therefore thank him for that Answer. However, can he elucidate a little more? He referred to the strategic review. Is he suggesting that the Government are unable to put forward proposals until the strategic review? And can we expect some proposals from the strategic review?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some aspects of our approach to a practical and realistic strategy towards nuclear disarmament are already clear. By the end of March the Government will have withdrawn Britain's free-fall nuclear bomb. We have already taken a leading role in negotiations such as those relating to the comprehensive test ban treaty and are committed to the development of a fissile material cut-off treaty as the next treaty step. Some of the other options are being re-examined under the Strategic Defence Review and we hope to be able to present the conclusions of the review in that respect, as in others, in a few months' time.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the spirit of non-proliferation is to be upheld, it is essential that those powers which possess nuclear weapons demonstrate progress towards nuclear disarmament, particularly if they are to carry the rest of the world with them in preventing the spread of those dangerous weapons?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The withdrawal of the free-fall nuclear bomb in

501
Britain's nuclear armoury leaving the single Trident system is a step in that direction. We trust that other nuclear powers will take similar steps.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the elimination of nuclear weapons is wholly dependent on verifiable inspection and the elimination of chemical and biological weapons?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in both respects, aspects of verification are key to the enforcement of the treaties. That has certainly been our approach on the test ban. It remains our position that we need to go further in relation to chemical and biological warfare in terms of both enforcement and inspection.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that whatever else may be in the Strategic Defence Review and whatever results from it, there will be no resiling from the commitment in the Government's manifesto to maintain strong defence forces, including an effective nuclear deterrent?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an absolute guarantee that that remains the case. Our commitment to nuclear disarmament is on a global basis.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he expects some progress to be made on this subject? Can he indicate whether he expects the defence review to put forward some more definitive proposals so that we can reach the objectives that we all desire?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review. We hope to produce a report in the first half of this year. At that point there will be aspects dealing with our nuclear defence force.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, further to an earlier question, can the Minister reassure the House that within the Strategic Defence Review there is no question of reviewing the continuation of Trident, whose primary purpose and sole justification is the ability to deliver nuclear weapons in the cause of national defence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Strategic Defence Review will be reviewing all aspects of our defence and deployment of weaponry. However, as I have said, Trident will shortly be our only nuclear weapons system. Until we reach some global agreement, that will be the case.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that from what he has said it is obvious that we are gradually giving up our nuclear armoury? In the meantime, how many countries in the world are developing theirs?
Lord WhittyMy Lords, there are relatively few countries in terms of the verifiable development of
502
nuclear weapons. The nuclear test ban treaty will prevent all signatory countries ever testing nuclear weapons. Our belief is that, apart from the existing nuclear powers, very few countries have the technology to produce nuclear weapons.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we all accept that any global agreement must be verifiable and verified. However, is it also not the case that the suspicion that the Government are not as enthusiastic to eliminate nuclear weapons as is sometimes suggested is given strength when they oppose the proposals recently put forward by Malaysia? It is not sufficient for the Government to reduce their nuclear strength; they must also put forward plans whereby the aim of elimination can be achieved. Only plans put forward by a nuclear power will be acceptable to nuclear powers.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope no one in the House is under any illusion about both the Government's commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons and the complexity of the task. My noble friend referred to the Malaysian resolution. We voted against it; but not because of its aim but because we felt it would not help move the difficult process further. Indeed, none of our NATO allies supported it. In particular, it had within it a fairly unrealistic timetable in its call for multilateral negotiations this year leading to an early conclusion and a nuclear weapons convention. We supported other resolutions tabled by Japan on the elimination of nuclear weapons and by the United States and Russia on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations. We also supported resolutions on nuclear weapon-free zones in central and southern Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. We are therefore in strong support of initiatives in many parts of the world. But let us not underestimate the difficulty of the task.

Independent Taxation within Marriage
2.48 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering the reintroduction of joint taxation of the income of husbands and wives.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, decisions on tax are a matter for the Chancellor's Budget and the noble Lord would not expect me at this time of year to anticipate his Budget Statement. However, the Chancellor has made it clear that there is no question of returning to the pre-1990 position in which a wife was effectively treated as a chattel for tax purposes.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the establishment of the right of married women to separate taxation from their husbands is regarded as one of the most important steps forward to the independence and equality of women? Will he accept that there is now considerable concern about the possible erosion of that principle, especially in view of the proposed introduction of the working family tax credit, since it seems inevitable that that credit will have to be

503
calculated on the basis of the joint income of husbands and wives and indeed of co-habiting couples? Will the Minister take note of the fact that any further extension of joint taxation of couples would be vehemently opposed? Can he give an undertaking that there will be no changes in taxation which will make married couples subject to a higher degree of income tax than if they were single and living separately?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the principle of independent taxation within marriage is a very important element of equality between the sexes. The noble Lord referred specifically to the proposal which is out for consultation as regards the working family tax credit. I do not think he need make a conjunction between that proposal and independent taxation. After all, in Canada, for example, there is a perfectly effective system of independent taxation combined with a credit of this type.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that I welcome the noble Lord's original Answer, although I shall have to read it in Hansard with care. Is the Minister aware that the reform which the previous government carried out of independent taxation was widely welcomed? We shall be greatly disappointed if this Government ever move away from that. Is he further aware that, if in an attempt to tax child benefit an effort is made to shift the benefit to the husband, that would be a reversal of Labour policy which I imagine the "Blair's Babes", as I believe they are called, in the Commons would be firm about? They should not move money from the purse to the wallet, I believe is the expression.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware, and the Chancellor is certainly aware, of the concerns which the noble Lord has expressed. He rightly said that the move towards independent taxation was undertaken by the previous government both in 1980, with the earnings election, and in 1990. We pay tribute to that. It is an important advance, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly said. However, if the noble Lord is seeking to tempt me to make a guess about the Chancellor's Budget, even if I knew the answers, I would not respond.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that husbands and wives living peaceably together and bringing up their children are likely to cost the taxpayer less than some other forms of family structure and give their children the advantages of a stable and loving home? Therefore, can he assure the House that the Government will not do anything in their tax or benefits policies to discourage two-parent families living together?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the Government will not do anything to discourage two-parent families. The noble Lord is quite right in that. But the issue of independent taxation takes two forms: first, there is privacy between
504
the partners. As I indicated, using the Canadian and American examples it is perfectly possible to maintain privacy. The second issue is whether the taxman takes more from two-parent families or from married couples. That is an issue on which it is much more difficult for me to respond at this time.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer on separate taxation will be warmly welcomed by the women who campaigned for many years to bring about independent taxation for women? Is he also aware that there is unease among these women? If there is any infringement of that principle it is likely to lead to the kind of campaigning that we had in the 1970s and 1980s.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of the force of the point that my noble friend makes. I know from his public statements that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is equally aware of them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his original Answer will be generally welcomed, in that wives should not be treated as chattels? Is there not another reason for not making a change at this time; namely, that for some time the Inland Revenue and the tax-returning public will find themselves recovering from the impact of the new system of self-assessment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when the noble Lord looks at the Minutes tomorrow he will find that the topical Question for Thursday, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is on this point. We might discuss the matter at greater leisure at that time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support every word said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and I, too, welcome the original Answer, but I hope the Minister will agree that it is important to investigate new ways, while retaining independence, to establish the family credit system? Something of that kind is desperately needed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly indicates the complexity of the issues facing the Chancellor in his decisions about working family tax credit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister consider the possibility that, since over the next generation we may legitimately hope that more and more women will join the ranks of top earners, in future the demand for independent taxation may also come from men with the same vigour as it now comes from women?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl is undoubtedly right.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in consideration of matters raised by the Question on the Order Paper and in particular taking note of the expressed views of the House, will the noble Lord give

505
the House an assurance that in the course of all this overriding consideration can be given to the simplification of the chaotic taxation laws?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that every Chancellor of the Exchequer this century, and probably going further back, has on coming into office indicated the need to simplify tax regimes. Some succeed more than others.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, for clarification, can the Minister confirm that the reply he gave two or three questions ago sounded like reassurance? Was he assuring the House only that the way in which tax returns are made will enable privacy to prevail or was he also saying that the amounts people will pay relatively will be preserved?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my answers were more cautious than that. I was saying that there are two elements with which this Question is concerned. One is the issue of privacy. That can be dealt with by the way in which tax returns are submitted and considered. The other is whether the taxman takes more from a couple than from two individuals. My overriding response must be—particularly to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—that I cannot guess what will be in the Chancellor's Budget.

Cystic Fibrosis
2.58 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have made to the proposals made by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust in its document Fair care for all.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am grateful to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust for sending me and my colleagues copies of this report last month. I can assure the noble Lord that we are considering the report carefully. Many of the proposals are consistent with the policy of the White Paper, The New NHS, which the Government published before Christmas. We shall continue to work with health professionals, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and all those with an interest to improve the care of people with cystic fibrosis and their quality of life.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this pernicious illness is suffering enough and that the sufferers have to endure a lottery in terms of the quality of the treatment that they receive? Is it not time for the Government to set national standards as regards treatment, so that sufferers do not receive varying levels of treatment according to the health authority area in which they live?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, of course I am aware of the considerable suffering, particularly in
506
families with young children suffering from cystic fibrosis. I believe that the noble Lord will remember that a study by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, which looked at this problem in 1966, showed an improvement in the consistency of standards of care. But clearly it is one of the overriding objectives of the Government, particularly, as I said, through the NHS White Paper, to establish national clinical frameworks precisely to look at the abolition of the lottery of care to which the noble Lord rightly refers and which we are determined to abolish.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one person in 25 carries the cystic fibrosis gene and that screening could save a great deal of suffering? Can she give a commitment to the House that screening will be available for everyone who wants it regardless of the attitude of their health authority?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend rightly draws attention to the enormous scientific advances which have led to doctors and scientists being able to identify the gene for cystic fibrosis. That in itself has made an enormous difference. The National Health Service's health technology assessment programme is at the moment conducting a systematic review of the process of screening for cystic fibrosis, both ante-natally and after a child is born. We are expecting the report of that health technology assessment exercise shortly. It will then go to the national screening committee which, as the House will be aware, judges the priorities for national screening programmes. I am sure that cystic fibrosis will be high on its agenda.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in opposition, the Labour Party accepted the case for free prescriptions for adults with cystic fibrosis. Will the Minister confirm that in the review of prescription charges there is a presumption in favour of such an exemption in the mind of the Government?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am tempted to repeat the answers given by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey in relation to the Budget Statement. I am sure that the noble Earl does not expect me to pre-empt the findings of the comprehensive spending review which, as he is aware, within the Department of Health concerns prescription charges particularly. The noble Earl will also remember that the review in the Department of Health is being conducted in the context of the manifesto commitment that if you are ill or injured there will be a National Health Service there to help you and access to it will be based on need, and need alone.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it seems unfair that where a family with a member suffering from the condition takes home that family member rather than having him or her nursed in hospital, the family may have to pay for equipment such

507
as nebulisers and feeding equipment which, had the patient remained in hospital, would have been provided free?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am aware of this problem but, as I understand it—my noble friend may be in a better position to know through her work with the Carers National Association—if a nebuliser is prescribed by a hospital consultant, the family to whom it is prescribed may use it at home.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that cystic fibrosis is one of the diseases which is likely to be most susceptible to treatment by gene therapy? Are the Government and their advisers examining possible future developments in that regard?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in reply to a previous question, we are aware of the work that has been done to identify the gene for cystic fibrosis. That has made the potential for the screening programmes, which I mentioned in reply to my noble friend Lord Ashley, far more realistic. Clearly, work on gene therapy which could, for example, involve pre-embryo implantation work would be of great scientific interest. It would also have ethical considerations which I am sure that many people would want to discuss.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that one of the strategies for dealing with cystic fibrosis in families which are affected and have a child who is already seriously ill is to screen embryos and to replace those which are free of the genetic defect. One problem faced by such families is that they can sometimes get treatment on the National Health Service, but sometimes they cannot and they have to pay for it themselves. As it is a cost-effective treatment, would my noble friend be prepared to give a cautious and favourable response, as she did to the noble Lord, Lord McNally?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, we would very much hope that specialist conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, would be susceptible to the national clinical frameworks. The priority with which those clinical frameworks are established will depend on many issues relating to resources and, frankly, the other conditions which are in the queue with regard to the establishment of that system.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as we have a moment to spare, I wonder whether the Minister would like to send her congratulations to the Welch brothers, my neighbours in St. Albans, who last Saturday organised a very successful sale of their toys as part of the "Blue Peter" appeal for cystic fibrosis, which has been one of the most successful "Blue Peter" appeals. The Minister's congratulations to "Blue Peter" and to the thousands of children who are participating in the appeal would be most welcome.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am only too happy to underwrite the noble Lord's
508
congratulations on the fund-raising appeal. I only hope, however, that that will not lead to another noble Lord rising to his feet to suggest either that I should congratulate his local fund-raising appeal or, following my noble friend Lord Winston, that that is the way to fund basic research in the health service.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today. my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the future of London health services.
I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to,
"brief comments and questions for clarification".
There is a mandatory limit of 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Anti-social behaviour orders:]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 13, after ("acted") insert (", since the commencement date,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 318. These amendments, as can be readily seen from their terms, are intended to ensure that the act in respect of which an anti-social behaviour order is sought takes place after the commencement of the clause but that where there has been behaviour before commencement which may help to explain why the act has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, this is admissible as supporting evidence. It was formerly disallowed under Schedule 8, which specifically prevented any evidence being adjudged of any anti-social acts committed by the defendant prior to the commencement of the clause.
We considered carefully before putting forward these changes. Plainly, it is essential that the act which forms the reason for the order takes place after commencement to avoid the taint of the orders being retrospective. However, it may well be the case in practice that such an act is merely one of a series of anti-social actions and

509
that there is a background of continued harassment—perhaps even from extraneous noise and things of that sort—and perhaps failed mediation and persuasion which the court could usefully take into account in considering the application for an order.
We considered that the restriction placed by Schedule 8 was too limiting upon the court's discretion and should therefore be removed. The three amendments together achieve that aim. The first makes it clear in the body of Clause I that the action which causes the application for an order must occur after commencement. The second defines commencement specifically as the commencement date of Clause 1. The third removes the limitation on supporting evidence in Schedule 8. Overall, they bring the provisions into line with the sex offender orders in Clause 2 and should therefore result in a more effective introduction to the order. I beg to move.
Lord HenleyI thank the Minister for moving Amendment No. 1 and for speaking also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 318. I do not intend to speak at any length on this amendment because we shall be taking some time over Clause 1 in due course in considering my amendments, those tabled by my noble friends and those from other noble Lords. At this stage I rise merely to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for writing to me and, I take it, to others in considerable detail about the government amendments. I have read what he said in his letter of the 29th about the three amendments to Clause 1 and I am satisfied.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("in an anti-social manner, that is to say,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 2 is one of a series of amendments which I and my noble friends have tabled to Clause 1—other noble Lords have tabled a number of other amendments—by which we wish to tease out exactly what the Government's intentions are in relation to the clause. An anti-social behaviour order is, dare I say, an entirely new concept. We believe it is important to explore exactly what the Government intend. Amendment No. 2 in my name has been suggested by the Magistrates' Association for whose advice I am grateful.
The first amendment deletes the words,
"in an anti-social manner, that is to say",
so that the clause reads:
"that the person has acted in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress".
The second amendment deletes the words "anti-social acts by him" and substitutes the words "harassment, alarm or distress". The noble Lord is far more aware than I that the latter expression—although I turned to Archbold and looked at the public order offences—is to be found in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Those are words with which I am sure the noble
510
and learned Lords opposite, in particular the Solicitor-General, are perfectly familiar. I am sure that other lawyers who speak later in the debate are also perfectly familiar with them. They are used in the clause itself.
I believe that it is better to keep to the well understood public order law phraseology rather than introduce the new and rather vague concept of "anti-social" which I understand has no legal context, although no doubt courts would offer an interpretation in due course. If "anti-social" were to be retained it would require a fairly clear definition. As to that we should welcome the advice of the Government.
We shall be pursuing a number of other amendments on this particular provision all of which go to the wording and meaning of the clause. The noble Lord will also note that we are proposing to oppose the Motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill. I do not intend to pursue that course unless there are further questions relating to this clause which have not been dealt with by the time we get to the end. However, we believe that there is a case for considerably greater clarification as to what is intended and how the clause is designed to go further than the public order Acts themselves. In particular, what mischiefs is it designed to pick up that would not be picked up by the Public Order Acts and the words "harassment, alarm or distress"?
I dare say that we shall come to many points on other clauses which Members of the Committee will wish to address. I shall be grateful to hear their views on this particular amendment and what they believe it means. I also believe it is important that in due course the Government explain, first, why they believe that "anti-social manner" is necessary and, secondly, exactly what that adds to the public order Acts and the words "cause harassment, alarm or distress". I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I support Amendment No. 2 moved by my noble friend. The Committee should bear in mind that it is laying the foundation for the meaning of Part I of the Bill. The position is very strange. Use is made of two particular phrases. The expression "anti-social manner" appears in line 13 on page 1 and the expression "anti-social behaviour" appears in the sidenote. Further, "anti-social behaviour" appears in subsection (4) in line 15 on page 2, to which I shall refer in a moment.
I am sure that all Members of the Committee agree that "anti-social" is a very wide concept. All crime is anti-social, but here there is a definition which fortunately is much more precise and narrow; namely, "cause harassment, alarm or distress". In passing, one wonders whether I have correctly pronounced "harassment". Sometimes it is pronounced as though it has something to do with asses but I do not believe that it has.
When I had doubt as to the meaning of "anti-social manner" in this part of the Bill I turned naturally to Clause 17 on page 13. There one sees the following definition:
"'anti-social behaviour order' has the meaning given by section 1(4) above".

511
If one turns to subsection (4) one finds that no definition is given. I believe that in the context of the two amendments to which my noble friend Lord Henley has referred the Committee must consider whether it is laying the foundation properly for Part I of the Bill. Eventually, the Government may wish to look at what is said in subsection (4) as well as in subsection (1). It is essential that we get this right. As far as concerns the language, it is far better to stick to the expression "harassment, alarm of distress" rather than bring it within the much wider concept of "anti-social behaviour" or "anti-social manner".
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken. In line 13 "anti-social manner" is clearly defined because the words "that is to say" confine the expression to a manner that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. However, in line 3 on page 2 the expression "further anti-social acts" is not defined or limited in any way. Therefore, on one page one has "anti-social manner" clearly confined and defined and on another page "further anti-social acts" where the meaning is not clear. It is important that when an order of this kind is made a magistrates' court knows precisely what type of order it must make.
Lord Elton: I do not have the difficulty that noble Lords have had so far. I believe that there are two definitions. One in Clause 1(1)(a) deals with "anti-social manner"; the other is in Clause 17 and is concerned with an anti-social behaviour order. That order is defined pretty loosely in Clause 1(4). However, I have difficulty over the supposed breadth of the behaviour that is intended to be caught by the term "harassment, alarm or distress", particularly "distress". I take it that these cases would be tried by magistrates except on appeal. Therefore, that term will have to be understood very widely indeed, not merely by professional legal people. This provision will apply also to those who are not legally represented. Distress may be felt either reasonably or unreasonably by the neighbour of someone who keeps ducks or geese or who plants a high hedge. The question arises whether the Bill is directed at that kind of behaviour and, further, whether it will be taken to be directed at that kind of behaviour even if that is not the intention of the Government. I understand our function to be to ensure that the Bill means something precise and can be taken to mean only that. At present it does not appear to be in that form, and therefore I also support the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My observation will be brief, and is a question. Is my noble friend the Minister aware, as I am sure that he is, of the anxiety within the legal profession to see that we have a precise definition of what is involved, in view, especially, of the penalty invoked by the Bill? Whether on this amendment or any other amendment, is my noble friend satisfied with the definition or would he wish to think again?
Lord Avebury: People's susceptibility to "harassment, alarm or distress" varies enormously. It might vary regionally, and between places which are
512
inhabited by people of a certain class or ethnic origin. Therefore the interpretation of the clause could vary according to the demographic nature of the area in which the acts are performed. As I understand it, Clause 1(4), which refers to the anti-social behaviour order, points back to subsection (1). The reason for using the anti-social behaviour order is merely because the "prohibition of acts likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress order", would be a mouthful.
The anti-social behaviour order is merely a shorthand which includes all such conduct. I must confess that I am worried by the point raised by the noble Lord on what is "reasonable", and whether people should be susceptible to the causing of harassment, alarm or distress, because that will be a difficult concept for the courts to deal with. It is a highly subjective idea and. as I say, could be different in one part of the country than another.
Lord Renton: Does the noble Lord agree that if the word "anti-social" had to be interpreted by the courts, that would cause even more problems?
Lord Avebury: It probably would. I am disposed to agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was good enough to say that he welcomed the Government's approach in setting out the reasons for amendments as fully as possible. He helpfully indicated that he was not confining his opening remarks to Amendments Nos. 2 and 6, but was casting his net rather wider in the context of the whole of Clause 1. I entirely accept the spirit in which he put that, and can perhaps respond in the same way, bearing in mind that other Members of the Committee similarly raised rather wider questions than immediately derived from the amendments. I do not say that in any critical sense, because that is a useful way to proceed. The Government's stance is that if there are amendments which are so argued as to be convincing, then plainly we would wish to accept them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised the general question of Clause 1, perhaps I may trespass on the Committee's time, thinking that it may save time in the end, to indicate the Government's thinking behind this part of the Bill.
Antisocial behaviour, as defined precisely—that is to say, acts which cause or are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to two or more persons not of the same household as himself—is a significant social vice for large numbers of people who live in this country. They do not live in the leafy green suburbs. They live on mean streets. The Government have a duty to protect them where they sensibly can, consistent with the rights and obligations of others who live in our country.
That is what we set out in our manifesto; that is what this part of the Bill is intended to deliver. I have stretched a little beyond the precise words of the amendments in specific response—I hope helpful—to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, because he said

513
that my response on the principled philosophy behind Clause 1 might affect his attitude as to the debate on Clause 1 stand part.
The important point about this proposed order is that it is a prohibitory order. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said that it was a new order, perhaps even a new concept. The prohibited activity is to be limited only in so far as it is necessary to protect people in the area concerned from harassment, alarm or distress. That is to say, it will preserve the basic right of any citizen in our society to be protected; to have the opportunity which governments should provide to us all—namely, to have a calm life.
The Government take that duty seriously. It is not something that was fabricated on the back of an envelope in the Home Office. It has been considered for a long time, was the subject of widespread consultation, and was a specific manifesto commitment; and we regard it as a moral obligation.
I turn to the specifics. On the one hand, it is said that the definition is precise:
"harassment, alarm or distress to two or more persons".
On the other hand, it is said that it is vague. It is not vague. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was right when he said that one has similar words in other legislation which has been dealt with satisfactorily by juries up and down the country. For my own part—I think that I can say this having had rather more years than I care presently to recall dealing with juries and magistrates—I believe that they have no difficulty in understanding concepts, when they have to be focused on the facts of a particular case.
We believe that acting in an anti-social manner is something which is not consistent with the responsibilities of a citizen who derives rights and benefits from living in our society. I stress again that many of the persons who would be "the complainants" on these occasions are poor, vulnerable, inarticulate and often living lonely lives. Who is to protect them if not the Government by passing the Bill?
At present such people have no protection. They cannot afford to look for civil injunctions. I go further: in many well-documented cases, they are afraid to do that. This offers the shield of the Government, through the appropriate authorities, to assist people who need assistance. They may need assistance because they are old, disabled, vulnerable, poor, or from a particular ethnic minority group.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon raised the question of anxiety in legal circles. I am aware of that. I suggest that it is misconceived. This anti-social behaviour order is merely a prohibition. It is analogous to an injunction. What does an injunction do in normal circumstances? It forbids the person to whom it is directed to act in a way which would otherwise be unlawful. It is not a criminal sanction. It says to Mr. X or Ms Y, "You must not maltreat your neighbours so as to harass them; distress them; or to alarm them". What on earth could be wrong with that as a concept? It is shameful that those remedies for those people have not been available as part of the spectrum of what our law can provide.
514
I repeat: this is a prohibitory order. It requires the subject of it to do no more—I paraphrase bluntly—than to behave in a decent way to the fellow citizens of our country. There is nothing vague about the description. The antisocial behaviour order is, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly observed, in the rubric at the side of the clause. When one turns to paragraph (b), the phrase "anti-social acts" is qualified by the adjective "further"—plainly referring back to Clause 1(1)(a).
There is of course the distinct question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to whether some of these matters might not be unduly subjective. I take his point. I hope that he will find it fully reflected and respected in Amendment No. 13, to which I shall come in due time. I agree that some people's subjective alarm or distress might be unreasonable in all the circumstances. I might well have a neighbour who did not speak Welsh or vote Labour, but if I were alarmed or distressed I do not believe that the local magistrates' court would come to my immediate assistance.
I have deliberately been longer than anticipated in dealing with these two short amendments in order that we may go to our rest and cocoa at a sensible time tonight. I have specifically sought to respond to the spirit of the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I hope that I have dealt with queries, observations and resentments to your Lordships' satisfaction.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps your Lordships will realise that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has made a convincing case for the use of the words, "cause harassment, alarm or distress-. However, those words are so clear and precise and can be so well understood that there is no need to introduce the wider and vague concept of anti-social behaviour. Could he not between now and the Report stage consider the drafting of the subsection? After all, it is a drafting matter which does not affect the substance and motives behind Part I of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, we must try to get the matter clear.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is clear. I can think of no words clearer than,
"an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress".
We wish the objectionable nature of that behaviour, which will underpin the prohibitory order, to be properly described as "anti-social"; that is to say, acting in an anti-social manner. I respectfully suggest that that is simple and plain.
Lord Hardy of Wath: Will my noble friend consider the fact that some people in the areas to which he referred have for a long time put up with anti-social behaviour? They may not have had cause for harassment; they may not have had cause to feel distressed; they may not have been alarmed; but they may have been caused fury, frustration and disgust over a long period. The quality of their lives may have been made wretched by anti-social behaviour. If my noble friend were to accept the amendment and restrict the action to cases in which harassment, alarm and distress

515
had been caused the Government would not be meeting the broader need which, sadly, exists in many parts of the country.
Lord Windlesham: The Minister has given a sketch of the general context of Part I, and that has been helpful. He spoke eloquently of the need to protect the individual citizen who is faced with such behaviour, however it is described; the Bill describes it as "anti-social". However, he left the Committee with the impression—indeed, I believe that he used the words—that the citizen can go to the courts to enforce the right by way of a civil injunction. In order to fill out his explanation, should he not make clear that the individual complainant does not have access to the courts? The individual complainant must persuade either the local authority or the police to take action, and therefore there is an intermediate stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said deliberately and specifically that action would be taken via the appropriate authorities. I am happy to clarify that issue. The noble Lord is right in saying that the appropriate authorities would be the local authority or the police.
I may have to disappoint my noble friend Lord Hardy, although I never like to turn away support. We wished to provide a description of an anti-social manner and anti-social behaviour. Within that description, we have included the meaning:
"that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress".
It is not simply the virtue of a propagandist description. We want it to be clearly understood, first, by our community generally and, secondly, by those who behave in ways which cause to some people indescribable and unimaginable harm in their own homes and communities, that such behaviour will not be tolerated because it is anti-social as described further in Clause 1(1)(a) as:
"likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to two or more persons not of the same household".
I believe that the argument is proper not because it is in a government Bill but because we have got it right. I say to the Committee—not specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because I do not wish to encourage hopes—that, in respect of every dot, comma, colon and semi-colon of the Bill, if genuine improvement is available we shall look to take the opportunity to achieve it.
Lord Brightman: I do not know whether I have missed something, but I do not see the remotest difficulty with paragraph (a). "An anti-social manner" is merely an abbreviation which is defined by the words which follow. The Bill states:
"an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment",
and so forth. That is perfectly clear and there is no problem.
Lord Beloff: Does the Minister agree that, in order to make things clear, respect for the English language is important? I can see that one can cause distress or alarm,
516
but I am baffled by the idea of causing harassment. To harass someone is a positive fact. I come here in order to harass noble Lords opposite, but I do not come here to cause them harassment. Would it not be possible to revise the wording so as to make clear the difference between causing alarm and causing harassment? That seems to me to be an odd concept.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is part of the criminal law. I readily accept that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, does not come here to harass me. On the other hand, he often causes me harassment.
Lord Milverton: I have listened to the debate and I believe that the Minister answered well. I would not rush to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Ackner: To what extent is the test to be applied to subsection (1)(a) objective or subjective? Does the supersensitive person who is caused distress give rise to the prospect that an application will be made, or is the test to be that the behaviour must be such as to cause the distress or alarm to persons of reasonable fortitude?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is a factual issue of whether the behaviour has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to two or more persons not of the same household. As the noble and learned Lord will see, my Amendment No. 13 provides that:
"For the purpose of determining whether the condition mentioned in subsection (I)(a) above is fulfilled, the court shall disregard any act of the defendant which he shows was reasonable in the circumstances".
I respectfully return to my proposition that magistrates' courts and juries up and down the land are perfectly able to deal with such concepts, bearing in mind that they do not find criminal liability but are the basis for a prohibitory order.
Lord Ackner: With respect, I do not believe that the Minister has answered my question. Is the test to be objective or subjective? The question must permit of an answer and I invite the noble Lord to provide it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that one looks at those concepts in quite that legalistic way, if I may say so with all humility. The magistrates will deal with matters in their area. For example, if one has a particularly vulnerable old lady, it seems to me that the test will have to be applied to "two or more persons". It is the circumstances of those two or more persons which will have to be looked at.
If they are unusually susceptible to harassment, alarm or distress, the court will have to draw a balance as to what is suitable in all the circumstances. That does not depend on the purely legalistic question of whether it is subjective or objective. That is far too narrow and unhelpful a question.
Lord Henley: I thank my noble friend Lord Milverton for his fulsome support for my amendment.

517
I assure him that I did not intend to press this to a Division of the Committee. It is an amendment tabled to probe the Government's intentions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for giving us a very full reply to the points which Members of the Committee have raised. That is useful. We should all like to finish this day of Committee stage in time for early bed and cocoa, or something stronger, as the noble Lord puts it.
I should also add that we accept entirely, and in no way did I wish to imply otherwise, that anti-social behaviour can be a very real problem for large numbers of people throughout the country. Equally, it can be a problem whether or not they live in leafy suburbs. It can be a problem wherever they live.
Having said that, I believe that my amendment and the discussion that we have had arising from it have given rise to real problems. I note the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that the words,
"anti-social manner, that is to say",
are perfectly well defined by the words,
"cause harassment, alarm or distress",
and therefore were not superfluous. But there is that further use of "anti-social acts" as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in subsection (1)(b) where they are not so limited. That still creates a number of problems which need to be addressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly pointed out that such a clause could lead to extremely heavy penalties indeed being imposed on individuals who act in breach of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, described as a "mere prohibitory order". I remind the noble Lord that if he looks at subsection (4), he will see that the courts have the power to prohibit the defendant,
"from doing anything described in the order".
The courts can go a very long way and can make that decision on evidence which has been accepted merely on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, an order made on such a basis can go as far as one cares to see. It is possible for that order then to be breached and, as a result of that, very severe penalties may be imposed. For that reason, it is important to make sure that the definitions within Clause 1 are tightly drawn so that the individual knows to what he is subject and everybody knows exactly how the clause can be interpreted.
As I made clear, I have no plans to test the opinion of the Committee at the moment. It may be that I am completely wrong to suggest that the words,
"in an anti-social manner, that is to say",
should be removed from the Bill. I believe that we need to hear more on this. The noble Lord did not address the point, to which I may wish to return later, of what precise mischief the clause is designed to address that would not be covered already by public order legislation and covered by those words,
"cause harassment, alarm or distress".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I intervene only to be helpful in specific response to a question from the noble
518
Lord. The whole point of this scheme is that it is not part of a criminal regime. If there is a prosecution under the public order Acts or the Protection from Harassment Act, it means that the prosecution has gone one stage beyond this prohibitory order stage.
Many, many people are afraid to be complainants in court when they have to make public allegations against their neighbours and against people who have made their lives an absolute misery. We are saying that prosecutions under the public order legislation and the Protection from Harassment Act have their place. But this is prior to that. I repeat that it is to endeavour to safeguard the vulnerable in our society, those who have their lives made a daily misery. I regret to say that at the moment our law does not protect them. Therefore, this is a much more considered remedy for a real social evil.
Lord Henley: I understand that we are not going as far as the criminal law in this case, although the noble Lord will appreciate that the penalties can be severe. Nevertheless, the words to be used are exactly the same and refer to causing "harassment, alarm or distress". That seems to imply that the same activities are being covered by both. That is why I have considerable doubts and why I wish to return to this matter either in our further deliberations on the clause or at a later stage of the Bill. As I made clear, at this stage I do not intend to press this matter to a Division, but it will require further thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I beg to move that the House do now resume, bearing in mind the indication that we had earlier from the Chief Whip that at a convenient time to your Lordships, a Statement would be repeated.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

London's Health Services
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on the future of London's health services being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"At the general election we made clear that we wanted to make sure that every Londoner has access to top quality healthcare. We promised a moratorium on all hospital closures in London, while the future of London's healthcare was re-assessed against what Londoners really need. We have kept that promise.
"On 20th June last year, just seven weeks after coming to office, I announced that a swift and independent review of London's health needs was to be carried out by a distinguished panel chaired by Sir Leslie Turnberg, then President of the Royal College

519
of Physicians, formerly consultant physician at Hope Hospital, Salford and professor of medicine at Manchester University.
"Since then the review panel has done a remarkable job. It has reviewed all the evidence, consulted widely and carried out a large number of meetings and visits. The panel received and considered over 1,800 responses from local people and organisations. It submitted its report on 18th November. Since then it has been considered very carefully by the Government. We have been faced with some tough decisions.
"Today, seven months after the panel was established, I am publishing the report of the independent review panel, the Turnberg Report. I am also publishing the Government's response. The Turnberg Report spells out a clear set of recommendations for the improvement of health services in London. I am glad to be able to announce that the Government accept all its recommendations. Many are in line with our proposals in the New NHS White Paper for a 10-year general improvement programme to make the NHS modern and dependable. All are accepted by the Government and the necessary further work necessary is already being put in hand.
"Time does not permit me to list all the important recommendations in the Turnberg Report. So I shall concentrate on a limited number of most immediate interest to Londoners.
"The report recognises that in many parts of London, particularly in the most deprived areas, primary care, mental health, intermediate care and community services are simply not up to the standard to which everyone in our country is entitled. It proposes a range of measures to bring things up to scratch. We will be providing an additional investment of at least £140 million in these services for London over the lifetime of this Parliament. An extra £30 million will be targeted on these services in the coming financial year.
"The report recognises the need for new arrangements to ensure a London-wide strategy for health and proposes as a medium-term aim a single NHS regional office for London. Without London-wide strategies and action, the necessary improvements in mental health services and the proper integration of services for children and other people will be hard to achieve, if not impossible.
"The report concluded that there is no evidence that,
'there are more acute hospital beds available to Londoners than the English average'.
The Government have therefore abandoned the presumption we inherited from our predecessors that London is overprovided with acute hospital beds. As a result any future changes in bed numbers in London will be in line with those in the rest of the country.
"The review panel was asked to look at the plans of London NHS trusts and health authorities, including their plans for capital developments. It was asked in particular to advise on the future of Queen Mary's
520
Hospital Roehampton, Harold Wood and Oldchurch Hospitals in East London and St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
"For these purposes the panel reviewed London hospital provision in terms of five sectors covering north, south-east, south-west, west and east London respectively. It faced some awkward choices and made some tough recommendations. The Government have made similarly hard-headed decisions.
"For north London, the panel said that a new hospital building was sorely needed to bring together University College Hospital, the Middlesex Hospital, the Hospital for Tropical Diseases and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital for Women. This would provide top quality local and specialist services with academic and research facilities shared with University College nearby. As Secretary of State—and as the local MP—my right honourable friend warmly endorsed that proposal.
"The panel also recommend urgent capital investment at the Whittington Hospital. We will invite plans for such improvements. The need for swift action is understood. But it will take time to carry out all the necessary evaluations before work can proceed.
"For south-east London, the panel endorsed the proposal to build the new Queen Elizabeth hospital at Greenwich through the private finance initiative. It also supported the proposals for further improvements to King's College Hospital on the Denmark Hill site.
"The panel considered the proposal to close the accident and emergency unit at Guy's Hospital. It called for a re-evaluation of the proposed closure to ensure that the alternative services will be able to cope. This evaluation has taken place. Additional A&E capacity is already in place at King's and Lewisham Hospitals. The situation will continue to be closely monitored in the lead-up to the closure of the Guy's A&E department and beyond. Contingency plans will be put in place to provide additional services if patient numbers are higher than expected.
"The panel also called for a re-evaluation of the proposed shift of other services from Guy's to St. Thomas's to ensure that the best use is made of some of the facilities at Guy's which on present plans would be vacated. That is likely to keep more services at Guy's than was planned by the previous government.
"In south-west London the panel favoured plans for investment in the development of a community hospital on the site of Queen Mary's Roehampton. This means the replacement of acute services currently provided at Queen Mary's by improved alternative acute services at Kingston Hospital and at St. George's. The Government accept this proposal.
"The panel also endorsed a proposed shift of services between St. George's and the Atkinson Morley Hospital.
"In west London the panel supports the shift of services from Queen Charlotte's to the Hammersmith site. It also called for special attention to be given to

521
the need to foster the national and international role of the Hammersmith and its relationship with Imperial College. A series of service reviews is now under way in west London, addressing this aim and the need to serve local people.
"It was in east London that the panel faced the most difficult problems. It was asked to consider proposals involving the future of Harold Wood and Oldchurch Hospitals. It supports the development of a new hospital at Oldchurch, rather than at Harold Wood, to provide the full range of services for this area, not least because this is where the majority of the population live, including those with the greatest health needs. Like all other new reconfiguration proposals, this proposal will be the subject of local consultation.
"For the East End the panel recommended a package of measures to counter the deprivation and ill health of many of the local people. It proposes investment in intermediate and community services. It also proposes the full utilisation of beds at the Homerton and Newham Hospitals and new investment at Newham.
"The panel endorses the proposal to rebuild the Royal London Hospital at Whitechapel but with 900 beds rather than the 1,100 in the current stalled plans for that re-development. These have been difficult decisions.
"That leads me on to the future of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. The Turnberg Report recommends that Bart's should not close. The Government agree. Bart's will be saved. We will not countenance the closure of that great hospital which has served the people of London for 875 years.
"During the time the new Royal London Hospital is being built and other hospital developments are taking place in east London, Bart's will continue in its present role. When that period comes to a close, in line with the proposals of the Turnberg Report, Bart's will concentrate its renowned specialist expertise with a focus on cancer and cardiac services.
"We owe a great debt to Sir Leslie Turnberg and his colleagues for both their work and their wisdom. I believe that the Turnberg Report will prove to be a far-reaching and far-sighted plan for the improvement of health services in London. The Turnberg proposals have the backing of the Government. They have the personal backing of the Prime Minister. They will provide a firm foundation for a 10-year programme to provide London with a modern and dependable health service. That programme paves the way for the investment of well over £800 million to provide London's health service with the fine modern buildings that both patients and staff deserve, with support for primary care and mental health of at least £140 million. That is a £1 billion boost for London.
"There have been many reports on the future of healthcare in London. Some have mouldered on library shelves; others have been the subject of endless and indecisive debate. And all the while
522
buildings have been left to deteriorate, staff have been left uncertain and patients have been left to wait. That will not be the fate of the Turnberg Report.
"By accepting all its recommendations the Government have turned this excellent report into an action plan to modernise London's health service. From today we will be mobilising all those who care about London's health services, not just the people who work in the NHS but also people in local government and universities, scientists and other researchers, people in business, patient groups and local people, mobilising them to work together systematically to deliver the improvements that we all want to see year by year. That is what the Turnberg Report recommends. That is no more than Londoners deserve. The chattering times are over. The time for action has come".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.57 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is long awaited news and, to the extent that decisions have been taken to resolve some major uncertainties, it is news which is decidedly welcome. As the Minister said, our thanks are due to the Turnberg Committee for its careful and diligent consideration of these difficult issues. For the most part, too, the content of the Statement should be welcomed. However, I am a good deal less sanguine about one aspect of the announcement. I feel that the decision to reinvent Bart's as a specialist tertiary referral centre, attractive as that option may appear, requires very careful explaining indeed as regards its cost-effectiveness.
I should like to return to the question of Bart's in a moment, but perhaps I may come, first, to the main thrust of the announcement. It is fair to say that the problems being faced and the decisions to be taken as regards healthcare in London are absolutely no different from those currently being addressed in a number of big cities around the world. Acute hospital services need to be concentrated in fewer sites to maximise the benefits which patients can receive from specialist skills and expensive equipment. Accident and emergency departments need to be positioned next-door to intensive care and other specialist services and, not to be forgotten, medical and nursing staff need the best possible environment for training.
There is no argument about London's importance as an international centre of excellence both in treatment and in teaching. Whatever is done to change the nature and structure of London's hospitals, nothing must be allowed to place that excellence in jeopardy.
At the same time the thrust of Turnberg has been to acknowledge that, with the decline in London's population and with the huge advances in diagnostic and surgical techniques, the status quo is simply not an option. Londoners themselves need a different hospital service and indeed a change in the balance of health services as between those provided by GPs, by hospitals and in the community. The detailed decisions which the Government have taken have no doubt been complex.

523
I do not think we should underestimate their considerable emotive aspect for Londoners all over the capital. No doubt Londoners, like Members of these Benches, will need time to digest what has been announced in terms of the scope and coverage of local hospital care.
The Minister has said that the presumption that London is over-provided with acute beds is to be abandoned. I think that that is a perfectly fair conclusion. Indeed, I believe we should welcome it. It was always said by Tomlinson in his report that if the rate of emergency admissions should increase, more beds would he needed. Professor Jarman was right in the views that he advanced consistently on this issue. It makes sense for Guy's to meet some of the need, as the Minister indicated that it will.
I turn to the issue which has perhaps aroused the greatest degree of interest in London, that of Bart's. The Statement refers to that noble hospital having been saved. I wonder whether that description is entirely appropriate. Of course we can only welcome the tertiary referral centre in terms of the services that it will provide. I have absolutely no doubt that the standards of care for cancer and cardiac patients from all over the country will be second to none. But the point that will not be lost on Londoners is that Bart's will no longer provide any of the local services normally provided by a district general hospital. Can the Minister say whether the boards of the Royal Hospitals Trust and East London and City Health Authority agree with the decision on Bart's? Did they believe that it would be more efficient to maintain split sites rather than transferring all services to a new hospital on the Royal London site? Do they agree with the decision to split hospital services and reduce the size of the new hospital which is being built with private funding?
I repeat that the standards of care to be offered at Bart's are not in question, and nor should they be. However, does not the Minister agree that such specialist hospitals—as Bart's is now apparently to be—run contrary to most expert opinion? Do not the Government believe that there is real advantage in having all specialist services grouped together on a single site? Equally important is the budgetary aspect. What estimate has been made of the additional cost of this decision as compared with the alternative which was to close Bares altogether? I understand that the local health authority is already running a sizeable deficit. The question needs to be asked as to how it will be reimbursed for the additional costs to be incurred.
It looks very much as though before the election Labour exploited the save Bares campaign, but now that Labour is in office it is not prepared to give local people what they want, which is a local district general hospital service on the Bart's site. What is being offered is a tertiary facility which could just as easily—and less expensively—have been provided as part of the new Royal London. It looks very much as though the people of East London will have to pay for that expensive decision. Will the Government publish the cost estimates of the two alternatives? Does the Minister agree that what is needed in East London is really better primary care, and that there are surely knock-on effects
524
of the Bart's decision in that regard? Will she confirm that the extra costs arising from these decisions will reduce the budgets for local services, including primary care services, and that the people of East London will not gain much advantage from these tertiary services at Bart's, although they will be excellent in their own way? I feel that there is much in this Statement which is good news for London but much that needs to be explained. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and also for the extraordinary amount of work which the Turnberg Committee has undertaken in producing a comprehensive report in such a short time. We should ideally have liked to see the report at the time the Government received it so that we could have studied it at the same time as Ministers. We cannot see any particularly strong reason why that should not have been the case. It is, of course, much more difficult to influence decision-making at the point when Ministers have not only had the report but have had several months to chew it over before anyone else has seen it. and then produce firm proposals.
That having been said, we find much in the report to welcome. We also welcome the Government's commitment to a strategic review of the provision of health services in London. We are therefore slightly surprised to read the weasel words that the report proposes as a medium-term aim the establishment of an NHS regional office in London. We find the words "medium term" somewhat worrying as regards what appears to be a relatively modest institutional change within the NHS. Can the Minister help us by explaining what kind of timescale she envisages as medium term? Much as we enjoy discussing these issues in this House, as do our colleagues in another place, we believe that the correct place primarily to discuss the strategic needs of London health services is within a strategic authority for London and Londoners. Does the Minister believe that strategic healthcare is a matter that could sensibly be added to the powers of the proposed GLA? We would welcome the Minister's views on that.
We wish that the Statement had included what most strategic documents mention; namely, overall figures on beds, doctors, nurses and those other matters that concern Londoners when they consider healthcare. I raise that matter because we believe that when new hospitals are built under the PFI there is an inexorable pressure to reduce the number of beds. We have seen that in the proposals before us today in respect of the Royal London Hospital where it is proposed that 200 fewer beds are now provided than was originally proposed, at a time when some estimates at least suggest that the 1,100 that were originally provided might be insufficient. We wonder therefore whether Bart's might face a slightly odd fate, even when the Royal London is open, in that there will simply not be enough acute beds elsewhere in East London and Bart's will be required to continue to provide that kind of facility well beyond the medium-term, however that is defined.

525
Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I do not propose to discuss the individual proposals in detail. However, I raise a general point with regard to Queen Mary's at Roehampton. In many cases what we are talking about here is replacing one provision with another. We are moving from one static position to another. We are concerned about what happens in the meantime.
I welcome an assurance that the provisions of Kingston—they need to be enhanced to match the increased demand which will arise as Queen Mary's services are transferred—will come on stream before they are required rather than months afterwards, and after patients have faced additional difficulties during the transitional period.
Two overriding issues are dealt with in the Statement. The first is a proper strategic framework for decision making in London. We feel that the Government have made some progress on that. Some of the progress is to be welcomed, but we believe that there is need to go further. The next key question relates to whether the Statement is satisfactory in terms of the overall level of resourcing of the special health needs of London. We are pleased to hear confirmed the additional funding for primary services, mental health, intermediate care and community services. Those funds are desperately needed. There must be more cases of acute under-provision in London than anywhere else in the country. Those of us who live in south London have in mind, for example, the horrendous murder in Tulse Hill a couple of weeks ago by a patient with severe mental health problems. That patient was not receiving the care in the community required. We can only welcome any action to improve and increase the level of funding for those Cinderella services. It is desperately needed, in particular in London. We are unconvinced that the proposals will be enough to provide the first-rate health services that Londoners need and deserve.
If we were confident that an NHS body, or the GLA, would discuss the issues at a strategic level, we might allow the matter to rest there. However, those bodies are unlikely to be in position for some considerable time. I hope that after an appropriate period the Minister will report again to the House on the progress made towards achieving the ambitious goals set out in the Statement. At the same time I hope that the noble Baroness will come forward with any further proposals necessary for funding or structural arrangements to meet those goals.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their general welcome of the Statement, and in particular for their acknowledgement that the time has come to take some definitive action about the problems of London. On the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I always welcome the opportunity for further discussion of these issues. Indeed, I believe that there is a debate tomorrow in your Lordships' House in which they may well be covered
I am grateful, too, for both noble Lords' commendation of Professor Turnberg and his committee for their hard work, and for precise recommendations
526
which we have welcomed and accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised concerns about the way in which the proposals may have been set already in immoveable concrete. I hope that noble Lords understand that all the proposals that the Government have accepted which refer to major service reconfiguration will be subject to the normal consultation processes in which the health service always engages at these times.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the need for a strategic approach to London's healthcare. The Government entirely accept that. It is the reason that we accept the proposal of Professor Turnberg and his panel that there should be one regional office for London. The use of the words "medium term" simply refers to the need, as we see it—and as he sees it, I think, given his subsequent remarks—for the potential for including the development of the London regional office for health alongside, and in connection with, the greater London authority which is still subject to the legislative process and the other complications with which your Lordships are familiar. In that sense, medium term simply refers to development rather than kicking the issue into touch in any sense.
The noble Lord also referred to the difficulties of mental health services in London. The report acknowledges, as do the Government, that they are a specific problem. The noble Lord and other Members of your Lordships' House will be aware that at the end of last year we undertook a review of mental healthcare. We are about to receive the report. I hope that it will inform some of the difficult decisions which need to be made. The noble Lord may know that additional funding of £5 million has been allocated to mental health services to help reduce the pressures on acute psychiatric beds by buying extra residential 24-hour nurse-staffed places for what we hope will be more effective approaches to patient crises. We hope that that will reduce in-patient admissions. Noble Lords may be aware of the concerns publicly expressed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the validity or otherwise of dealing with some of those acute psychiatric problems exclusively in the context of community care. We shall bear that very much in mind as we develop the plans in London.
The noble Lord referred to the revised plans for 900 beds in the Royal London Hospital in the new redevelopment programme. He spoke, as did the noble Earl, about the acceptance that the original assumptions made by Professor Tomlinson on the need for acute beds in London may perhaps have been over-optimistic in the sense of the needs of London as we progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned the conjunction of beds in the Royal London and Bart's. It means that as beds are kept open at Bart's, the need for the 1,100 beds on the original PFI project is regarded as unnecessary. But that in no way diminishes our concern to maintain the overall numbers of acute beds.
As it was the main burden of the noble Earl's concerns, I turn to the question of whether or not re-inventing Bart's, as he describes it, was an unnecessary procedure. The noble Earl will be aware, as indeed will your Lordships, of the success of specialist

527
hospitals in other parts of London and the country. I cite the example of the Marsden Hospital, Christie Hospital in Manchester, or the Papworth Hospital in Cambridge. They suggest that such specialist hospitals for particular forms of tertiary care play an important role in our health services and healthcare. They are often very much part of the local community although they provide a specialist service. Although the noble Earl felt that it would not be an attractive proposition to the population which surrounds Bart's Hospital, I emphasise that again there will be an element of public consultation. I suspect that the local population will applaud the fact that the site is to continue to be used for health services rather than for some of the perhaps glamorous but not necessarily health-related suggestions made in the past.
As regards relative costs, the Government have considered with concern the precise difference between capital expenditure and revenue costs. At present the view is that the plans now proposed will not be radically different in capital costs from those proposed in the previous plan although the proceeds from a potential sale of the Smithfield site will no longer be available. Account will also have to be taken of the revenue costs associated with running the two sites. That will he an immediate issue for the East London health authority which the noble Earl rightly says will take the lead in developing the new strategy. I must point out to the noble Earl that these plans have been developed with its understanding and concern to work through that new strategy in a positive way, both to develop the high quality community services as well as the acute services for the East End.
I conclude by saying that I am pleased that both noble Lords made reference to the development of primary care in London. I believe that that is the priority with which we need to be concerned. I was glad to report that there will be substantial investment in that area. We feel that it will be the most important ingredient in transforming many of the everyday services which mean most to families living in London and in the long run will make the greatest difference to the status of the health services throughout the capital.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness enlighten the House a little further regarding the rebuilding of the hospital opposite University College? Is the new site to be that which is opposite University College, or is it to be the site presently inhabited by the Middlesex Hospital? How will it be possible to build a new hospital in close proximity to University College?
I very much welcome the whole scheme and hope to be convinced by it. I am less convinced by the arguments in favour of Bart's being kept open. The noble Earl put his finger on many spots which require examination. How is it possible, in terms of cost-effectiveness, that 200 beds kept open at Bart's will be cost-effective as compared with the extension of
528
2 x 200 beds at the London Hospital? The population needs those beds at the London Hospital. not in the City of London.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: In response to the noble Lord's final point, I respectfully draw his attention to the great success of those tertiary centres for specialist care with that size of provision which exist in other parts of the country. As I believe I made clear both in the Statement and in my previous remarks, it was not intended that Bart's should remain as a district general hospital; however, given the specialist services, we feel that there will be very important provisions.
As to the University College Hospital site, that will be on the Gower Street site and will incorporate the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, the Middlesex Hospital, the Hospital for Tropical Diseases and the other medical centres of excellence which at present are very broadly in the University College campus, but not in one building.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I declare an interest as a leading member over the past five years of the Save Bart's campaign in my role as a local councillor whose ward is a mere 250 yards from Bart's. Like my noble friend Lord Newby, I welcome some elements of the Statement, particularly the new hospital bringing together UCH, the Middlesex, the EGA and so on, the new investment at the Whittington and the Royal London, the retention of more services at Guy's. I also especially welcome the abandoning of the presumption that London was over-bedded.
However, I wonder whether the Minister is correct in saying that local people will applaud the retention of some health services on the Bart's site. I fear that when local people listened to the promise made before the general election by her right honourable friend in the other place, now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, that a Labour Government would save Bart's, they would have thought that that meant as a district general hospital, not as a specialist tertiary centre. I fear that local reactions might vary from, "This is half a loaf", to even the word "betrayal". Can the Minister therefore give any reassurance to local people? The NHS White Paper to which she referred contained a reference to the "freedom to refer- of primary care groups. Will there be patient choice, in the sense that if the residents of south Islington or south Hackney wish to be referred to Bart's for a wider range of services—which, as she explained, will remain on the site for the next few years while the Royal London is redeveloped—they will be able to exercise that choice through their GPs? Will the Minister give an assurance that the situation at Bart's will be monitored over those years of transition, so that, if it becomes obvious that London is not only not over-provided but is under-provided with acute beds, there will be a chance to reassess the situation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the simple answer to the noble Baroness's last point is no. The decision has now been taken about Bart's. I am amazed that she should describe that decision, on which I have

529
elaborated in some detail, in such emotive language as "betrayal". This is a sensible use of the available resources. It uses the plant that exists at the Smithfield site and the very considerable medical and scientific expertise which exists at that site to provide a specialist service. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and to the noble Earl, we believe that there are very good examples of that kind of service being well provided. The noble Baroness's remarks merely illustrate the difficulties of the decisions that had to be taken in the context of cost-effectiveness, as pointed out by the noble Earl, and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the potential for different uses of these beds. The right decision has been made, and that right decision is one that we shall stick with.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, as someone who has represented for more than 30 years the East London area in which the London Hospital is located, I wish to state how much I welcome—as I am sure local people will—the good sense that the Government have applied in their study and the urgent review that they have carried out. I welcome in particular the conclusion reached in the review, which the Government have accepted, that the previous government got it all wrong—the fons et origo of the mistakes of the past 10 years—in saying that London was over-provided with hospital beds.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support for these decisions. His experience is long and authoritative; it has deep roots among that population in East London. I am delighted that he feels that this proposal will be popular in that part of London. We look to the investment and involvement of the people in that community in developing the right sort of services—not simply through the revised hospital proposals but also in the very important primary care services. I am sure that my noble friend will do what he can to encourage that.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I wish to ask a very brief question about the re-evaluation of the proposed shift of other services from Guy's to St. Thomas's. I declare an interest; I work at both institutions.
I realise the problem of building new facilities at St. Thomas's to take the place of the services provided at Guy's. However, in view of the brand new hospital building there and the excellent facilities, particularly in ENT, who exactly will carry out the re-evaluation of the proposed shift? Clearly it will be quite difficult for the management of the Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital Trust. I congratulate the Government on the choice of Sir Leslie Turnberg. He is an excellent physician and is very much respected by the profession.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very happy to accept that endorsement of Sir Leslie Turnberg's great skill in taking these proposals forward. I think the noble Lord will understand that the questions
530
of management of the change between Guy's and St. Thomas's are, we hope, now that they are in a unified trust, subject to discussion around the table rather than confrontation between rival groups. The noble Lord raises his eyebrows. Perhaps I am more optimistic than the noble Lord, and his local knowledge does not give him that confidence. Sir Leslie's panel highlighted concerns that the extensive building going on at the St. Thomas's site might not represent value for money in the light of the capacity available at Guy's. We accept that view. That means the Department of Health and the NHS executive as well as the local trust, and the South Thames regional office are to review the options, which will probably mean that more services are left on the Guy's site. Precisely which services those are and how they are best configured will clearly be a matter for local discussion.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the newly-enlarged Imperial College School of Medicine. I believe that the report will be widely welcomed throughout London. The tenor of the Government's response to it is apposite. I particularly like the notion that firm decisions will be taken.
Perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to a problem that has dogged London medicine very seriously. As noble Lords will know, London medicine is largely academically led. Many of the hospitals mentioned in the Statement are academic hospitals. One of the problems in London has been a consistent blight on research, and particularly recruitment, because decisions were rather slow in being taken. Will the Minister assure the House that we shall not be kept waiting again and that any decisions needing to be taken will be taken with all speed, so that London medicine and London medical science can get on with the job of improving and maintaining the health of the nation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am delighted to reassure my noble friend that decisions will be taken promptly. I cannot give him quite the same assurance about the nature and type of procedures needed to effect some of the changes. For example, some of the capital programmes are subject to the PFI process, in itself a procedure which can take some time. As my right honourable friend said in the Statement which I repeated, this is, like the NHS White Paper, a 10-year programme in which we would expect to see visible improvement year on year but not all delivered within the first year. I hope that my noble friend will have heard the points in the Statement about the need to look at the configuration of London health services in this sectoral way, which enables the connection between the medical schools and the academic medical fraternity to be allied with the service provision in a way which makes sense for both parts of the healthcare system.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and her colleagues on this remarkable new thinking for London healthcare. I declare an interest in Guy's Hospital as a foster parent of a child who has had many operations in the burns unit. With that experience, perhaps I may ask the

531
Minister to think carefully about the transfer of burns services for London patients long-term from Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, to Guy's Hospital itself. That would give a new reason and focus for Guy's to use the wonderful new facilities which the previous government appeared to be going to discard. As I understand it, there was no long-term planning at all in the previous thinking for London burns patients but merely short-term and possibly mid-term planning.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. She was kind enough to write to me and also, I understand, to Sir Leslie Turnberg about the proposal with regard to burns services. My understanding is that the burns and plastic surgery services were looked at in the strategic review which reported last autumn. Consideration was given at that time to the possibility of transferring burns services to Guy's or St. Thomas's but the steering group continued to recommend the transfer of those services to the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, to remain within the South Thames Regional organisation. The noble Baroness will have heard that, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the capacity at Guy's to retain certain services which might have been moved to St. Thomas's could perhaps produce another possibility in this area. At the moment I can only refer back to the previous appraisal which suggested moving the services to Chelsea and Westminster.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I was interested in the mention of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital for Women. I have always had a great admiration for that hospital and had hoped that it would continue to be exclusively for women. It is not clear to me from the Statement whether it is in some way to be subsumed into University College Hospital.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the characteristics and quality of the services of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, with which I am sure we are all familiar and about which we feel strongly, will retain their independence, but the buildings will become part of the new University College Hospital, which, as the noble Lord knows, is literally across the street from the old site.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as a practitioner who spent most of his professional life working in north London, perhaps I may say how pleased I am that the decision has finally been arrived at with regard to the UCL hospitals. I welcome also the further strengthening of primary care, particularly in east London where it is much needed. Another thing which greatly pleases me is the decision at last to have a strategic regional office for London. This is something my noble friend will recall arguing for over many years when we were in opposition. Can the Minister say what will happen to the current north and south London regional offices? When there is a strategic London office, will the peripheral health authorities be attached to another
532
regional office or will they form their own? Will the regional strategic office be coterminous with the new GLA?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. He may he pleased to hear with regard to the UCLH building that we expect that the trust and its PFI partner will now be authorised to go ahead to financial close, which we expect to take place reasonably quickly.
With regard to the precise definition of what the regional office will cover and what its remit will be with the peripheral health authorities, I am afraid I cannot take that any further this afternoon. As I said in an earlier reply, this is in a sense rather ephemeral at the moment. Although there is a clear intention, there needs to be precise discussion about the relationship with the GLA, as I mentioned in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who picked up the use of the description "medium-term" in relation to this plan. I hope my noble friend will be reassured that it is a definite plan. The precise configuration and definition are still matters for discussion. My noble friend reminds me of the determination which he had to try to introduce this in the earlier health authorities Bill. I am sure he will also remember the extremely arcane discussions we had about the nature and definition of any possible strategic authority.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I too welcome the Government's decision as a consequence of Tomlinson. I was not one of those who joined the "Save Bart's" campaign, despite my east London connection, because I was convinced that something drastic needed to be done about the old buildings. I therefore welcome the proposal.
If London is to have a strategic regional authority, will the Minister bear in mind when making decisions the treatment of drug abusers? I do not ask for an answer this afternoon. As she knows, I have a connection with City Roads, a drugs intervention charity. One of the major problems of provisions for dealing with drug abuse in London has been the lack of an overall London authority.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. An important part of the report by Sir Leslie Turnberg's panel which we have not discussed in your Lordships' House since it was not mentioned in the Statement—as my right honourable friend said, it was impossible to cover everything—is the great emphasis on the need for greater inter-sectoral and inter-agency working on such issues as drug abuse and the other social problems which contribute so much to the ill health of Londoners. A major recommendation of Sir Leslie's report is to invite health authorities, local authorities and voluntary organisations, such as City Roads, to work together to try to formulate more strategic plans for integrated care.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
4.37 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, after ("cause") insert ("serious").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of amendments to Part I of the Bill standing in my name and those of my noble friends. There is a pattern to these amendments and I believe that it will save time if I explain at this stage our general attitude to Part I of the Bill as shown by these amendments, thus making it unnecessary for me or my noble friends to repeat ourselves each time we introduce an amendment.
Part I introduces five new orders: an anti-social behaviour order, a sex offender order, a parenting order, a child safety order and a child curfew scheme. Of these, the only one that we oppose in principle is the child curfew scheme. We are deeply sceptical about parenting orders and suspect that pilot schemes will show them to be unworkable. However, if the Government wish to try them, then let them be tried.
We welcome the other three orders in principle. They are capable of meeting a perceived need and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, explained why they were required. But, at the same time, we have strong objections to many of the detailed terms contained in Part I of the Bill relating to those orders. Let me outline those objections, of which there are four.
First, the threshold of behaviour which allows orders to be brought into force is too low. The effect of making an order is to subject the defendant to a criminal penalty if he thereafter does things which would not be crimes or perhaps even a civil wrong if done by others. It is therefore a powerful order. It creates a personal criminal law, not a general criminal law. The defendant is not being punished for breaking the law of the land but for breaking a law which applies to him personally or to him and a small group of his associates alone. The grounds for making an order of that kind must be compelling.
Secondly, the nature of the order which the court can make is in many cases too wide and vague. The people against whom the order is made—the subjects of such an order—must know what it is that they are forbidden to do and the order must not be such as to prevent them from leading normal lives.
Thirdly, the penalties for breach are excessive. Where a breach of the order involves a breach of the ordinary criminal law of the land, as it often will, the defendant can be sentenced for that breach. If the defendant does something which is not a breach of the ordinary criminal law, a lengthy term of imprisonment is inappropriate.
Fourthly, while the Government are conferring wide powers on the courts, they do not seem to trust the courts to use those powers properly. They therefore impose minimum times for which the order can be made; they refuse to allow the courts a free hand in varying the order; and in some cases they exclude the power for the court to give a conditional discharge by
534
way of sentence. The Government should trust the courts to get it right. With a novel and powerful order of this kind, the Government should leave the courts the maximum flexibility to tailor the duration of the order and the punishment for breach to fit the circumstances of the case.
We must not forget that human rights are not just the right to behave well. One of the most important rights—it will not be found spelt out in any of the conventions but it is there all the same—is the right, up to a point, to behave badly. People have a right to be non-conformist; they have a right to be bloody-minded; they have a right within reason to make a bit of a nuisance of themselves. It is not easy to draw the line. We want to live in a law-abiding society with a low level of crime and a low level of fear of crime; we want a low level of vandalism and disorder of all kinds and a low level of fear of vandalism and disorder; but at the same time we do not want to live in an authoritarian state. In certain aspects of this Bill the Government verge towards authoritarianism.
Let us look more specifically at Clause 1. Each of the four objections I outlined applies to Clause 1. The threshold of the orders is too low. The power to make the orders is not adequately defined or clarified. The penalties for breach are excessive and the discretion of the courts is unreasonably restricted. The Government will be aware of a powerful article published in the magazine of the Howard League by six extremely distinguished academic lawyers. One passage from the article states:
"the Government's latest legislative proposal is neither sensible nor carefully targeted. It takes sweepingly defined conduct within its ambit, grants local agencies virtually unlimited discretion to seek highly restrictive orders, jettisons fundamental legal protections for the grant of those orders, and authorises potentially draconian and wholly disproportionate penalties for violations of them. While the Government claims that this measure is aimed at those who terrorise their neighbours, its actual reach is far broader and covers a wide spectrum of conduct deemed 'anti-social', whether criminal or not. We think it unfortunate that one of the Government's first major proposals on criminal justice policy is of such a character".
The conclusion of the author of that article is that the scheme for anti-social behaviour orders should be abandoned altogether. We do not go as far as that. We believe that the criticism contained in that extremely impressive article should be taken seriously. We accept that there is a need for anti-social behaviour orders. The individual claimants are, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, pointed out, often not in a position to take action themselves, either for reasons of the cost of obtaining an order or for fear of retribution from those against whom the order is sought. But, at the same time, Clause 1 must be examined extremely carefully and it is in that light that I ask the Committee to look at Amendment No. 3 which is grouped with Amendment No. 4.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that, if an application is based on harassment, that harassment must have been serious. But if an application is based on alarm or distress, the defendant's conduct must have been such as to cause or to have been likely to cause alarm or distress to reasonable people. Acts of trivial harassment or causing minor alarm or distress do not

535
justify an order as draconian as an anti-social behaviour order. After all, something like a strong and unfamiliar cooking smell may cause distress to a limited degree but, save in the most exceptional circumstances, one cannot imagine that it would justify an anti-social behaviour order.
I do not attempt to define what is serious. That should be left to the court. In addition, as the clause is drafted, an anti-social behaviour order may be made where the alarm or distress, which may be perfectly genuine, is caused to unduly sensitive people. Noisy neighbours can be neighbours from hell. But so, in a more limited sense perhaps, are neighbours who complain about the slightest noise from the flat above. Their distress may be genuine, but it should not be allowed to form the basis of an anti-social behaviour order.
Further, no element of intention to harass or cause alarm or distress is necessary for an anti-social behaviour order to be obtained. It may be that, by definition, harassment involves some degree of intention. But alarm and distress do not require deliberate intention to cause them as an element of their causation; they can be caused unintentionally. That reinforces the argument that the standard of conduct to trigger an anti-social behaviour order is not high enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to Amendment No. 13. I have to say—I will expand on this when we reach that amendment—that I do not believe that it is adequate to deal with the problem. It places the burden of proof on the defendant; it is the defendant who must show that his acts were reasonable and he should not have to show that. The seriousness of the alarm or the distress are one of the facts that should be established in order to enable an anti-social behaviour order to be granted. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a powerful case, as one would expect, for Amendment No. 3. I particularly welcome Amendment No. 4, with which it is grouped and to which I added my name. One could only wish that its principles had been incorporated into earlier legislation touching upon the causing of alarm or distress.
As the noble Lord said, the point is that alarm and distress can be extremely trivial in nature. A person of exceptionally sensitive disposition could be alarmed at a neighbour bursting a paper bag in his or her back garden in the middle of an afternoon or could be distressed, for example, at the squashing of a bluebottle. Surely the heavy hand of the law should come into play only when the alarm or distress in question is subjectively significant.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the amendment. Last year I recall that at the annual general meeting of the Gresford Memorial Trust a lady arrived to complain about young people outside a youth club opposite her home who were playing football after the youth club had closed. She asked the trustees, of whom I was one, whether there was some way in which we
536
could force them to leave the street outside her home and go on to the ample playing fields and football pitches which the trust has at a distance of about 200 yards away. There is no doubt that the lady was distressed by the activity that was going on. But she had to be a person of extreme sensitivity to be distressed in that way. Under the Bill she could lay a complaint with the local authority which would cause the making of an order under Clause 1. Surely that is not the sort of thing for which the clause is designed. I fully support my noble friend when he asks that the word "serious" should be incorporated in the Bill.
Lord Ackner: I support the amendment. To a large extent it deals with my anxiety as to whether Clause 1 could have been interpreted on a wholly subjective basis.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may put in my four-penn'orth. This comes back to a point I raised on the first amendment. I refer to the breadth of the form of behaviour that is potentially embraced by the wording. The amendment does something to narrow it. It may be that the noble Lord can tell us what these words are already taken by the courts to mean. There may be a precise meaning of "distress". However, if it is the colloquial meaning, we certainly need the words in the amendment.
Lord Henley: I rise neither to support nor oppose the amendment. However, like my noble friend Lord Elton. I should be interested to hear from the Government exactly what the words "harassment, alarm or distress" mean at the moment and how they are interpreted. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to refer to the large number of authorities which I have found in Archbold and take us through a brief legal seminar as to their meaning. The noble Lord shakes his head. I suspect that the Committee may be somewhat relieved. However, he would certainly assist the Committee if he could give us some idea as to what the words mean and to what extent and how much he thinks adding "serious" and, later on, "or reasonable and serious" would limit the words "harassment, alarm or distress".
Lord Hylton: I support the amendments in the hope that the Government may feel able to accept them, or something very like them, for the purpose of avoiding a huge mass of trivial and unsubstantial complaints both to local authorities and to the police.
Lord Dholakia: I support the amendments. Every time I have discussed this clause with colleagues the example that has been cited to me is the wild parties and music in Brixton. That is the type of situation that can cause alarm and distress. I have no difficulty in terms of bad neighbours and so on. The problem I have is that the clause could be misused. There is a parallel here in terms of stop and search legislation. Twenty-five per cent. of stop and search in this country relates to black people. In London, 40 per cent. of stop and search relates to black people. Unless we identify in the clause that we mean serious alarm and distress, the authorities

537
could use it to target particular communities. I believe this is an appropriate amendment which I hope will put a further onus on those who have to prove the offence in court.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I, too, dipped into Archbold today to see what the words "harassment, alarm or distress" mean in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to which reference has already been made. The Act created a summary offence which consists of the intentional causing of harassment, alarm or distress to another person by the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or the display of any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting. The words in the 1994 Act were carefully drawn to limit the scope. The sentence for the offence, which is a summary offence, is a maximum of six months' imprisonment. Now we are faced with those same words without any qualification, without the use of the word "intentional", and nothing to indicate the way in which "harassment, alarm or distress" is objectively to be caused or objectively to be assessed.
The other major difference is that the Bill proposes a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment on indictment as opposed to the summary offence of six months' imprisonment in the 1994 Act, which is within the memory of those on the Government Benches who were then on this side of the House and were no doubt opposing at that time. It was seen to be more of a niche and much less of the big issue that the Government are making in this case.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may make three points from the point of view of those who will have to implement the anti-social behaviour orders in the Bill. First, there has to be a limit as to what is an acceptable complaint and what is not. I support the amendments because they appear to lay down a useful interpretation. Secondly, it is important that the Bill does not appear to promise too much. Thirdly, it is important that the Bill clarifies the intentions of Parliament for those local authority officers and police officers who will have to deal with and sort out the complaints.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly said that he was deploying his arguments on a wider basis than Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and, as with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I found that extremely helpful. Perhaps I shall fall into the same error as he but respond fairly briefly on the points that he made. I entirely agree with him that a human right, nowhere defined, is the right to be different, the right to be a nuisance and the right to be an eccentric—up to a point. I omitted the words "Lord Copper", because I offered them to the noble Lords on the Bench opposite to fill in, which they kindly did. The Bill is entirely about defining that point. It was said by the noble Lord that the threshold of behaviour is too low because one is setting a criminal regime which is individual rather than general. But that is what injunctions do at the
538
moment. An injunction is directed in respect of particular behaviour against a named individual. Breach of that injunction in appropriate circumstances entitles the court to fine or imprison. So there is no difference in principle or problem there.
Secondly, the noble Lord suggested that the order might be too wide and too vague. If one looks at Clause 1(4) one sees that the order will not be too wide or too vague because it is able to prohibit the defendant only from doing anything described in the order. If one stresses the word "anything", and rolls the eyes appropriately, of course it looks as though this will be endlessly Draconian. But it is not. The words "anything described in the order" are intended to be prescriptive; that is to say, the magistrates' court must specify with particularity what conduct is forbidden by the order.
The third point is that the sentence is too great. The court is given what we believe to be a reasonable range of options. It does not include a conditional discharge. That is a matter of particular, determined policy because the order itself is conditional—that is to say, if one obeys the terms of the order, first, there will be no criminal record and, secondly, there is no criminal sanction deriving from the order. It is purely prohibitory. So there is no difficulty there at all.
Of course we trust the courts by giving them an appropriate range of remedies. It will be the magistrates' courts in particular areas, knowing the problems of their particular peoples and communities, to decide about harassment, alarm or distress. The boys playing football outside the Gresford Club would not be subject to this order because this is an anti-social order as designated in Clause 1(1)(a); namely,
"likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to two or more persons not of the same household as himself".
It is not designed or intended to be for an individual, but for an anti-social context.
5 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am sure the noble Lord will accept that there could be occasions when people playing football outside one or more houses cause alarm, distress or harassment by the very nature of football and how it is played.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If that proposition is put to the footballers they have the perfect opportunity to say, "Oh! come on, look at Amendment 13 of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which is a model of perfect parliamentary drafting, because it is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances". I take up the illustrations given by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Henley, which are not fanciful. We have a couple of black households living in a street, wishing only for their own private domestic contentment and order. Skinhead youths constantly play games such as baseball, football and loud games and make the lives of the people in the black households a misery. Why should that be subject, not to the sanction of immediate criminal prosecution, but a warning to them, "This country will not stand for that"?

539
Why cannot it be said to them, "Therefore, you will be subject to a regime which is carefully crafted and constructed to deal"—and I repeat—"with real social harm?" As the noble Lord rightly observed—and I regret it if I have not made it abundantly clear—this is not a remedy for the individual aggrieved, but one that has to go through a filtering authority; namely, the police and the local authority. So that takes away the opportunity simply of the malevolent, obsessive individual who feels wronged. We have put in a filter.
The second filter is that it must go through the court process. We trust the courts, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We do not expect them to impose these orders on a trivial basis. They are subject to appeal. If there is difficulty and inconsistency, the appeal mechanism will bring about consistency. Amendment No. 13 has been designed with a view to meeting, if not perfectly, at least the thrust of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
We believe that harassment, alarm and distress are perfectly simple words, which are frequently construed by courts on necessary occasions. It is perhaps noteworthy that the basic offence in Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997—which is even more contemporaneous than that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which was 1994 and quite ancient—does not include the word "serious".
I recapitulate briefly what we have done here. We know that there is serious harm to vulnerable people. They presently cry for remedy without redress and that is a scandal. We want to put it right, but we realise that there may be problems. Therefore, we introduce a regime, which has the dual filtering of the police and the local authority added to the necessity for an application to a court. Further added to that is Amendment No. 13 which gives the defendant the right to say that his conduct was reasonable in all circumstances. All of this applies no criminal sanction whatever. It gives a warning that if the order is breached—which can be proved on a criminal basis in criminal proceedings where the defendant will be legally aided and represented, as appropriate—and in some circumstances the offences are so wicked, and I choose that word carefully because it goes to the heart of people's lives, then they should be met with criminal sanction. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
I shall not seek to repeat my propositions as regards each subsequent amendment. On the particular amendments, I believe that we have got it right. We do not need these qualifying words. The conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would be that the harassment had to be serious and the qualifying words to "alarm or distress" would be "reasonable and serious alarm" or "reasonable and serious distress". I am not sure that I entirely follow that.
Lord Elton: I am not sure that the noble Lord realises that we are all on his side in preventing the mischief which he has so eloquently described. In this House we have a duty to prevent such remedies spreading beyond the mischief to which they are intended to apply. When orders are made I suspect that most of those appearing
540
will not have legal representation or the resources with which to appeal. Therefore, it is quite right to pursue the question of whether what we are saying here is capable of being applied more widely than the noble Lord intends. I take it that that is the intention of this amendment. It may be for argument as regards Amendment No. 13 that we should continue that. I myself am in some doubt concerning the arguments of the two Front Benches as to whether the delimitation is going to be achieved by Amendment No. 13. I hope the noble Lord understands that we are all trying to do the same thing and not to overdo it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely accept that. As I believe I said at Second Reading, it was gratifying that the general scope and thrust of this Bill had had such general acceptance and strong approval in principle. I do not dismiss these points. As I said earlier, Amendment No. 13 was designed to meet what we thought were the reasonable objections of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We believe that the general safeguards we have written into the regime, particularly bearing in mind the present context of legislation, gets it about right. I regret that we cannot accept this amendment. I accept, and will continue to do so, that these amendments propose improvements. But we are unable to agree that they would be improvements.
Baroness Warnock: Going beyond the actual amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, used the word "malevolent" as a way of defining the objectionable conduct. That suggests very strongly that some such word as "intentional" should be brought in before the description of the alarm, harassment and fear caused. The courts are very well accustomed to trying to determine whether a series of acts was intentional. I cannot see any reason not to put in the "intentional" in this context. It would itself limit the application of the order.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness said a moment ago. In order to defeat the argument advanced by my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, used the expression "malevolence" which indicates a subjective intention in the mind of the person against whom the order is made. When one looks at a situation where, for example, there is malevolent playing of football outside the houses of two young, robust white households, the heads of those households can go to the local authority and say, "They are malevolently playing football outside my house. I want an order". In another situation, the people playing football outside the houses may not be doing so malevolently, but those who live in the households may be two elderly white couples—I do not want to introduce a racist element—who are distressed and who then go to the local authority saying, "Please may we have an order?"
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised this issue at the beginning of this Committee stage when he asked whether the test is to be objective or subjective. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is now putting it forward in two ways:

541
malevolence on the part of the offenders can cause an order to be made, or it can be caused by distress on the part of those who are the recipients of non-malevolent and unintentional conduct. If that is the Government's intention in promoting the Bill, no doubt the noble Lord will tell us.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene shortly to say that one's experience of the racial incitement legislation, which is already on the statute book and where the question of intention was a necessary ingredient, is that the courts have found the gravest difficulty (because of the onus on the prosecution in regard to those matters) and there have been acquittals where no acquittals were ever intended by Parliament, I am sure, when passing the original legislation.
Viscount Bledisloe: I would understand the argument of those proposing the amendments if it did not appear that there are already two filters in the Bill. Those proposing the amendments have spoken as though the over-fussy old lady has only to prove some harassment to get an order automatically. Surely that is wrong. First, she has to persuade the relevant authority that it ought to apply. It does not have to apply; Clause 1(1) is permissive. Secondly, even if the relevant authority does apply, the magistrates' court has the discretion to make an order. Surely those two discretions are perfectly adequate to filter out the footling and inadequate complaint and to solve the problem of people being subjected to an order just because a couple of extremely fussy old ladies do not like street football.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Are we trying to sort out whether the behaviour was malevolent or thoughtless?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are trying to sort out a reasoned response to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 which deal with the insertion of "serious" and of "or reasonable and serious". We are not trying to sort out whether one needs to demonstrate malevolent intent. The question of intent is irrelevant to the mischief at which the order is directed. We are talking about an antisocial behaviour order. The question whether unintentional harassment which is unreasonable should be allowed to continue unabated. We suggest not. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has daily—
Noble Lords: The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am so sorry. I did not properly turn round and I mistook the voice. I must be extremely careful in future. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who has knowledge of these matters. These are perfectly easy questions for the courts to deal with, given the will. I resisted a trawl through Archbold and I further resist the temptation to cite any cases with which I might have been involved. The divisional court concluded that whether a person is
542
likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress is simply a question of fact, easily to be determined by the magistrate.
We have been ranging fairly widely over questions of intent, malevolence and so forth, which are not the subject of the present amendments, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I have set out the Government's position on them. I commend it to the Committee as being a reasonable, well considered, middle way of dealing with undoubted problems.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I shall restrict my reply to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, recognised that there is a human right to be a nuisance and an eccentric, up to a point, and that the purpose of the Bill is to define the boundaries. I think that the noble Lord has put those boundaries in the wrong position. All the examples given by the noble Lord involve acts that are obviously likely to cause serious alarm or distress, or serious harassment. I accept that intent is not a necessary requirement of an antisocial behaviour order and in these amendments I have not sought that it should be so. However, it seems necessary that there should be a threshold of seriousness of conduct before it is possible to make an antisocial behaviour order.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I would say that the law should not rely on the exercise of a discretion by the local authorities or the courts to screen out the obviously footling and trivial cases. The threshold should be drawn high enough to exclude such cases.
I do not think that Amendment No. 13 is adequate to deal with the problem, for reasons that I shall explain when we reach that point. As the Government have gone half way to dealing with the problem I indicated, I simply ask why they do not go the whole way and accept perhaps not the exact wording, but at least the spirit of my amendments. I shall not press Amendment No. 3 today, but we may return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 5
Page I. line 15, leave out ("two") and insert ("one").
The noble Lord said: Again, much of the ground of this amendment has been covered in earlier discussions. I move the amendment now in order to ask the simple question: why "two" and not "one"? The noble Lord, Lord Williams, stated that the provision was designed to deal with matters which he implied related largely to the inner cities, but he then agreed that they could extend to the "leafy suburbs", as he put it. I suggest that they could also cover ground way beyond the leafy suburbs. It is possible that the single occupant of a single property, way out on its own in the country, could be caused alarm, harassment or distress by the activities of—dare I say it—malevolent footballers playing outside. I give that example as it is one that we have used earlier.
I raise this purely as a question of inquiry. Why on earth does the Bill have to state "two or more persons"? Is it purely an evidential matter that the authorities should not be empowered to act until at least two persons from separate households are making the complaint and that the authorities should not be empowered to act and to go to court until there are "two or more persons" involved; or is there some other reason behind the provision? I am mystified about this and I should be interested to hear the noble Lord say why it was thought that "two or more persons" was right instead of just "one person". I look forward to hearing the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I welcome this amendment. I would have put my name to it had I spotted it earlier, although I have added my name to Amendment No. 47 which deals with a similar situation in Clause 18. Time and time again, we read of elderly widows or spinsters, and occasionally of widowers, who are mercilessly bullied by young people, whom they have often befriended earlier. Surely single people in that position deserve just as much protection as couples or groups of single people. I, too, am at a loss to know why at least two people should be required for the purposes of the clause.
Lord Renton: I regard this amendment as a very important one. It is extraordinary that a bench of magistrates may say that it finds serious harassment has taken place and that it caused great distress but that only one person has suffered and so the defendant must be found not guilty. Are we really to legislate like that? Are the Government to rely, by analogy, on one of the very few offences that can be committed by only two persons or more? I can think of only the offence of affray. I remember it very well because 30 years ago at Hertford Assizes I prosecuted the first case of affray that had occurred in about 100 years. I had the honour and pleasure of leading the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in that case. I hope that I am in order in mentioning it. In the offence of affray it is only when two or more persons are involved that an offence has occurred, but that is different from this situation. Here we have the possibility of a sad elderly person, perhaps a widow who lives alone, being harassed by a gang of irresponsible youths. Under the Bill as it stands there can be no conviction. We really cannot legislate like that.
Viscount Tenby: Perhaps I may clear up one small matter arising out of previous discussion on the clause. I assure the Minister that no court of which I was a member would convict him either for speaking Welsh or voting Labour, especially if it managed to bring into play an antisocial behaviour order.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, does not think me patronising if I say that this amendment is a very important and interesting one, not least because of any answer that may be forthcoming from the Minister on the matter. To start the tariff at two or more persons will preclude the proverbial little old lady living alone. She is the person who is probably most in need of this provision. Presumably, she will suffer because of the difficulty of providing corroborative evidence in order
544
to bring a successful prosecution. Noble Lords may regard the difficulty as compounded because here we are entering unknown territory in the context of what some noble Lords consider to be the loose terms of the order. After all, one person's living hell is another person's sensory enjoyment in an evening of heavy metal music from a CD.
But can one forget the anxieties about interpretation and the like, important though they are? This order has been in the wings for far too long. In my hook repeated assaults on the senses and gross intrusion into people's private space are no less serious in some instances than physical assaults on the person. Surely, what is required in the enforcement of this order is greater common sense at the end of the 20th century and less referral to legal precedents of the 16th and 17th centuries. I hope that the Minister can see a way in which a solitary complainant may reasonably be able to derive some satisfaction from this very important order.
Lord Hylton: I would have thought it a good thing to have two persons in the Bill as drafted because that is likely to introduce into the situation a greater element of objectivity. However, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, perhaps has a point when he speaks about the occupant, perhaps the single occupant, of a totally isolated house in the country. One may also visualise the solitary user and occupant of a hut on an urban allotment. I dare say that the ingenuity of the Government is such as to find a way to cover these rather exceptional situations.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to seek help from the noble Lord. The Bill makes reference to "two or more persons not of the same household". If I read it aright—perhaps my reading of it is incorrect—it means that if three elderly people live in an isolated house they can be harassed without let or hindrance but that if there are two isolated houses with one person living in each the situation is different.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I point out to the noble Earl that the wording is "not of the same household as himself'; that is to say, the defendant perpetrator.
Lord Mishcon: I should like to add one more instance that worries me and perhaps other noble Lords in view of the intent of these provisions. If I may take colour for the purposes of my example. Let us assume that a black gentleman is living in a house in a street which is occupied wholly by whites. As a result of some rather unpleasant people, that black person finds his life unbearable. Is he to have no remedy under the Bill?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Can the Minister say whether it is possible for one person to suffer harassment, alarm or distress and for the court to assess that if other persons were around they would also have been likely to suffer harassment, alarm and distress?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The ingenuity of the legal mind knows no bounds! Perhaps I may point out gently that possibly there has been undue focus on Clause 1(1)(a) without full appreciation of the totality

545
of what Clause 1 is intended to deal with. I respectfully repeat that this is an antisocial behaviour order. One must pass over the hurdle in Clause 1(1)(a) before one comes to the point of the order in subsection (1)(b). The court may make the order if it finds the condition fulfilled in Clause 1(1)(a), over which we have pored for a little while, and if under subsection (1)(b)
"such an order is necessary to protect persons in the local government area in which the harassment, alarm or distress was caused or was likely to he caused from further anti-social acts by him".
The whole point of the order is that it is not individualised in terms of a single individual complainant. It is designed to be a community measure. Therefore, (a) and (b), the latter not having been looked at so far this evening, go together. For that reason one has the filters referred to earlier by the noble Viscount: first, the police and the local authorities; and, secondly, the court. There will be individual disputes not covered by this particular remedy: for instance, frequent, indeed notorious, neighbour disputes about who has planted Leyland cypress where, how long ago and to what height—more money has been spent on Leyland cypress than any other living vegetable—or whether or not the cockerel next door is too noisy, rowdy or rampant at six o'clock in the morning. That is not what this Bill is intended to deal with. The Bill is concerned with behaviour which is in effect antisocial and anti-community.
We believe that where an individual is harassed that is covered by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That is a criminal offence. We do not expect the police, the local authority and the court to take part in individual disputes of the kind that have been cited by way of example. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, this is not an evidential problem but a conceptual difference. Nor is the illustration of affray given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the point because here a magistrates' court will not arrive at a finding of not guilty because there is only one person adversely affected. Guilt or otherwise does not enter into it. The simple question is that if only one person is affected, or is likely to be affected, the police and the local authority will not even make an application to the court. If they did so wrongly or the court was not satisfied, an order would not be made.
The key to this matter is that one looks at the scheme of subsections (1)(a) and (I)(b) together. It is an entire scheme. It is intended to deal with a particular mischief in a particularly considered way; it is not intended to deal with all harm that happens to individuals. Single individuals, particularly the elderly or the handicapped, living on their own, have been mentioned. The Protection from Harassment Act, new on the statute book as it is, can be used for that purpose, but that is not the vice at which the Bill is aimed. It is different. That is why we have constructed it in this way. I hope, on the basis of that explanation of a considered policy stance, the noble Lord will feel content and happy to withdraw the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I thought that one of the reasons for the provision in Clause 1 was to protect the person who is frightened to make the application herself, and, if she made the application, who would be the subject matter of victimisation by those against whom she made the application. If that is so, then the advantage of this clause is seriously cut down.
I do not understand the reference to subsection (1)(b) as being of any particular relevance. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are both conditions precedent to the making of an application. Unless both paragraphs (a) and (b) are satisfied, there can be no valid application, and that has been recently accepted, as one would expect, by the Minister. If the application were made without the two conditions precedent being satisfied, it would be thrown out. Therefore the Minister has not answered the criticism: how do you protect the individual who is scared stiff to take the initiative to make the application herself?
Lord Renton: The Minister made clear the Government's intention here. If the amendment is accepted, the Government's intention will still be fulfilled, because we shall have the expression, "one or more persons". It is extraordinary—is it not?—if we are to have protection of more than one person only and have to rely entirely upon the proposition that individuals do not need to be protected. because they are protected elsewhere in the law.
I take the point the Minister made about the Protection from Harassment Act. He is right about that, but Clause 1(1)(a) goes beyond causing harassment; it refers to "alarm or distress". I must confess that I do not know of any details in statutes which would give the kind of protection which the Bill would give, where mere alarm or distress is caused. If there are such examples in our legislation, we must be told about them. I should like to know.
As for the problem that the Minister mentioned relating to paragraph (b), that is easily overcome. If one looks at the first line on page 2, if the amendment were to be accepted, it would require consequential amendment which could be done on Report, putting before the word "persons", the words "a person or". That does the trick. I hope that the Minister will keep an open mind about this, because a strong case has been made for the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may return to the point that I tried to make earlier when I gave the instance of the gentleman, or the lady, who was black, living alone in a street where all the occupants were white: and there are a few of those white occupants making the life of that person absolute hell. Are we legislating—I ask this most respectfully of my noble friend—on the basis that we know that there is an existing Act of which people do not take advantage because they are often frightened to do so, and we are passing some fresh legislation which will remove that fear, because the local authority and the police are brought in? Are we legislating now on the basis that, if on my example, it were a husband

547
and wife, they would be entitled to see the local authority, and prima facie the conditions for bringing this matter before the magistrates' court would exist? If it is a husband and wife, they can make an application. If the husband dies the day before, the widow cannot do so.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may add another point which has not been raised. I welcomed what the Minister said when he spoke to the earlier amendments, because he said that the provision was replacing recourse to an injunction for people who could not afford one. Single people cannot afford an injunction any more than couples or neighbours. In this case, I take it that the cost falls on the relevant authority, so it makes the law available to people who cannot afford it. That is important. Under the 1997 Act, the costs of course fall to the applicant. That does not bring the law to people who cannot afford it. So this remedy is needed, despite the existence of the 1997 statute. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at what he has been asked to do.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to return to this again. The Minister answered my first question clearly, and I thank him for that. What the Minister is trying to do is a good thing. I do not know whether Conservatives are allowed to say that about Labour politicians, but this one is going to say it. It is unfair to leave out the weakest possible people. At least if there are two of you, you can moan and whinge together about the little so-and-so who is misbehaving outside. The person who is alone and frightened should have greater protection. The Minister has a great deal of support for this measure. I hope that he will think again. We are trying to help the weakest people. If this place cannot do that, we should all be abolished.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the general spirit in which the questions have been put. The answer to my noble friend Lord Mishcon is that a single person would be without remedy in this clause, because this is not a clause which is presently intended to deal with all ills that befall individuals. It is an antisocial behaviour order cast on a much wider basis and, as Members of the Committee observed earlier, completely new to our law.
However, I recognise that the amendments are not drafting amendments to improve what we have already determined; they are much more fundamental in asking us to cast the net much wider. The Government's present view is that the antisocial behaviour order is intended to be a wider remedy rather than individualised. I raise no hopes, because I know conventionally in the past that when Ministers have said, "We will give it careful consideration", that has been almost an implied promise, capable of being sued on. I am not saying that at all. I am just making it plain that I listened with care to the questions that have been put, to the propositions that have been offered, and I shall ensure that those observations are considered. It is more likely than not, even as regards the civil balance, that on the next occasion I shall say that we wish to retain our present position. That is perfectly likely and I do not
548
wish to mislead anyone. However, I have listened to the debate with care and will transmit the feeling of a significant majority of your Lordships to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Warnock: Does the Minister intend that antisocial behaviour requires that there shall be a society against which such behaviour is intentionally or otherwise directed and that a society shall consist of more than one person? Is that the basis for disregarding the powerful argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, of there being a remedy one day, hut. when the husband dies, there being no remedy the next day? Is it essential that antisocial behaviour must harm, frighten or distress more than one person?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As I have indicated, that is precisely the way in which the Bill is drafted in subsection (1)(b). A necessary precondition to the granting of the order, which a number of your Lordships have described as draconian, is:
"that such an order is necessary to protect persons in the local government area";
in other words, that there shall be a social dimension which is beyond individual harm.
I have made my position plain. There are strands which pull in different directions. Some of your Lordships say that the order is far too draconian, mitigated slightly because there must be more than one person, but others of your Lordships say that it is usefully draconian and ought to be limited to individuals. I can do no more than repeat the Government's present position and my undertaking, limited as it was, to transmit your Lordships' views.
Lord Belstead: The Minister has kindly said that he will look at the issue, which is characteristic of him. He said that if the amendment were made to the Bill the situation would be much wider. I suggest that it would be wider only because subsection (1)(b) will still exist. It means that the Bill will be more workable in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but the amendment will not make the situation much wider because subsection (I)(b) will remain on the face of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure that it would help the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because the single black man or black woman, the married partner having recently died, could not necessarily overcome paragraph (b). The order would not be necessary to protect persons in the local government area unless one agreed to the further amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We are piling hypothesis on hypothesis and I cannot usefully deconstruct those pyramidal hypotheses tonight.
Lord Goodhart: The Minister said that the Committee was divided between those who regard the Bill as too draconian and those who regard it as not draconian enough. As someone who has criticised aspects of the Bill for being too draconian, I make it clear that this amendment is not one which we would

549
regard as being draconian. We regard it as one which removes a logical inconsistency which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so clearly pointed out.
Lord Henley: I thank the Minister for going as far as he did. I assure him that I believe that the clause should not be designed to deal with the disputes of neighbours. That would be like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut or—dare I say it?—taking a chainsaw to a leylandii.
The Minister's argument is that the Protection from Harassment Act will deal with the cases in which only one individual is affected as opposed to a number of people. As I understood the Minister's earlier argument—and it was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—448witnesses are reluctant to come forward and to take action particularly in the criminal courts. That is why the Government saw such a clause as a half-way house, whereby actions can be pursued without their having to go to the criminal courts; that is, to make use of the local authority and the police authority.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, that does not apply in the case of the single individual, in particular the single black person whose spouse has recently died, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. As a result of the support I have received, I must press the Minister further. Although I intend to withdraw the amendment tonight, I, and I suspect other noble Lords, will wish to return to it at a later stage. I hope that that assurance will concentrate the minds of the Minister and his honourable and right honourable friends in the Home Office when they consider the matter. Strong feeling has been expressed by Members on all sides of the Committee. All those in favour of the Bill and of this clause—and I repeat that I am, as is my noble friend Lord Onslow—believe that the clause should cover the single individuals to whom reference has been made.
I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said, in particular by those more learned than I, and discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Home Office. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line (). leave out from first ("area") to end of line 7.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Amendment No. 5 was also a probing amendment, but the debate continued for almost half an hour. The amendment deletes the words:
"or any chief officer of police any part of whose police area lies within that area".
Can the noble Lord give an assurance as to the extent to which the police were consulted before the legislation was drafted? Which police bodies and associations were consulted and what was the response that the Home
550
Office received from the various bodies representing the police at different levels to their inclusion in this part of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Windlesham: Although those interesting and pertinent questions will elicit a reply from the Minister, I do not believe that we should pass over the amendment too quickly. It provides the Committee with its first opportunity to concentrate attention on the intermediate stage in the provision of redress. I commented on those lines in our debate on the first amendment. What the Minister said, in particular in reply to the previous amendment, fills out to a considerable extent the role of the police and the local authorities.
What is the intermediate stage? What is to happen? We need to look at the proposal because it is easy to concentrate on what is in the Bill. There is the complainant, the person whose objectionable behaviour is complained of, the court which makes the order and possibly a court which imposes a criminal penalty for breach of the order. However, there is also this obscure ground which must first be traversed by the victim who is seeking redress. Therefore, the complainant must satisfy the relevant authority, which is either the local authority or the police. They must consult each other before making an application. How will they respond when a complainant comes forward in pursuit of a remedy?
The complainant must show that he has been subjected to an antisocial manner within the meaning of Bill. Harassment, alarm or distress must have been caused or might have been caused. Two or more persons not of the same household need to be involved unless the persuasive tongue of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, manages to reduce that to one or more.
How are those decisions to be taken by local authorities? Local authorities already have an enormous number of responsibilities. They are conscious of how they must respond to those who are persistent complainers. I do not like the use of the word "trivial." What may appear trivial to those in authority may be very important to the individual concerned. It is for the individual to persuade a local authority or the police that the conduct does amount to grounds for an order under this particular legislation.
Who takes the decision, not just whether to accept the application and go forward to the court but whether, under this legislation, in the view of the local authority or, more particularly, in the view of the police, the conduct complained of warrants the initiation of criminal proceedings? Let us remember that there is not just the recent Protection from Harassment Act 1997 but there is also the 1994 legislation. Therefore, there are a number of avenues which are open to those who must take those decisions.
It is important that there should be some consistency in how those decisions are taken. I suspect that there is a real risk that some of the relevant authorities in certain areas will respond in one way which may be quite different from those which respond in another. Is the Home Office proposing to publish any guidelines as regards the criteria against which those decisions are to

551
be taken at the preliminary gate? That is a gate through which, if this legislation is to have any effect at all, the complainant must pass. Therefore, uniformity and criteria are important. I should like to know whether it is proposed that there should be any pilot experiments before the scheme is brought into more general effect.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his query to the Minister. In September 1997 there was a suggestion that there might be professional witnesses employed, presumably by the local authorities, in order to investigate matters which arise under this Bill. Is it therefore the intention that a local authority should be required to set up a separate department, a counter, for complaints—an enforcement agency with professional witnesses who would go out and take statements and do all manner of things necessary to bring the complaint before the court? Alternatively, are those matters which are normally dealt with by the police to be left to police forces? Do the Government have any idea at all or any assessment of how many orders they would expect to be made in a given average-size local authority or police authority area during a year? What thought has been given to those issues? It seems to me that this amendment raises for consideration the roles envisaged for both local authorities and police authorities as regards the implementation of the proposals in the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: Yet again I am seeking after enlightenment, and I always do seek after enlightenment. Will the noble Lord please tell me at which level of local authority the decisions are to be taken? Will it be the borough, county or parish council? Which level of police will be involved? To where does the complainant go?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: First, I shall deal with the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We consulted very widely. A summary of the responses to the consultation paper was placed in the Library on 18th December last year. Perhaps I may deal with something of specific interest to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The ACPO general policing committee supported the proposal that the police should be involved. We believe that it is quite fundamental that the police should be involved. It is obvious that local authorities and the police should work together; but they have different functions. Obviously local authorities support and manage their local communities in numerous ways but they do not patrol the streets, deal with vandalism or public protection as a whole. That is the role of the police. We believe that it is right that both authorities should be involved.
As regards specifics, the question was put as to guidelines. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked about particular details. We intend to issue guidelines prepared in consultation with local authorities, the police and magistrates. That process is due to start shortly. Therefore, the detailed questions about particular administrative arrangements will follow those consultative guidelines.I should have thought that before the guidelines are produced there is ample scope
552
here for authorities to decide their own procedures and their own enforcement mechanisms. After all, we should bear in mind that local authorities vary infinitely in the problems with which they must deal. The problems which an inner city authority has may be utterly different from those to be found in a country local authority in west Wales.
The level of local authority will be the district authority. Any police officer who is authorised by a chief constable or commissioner of police will be able to make the application. We believe that that will be a useful tool. I understand entirely the point behind the noble Lord's question. Consultation and guidelines will be very important. There is room for discussion. However, ACPO wants guidelines, as do the local authorities, and we propose to offer them.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. I must examine the consultation paper which was placed in the Library on 18th December. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his summary of ACPO's views.
I tabled this amendment because my understanding was that ACPO had reached a slightly different view in Scotland. That is why, when one looks at Clause 18, one finds that the police are not involved in the antisocial behaviour orders there whereas they are involved with the orders in England. That may be something which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may wish to pursue at a later stage. However, I accept that it is one of those occasions when different procedures can operate in different parts of the Kingdom.
Having said that, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the view of the police on those matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) A relevant authority shall not make such an application in respect of a person under 18 years of age without receiving a report from a Youth Offending Team.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment designed to explore the Government's thinking behind how antisocial behaviour orders for juveniles will inter-relate with other orders which may be made with regard to juveniles.
Part III creates multi-agency youth offending teams to manage and supervise individual young offenders and act as the focal co-ordinating point for the many significant reforms that this Bill introduces to the youth justice system. These teams will operate on a county-wide basis led by the social services authority for the area. However, the antisocial behaviour orders which can be served on anyone over the age of 10 years will operate at the district level, as the Minister has just said, which is consistent with the need to respond to neighbourhood nuisance. But in the two-tier areas of the country, this level of local authority is not the social services authority. There is therefore concern that

553
antisocial behaviour orders will be applied to juveniles independently of the youth offending teams and perhaps contrary to the approach that the team may have applied to a particular offender.
It is vital that all approaches to be applied to a particular young offender flow through the work of the youth offending team in order to ensure proper co-ordination between agencies and consistent application of approach. Thus, an application for an antisocial behaviour order should not go forward until it has been considered by the relevant youth offending team. Any delay that that might impose on the process is more than offset by the need to maintain a co-ordinated effort between agencies. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I do not wish to anticipate Clause 30 with which we shall deal later, but, if Members of the Committee will allow me. I should like to take this opportunity to object to the wording in the amendment of, "Youth Offending Team". As the whole thrust of the Bill is towards prevention, I feel that that is a very unfortunate choice of words. Surely a better name could be found for this very important kind of work.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): Perhaps I may pass on the last point made by the noble Lord because we are not dealing with youth offending teams in principle in relation to the amendment now before us. Perhaps I may deal with the substance of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady David. The Government have no argument with what the amendment is designed to achieve.
We fully support the need for consultation before applying for such an order, with all parties who may have an interest, as regards a youth who may be the subject of consideration for an antisocial behaviour order. If possible, we believe that there should be consultation with social workers, education authorities, probation officers or the relevant youth offending team, as suggested by my noble friend.
However, we do not see the provision in my noble friend's amendment as being appropriate on the face of the Bill. There are two reasons for that view. The first is a purely practical one. The youth in question may well not be an offender and not be known to a youth offending team. It may well be an important part of the process to consult with some of those who play a part in such a team, but to ask for a formal report in all such cases would not be sensible.
The second reason is a more general one and is one upon which my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn touched when replying to the previous amendment. Apart from the statutory provision for consultation between the police and the district authority which is referred to in the Bill, we are keen to leave the position as flexible as possible. This is a new and untried procedure. We will be issuing detailed guidance, on which we will be consulting all interested parties. We also expect a local strategy for dealing with such orders to be part of the crime and disorder strategy to be
554
worked out for each local area. There are a lot of different interests which should be involved depending on the circumstances in which each order is considered, and we do not want to be prescriptive or restrictive at this stage. In effect, we believe that it is for each area to draw up its own local strategy.
Nevertheless, as I said, we should like to make it clear that we endorse the principle behind my noble friend's amendment. Our discussion here will be a useful reminder of the importance of this kind of consultation to those preparing the guidance on the order. However, for the reasons that I have explained, I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.
Baroness David: I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for that reply. As I said, this is a probing amendment and we are, as has been said several times, discussing an entirely new idea which has been welcomed; indeed, it has certainly been welcomed by me. However, the local authorities which wanted the amendment tabled are anxious to obtain more information about how the whole process will work. I am grateful to hear that there will be guidance because I believe that that is what is needed. It will be useful all round. It has also been useful to get my noble and learned friend's reply. I shall of course consult with the people who wanted the amendment tabled. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In making such an application, the relevant authority shall have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: The discussion so far this afternoon has been so wide-ranging that, of my four amendments on the Marshalled List, I believe my noble friend the Minister has already replied to three of them. Indeed, specifically in relation to Amendment No. 9, I believe that my noble friend gave a very clear answer when responding to Amendment No. 7; namely, that the Government do intend to issue guidance. This amendment was intended to provide an opportunity within the Bill for the provision of guidance by the Secretary of State.
We have already heard at some length this afternoon about the problems of definition, about the problems of uniformity of application and about the problems of application in areas which have different social classes, different ethnic mixes, and so on. It is, therefore, most important not only to issue guidance at this stage but also to do so because other problems will arise from time to time. It seems to me to be essential that the Secretary of State can issue guidance to deal with specific problems as they arise. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: With deep respect to the noble Baroness, for whom we all have a great regard, I feel that there are two difficulties with her amendment. The first is that Secretaries of State do vary rather, to put it mildly. Secondly, local circumstances vary a great deal

555
as indeed do local councils. If the Secretary of State had the responsibility of giving advice—as that is what it would come to—right across the country, I believe that he would find it difficult to give advice which applied sensibly to every kind of local circumstance. Therefore, with the deepest respect to the noble Baroness, I doubt whether her amendment is acceptable.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I indicated in relation to the previous amendment, it would be the intention to issue guidance from the Secretary of State. However, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, it cannot be too prescriptive because it is intended that local strategies will be prepared in the local areas. We feel that the guidance need not be statutory. That is especially the case given the Human Rights Bill that we recently introduced, which will give further effect in domestic law to the rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be unusual for such guidance to be given the status suggested by my noble friend's amendment. Moreover, with a new procedure of this kind, there is advantage in the flexibility provided by non-statutory guidance, which can be amended in the light of experience and after consultation with those concerned. Perhaps we should also bear in mind the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in that respect.
It may also be helpful if I explain, again, how we intend to take the guidance forward. We will be consulting all interested parties on its preparation during the passage of the Bill. That, in itself, should lend the guidance extra weight while preserving the need for flexibility. For the reasons that I have given, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Baroness does so, perhaps the noble and learned Lord could answer the following question. He said that the Government will be consulting "during the passage of the Bill". However, will we have a chance to look at this guidance before the Bill leaves this Chamber and goes to another place? Alternatively, by referring to "the passage of the Bill", does the noble and learned Lord mean at a later stage? In other words, will we see the draft guidance before the Report stage?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I cannot say at present precisely when the guidance will be available. Therefore, I can give no assurance as to whether or not it will be available before the Bill has passed through this Chamber or another place. However, we shall certainly bear in mind the noble Lord's point.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his response. I regret that the amendment will not appear on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line II, after ("court") insert ("or by originating application to the county court or high court").
>The noble Baroness said: I move Amendment No. 10 on behalf of myself and my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the county court, as well as the magistrates' court, to deal with antisocial behaviour orders. I am aware that local authorities have gained much experience in recent years by using the county court route to seek injunctions against antisocial behaviour.
County courts are experienced in applying the mechanisms of civil justice; they determine points of law; and would offer a direct route to the Court of Appeal if an antisocial behaviour order is challenged on technical grounds, or if there is a need to establish a legal precedent. The ability to obtain an antisocial behaviour order from the county court will offer the police and local authorities the additional recourse of actions for contempt of court if the order is breached and the Crown Prosecution Service declines to take action. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of this amendment would be to enable applications for antisocial behaviour orders to be heard in three different courts: the magistrates' court, the county court and the High Court. The clause at present provides only for the magistrates' court. We undertook consultation on the antisocial behaviour order. We specifically drew attention to the question of the best court to deal with that matter. My noble friend Lord Williams announced to the House in a Written Answer on 18th December that a summary of the response to the consultation paper was being lodged in the Library. The overwhelming majority of the responses favoured the magistrates' court and not the county court. I think there are good reasons for that. First, many of the applications will be made by the police who have much greater familiarity with the magistrates' court than the county court or the High Court. Secondly, the enforcement of the orders by proceedings where there is a breach will take place in the magistrates' court. It seems to us sensible that both the original application for the order and its enforcement should be dealt with in the same court.
I appreciate that there are arguments along the lines of points of law being better dealt with in courts other than the magistrates' court—although some magistrates would not necessarily agree with that—but any appeal is to the Crown Court which is presided over by a professional Crown Court judge. I should have thought such a judge would be capable of dealing with points of law. For the reasons I have set out we cannot accept the amendment. I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing it.
Baroness Amos: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. The amendment was motivated by a desire to make the antisocial behaviour order procedure as flexible as possible and sensitive to the needs of the police, local authorities and the communities they serve. However, in view of the

557
response which has been given and the views which were expressed in the consultation process, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 13, after ("proved") insert ("beyond reasonable doubt").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is self-explanatory. It seeks merely to add the onus of proof of beyond reasonable doubt to the application to the magistrates' court. As we know, two or more persons—unless the noble and learned Lord agrees to think again on this matter—have to suffer from harassment, alarm or distress. They presumably make their application to the relevant authority which will either be the police or the local authority. The local authority then applies to the courts to seek an order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in that order.
This raises a number of questions. First, as I understand it, at the moment any evidence put before the court would have to be considered on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, as regards the individual who is described as the defendant, to what extent would he be involved in that court procedure and to what extent would he be legally represented? I think I understood the noble and learned Lord to say earlier that the defendant certainly would be legally represented if there was a breach of the order and he came before the courts for the courts to decide how they should resolve that breach of the order. However, it is not clear whether he would be represented at all; that is, whether he had a right of defence; whether he would be legally represented; or whether he would obtain legal aid in the magistrates' court.
It is important that the noble and learned Lord also addresses the point about the standard of proof that the magistrates' court should have to observe. As the order could prescribe some fairly onerous obligations on the person described as the defendant, it is important that these matters should be proved conclusively in the court and not just left to hearsay evidence or, as I put it, the balance of probability. I think the noble and learned Lord said earlier that the defendant had little to fear from such an order which merely prohibits him from doing certain things. We shall discuss that later. However, the things described in the order which the defendant could be prohibited from doing could be very onerous. If it was thought that he was making a nuisance of himself in a certain area, one would think it highly likely that he could be prohibited from going into that area. We shall discuss this on later amendments but that area might be an area in which he seeks to work or needs to be able to cross to get to work. Therefore the burden on him would be serious and one which the courts must take seriously. Therefore the courts need to have conclusive evidence before they make such an order. I hope, with that explanation and the self-explanatory nature of the amendment, that the noble and learned Lord will be able to satisfy my concerns. I do not know whether other noble Lords also have
558
concerns about these matters. I shall be interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: Many Members of the Committee will have views upon this matter and they will be concerned about it. However, I think that the principle behind what we have been discussing so far is that we want to make the procedure as flexible as possible. We want to make it administratively sensible and therefore we have involved the police. But we have regard to the fact that the measure might easily have involved the jurisdiction of the county court or the High Court but for the arguments that were brought forward by the Minister a moment ago.
I think it would be singularly unfortunate if we were to lose the situation that would be created if these proceedings took place in a civil court with the usual provision of an injunction to which we have been referred in the past, and if these proceedings entered very much into the criminal area by having to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. As the Committee knows, the guiding principle in the civil court is the balance of probabilities. I should have thought that this was the appropriate basis for the orders to be made under this Bill.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has raised a very important point. This is a quasi civil proceeding in a way, although it will take place before magistrates and arise out of a criminal possibility. I think that to insist on the very strict burden of proof that we have in criminal cases—which is what my noble friend Lord Henley is suggesting—may prevent what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has rightly called an injunction from being made when, on the balance of probabilities, it looks as though it should be made. I hope that my noble friend will not feel that he should press this amendment, but it raises a very interesting and important point.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised an important matter which I think deals with the framework within which we should look at this amendment. A complaint to the magistrates' court under current rules would normally be served upon the respondent to that complaint. No doubt fresh rules will be promulgated for the new procedures under this Bill, but I should be grateful to hear from the Minister what is intended. Can there be ex parte hearings before the magistrates? If it is envisaged that there should be ex parte proceedings where the complaint is not served and where, by reason of a desire for speed, the defendant is completely unaware of the making of the order, a high degree of proof should be required for the order to be made. It would not be surrounded with the safeguards for ex parte injunctions in the county court or the High Court, in all probability. Accordingly, one would require a high degree of proof in that eventuality.
On the other hand, if the complaint is to be served upon the defendant and he chooses not to appear, and absents himself, and proof of service is given, a

559
prohibitory order—which the Minister says this is—could no doubt be made on a lesser standard of proof. I shall be grateful if the Minister will outline what he sees as the framework in the rules that would be applied under the Bill.
Viscount Bledisloe: I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. If the matter was dealt with in the county court, the complainant would be able to swear an affidavit and the lady's attendance could then be dispensed with. If she is this intimidated person who has been much spoken of, that will be highly attractive to her. Will that procedure be available in the magistrates' court? Alternatively, because the magistrates' court is more used to oral evidence, will it be essential for her to verify her complaint personally? If that is necessary, will that not give rise to the same problems; namely, she will say, "I am too frightened to come, and therefore it cannot happen"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful for those questions. Before I deal with them, perhaps I may say this. While the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General dealt with earlier proposed amendments, I flicked my eye down to the definition of "local government area". The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked me whether the level of complainant authority could be as low as the parish council. I gave a shorthand reply by saying "district council". In fact it is,
"a district or London borough, the City of London, the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly; in relation to Wales, a county or county borough".
I believe that I answered the spirit of his question but not as accurately as I might have done. I hasten to correct it.
In respect of the burden of proof and the standard of proof, I understand the noble Lords' concerns. However, I believe that they are misplaced. An antisocial behaviour order is a serious matter but it is a civil matter. The criminal question does not arise until a breach is alleged. When the breach is alleged, of course the breach must be proved to the degree of sureness to which we are well accustomed in criminal matters. So one needs to look at these issues quite distinctly.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, spoke of the responsibilities of the magistrates. Those responsibilities will be at least twofold. The magistrates will have to say to themselves, "Are we so convinced on the balance of probabilities that an order should be made?" That is the first important step. The second important step is what the terms of the order should be. The terms of the order must be such as are within the spirit and letter of the Bill. The noble Lord gave an example of someone who perhaps wishes to go to work across a particular area. There is nothing to stop him doing so if he is not harassing, alarming or distressing people. Quite often— believe that it will figure in a later amendment—young people will need to go to their places of education. Nothing would stop them from doing so, provided that they do not behave in a grossly antisocial way, in the way that the order would have been cast.
560
I suggest that with his vast experience of these matters, my noble friend Lord Mishcon has put the matter right, as did the noble Lord, Lord Renton. This is a civil procedure and the magistrates would have to be guided by their clerk about the seriousness of the orders.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is right. Doubtless, an amendment of the magistrates' courts' rules is likely to be required. Even at present, as he observed, proceedings on complaint can take place in the absence of the defendant, but only if he has been proved to have been served with a summons. That is the sort of regime one would anticipate coming into effect when the new rules, if they require close scrutiny, would be put into effect.
There is a specific question as to whether or not complainants would have to attend. The complainants would not have to attend. Evidence can be given by the local authority witness or the police witness. So the vice to which the noble Viscount referred would be avoided.
The order stage is genuinely a civil process. There may well have been no actual offence; there is certainly no penalty; simply, I repeat again, the equivalent of an injunction.
The penalty for breach of an injunction may well itself be imprisonment. But to obtain an injunction one does not have to prove matters beyond reasonable doubt or so that the court is sure on a criminal standard. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the civil standard of proof, although described as a balance of probabilities, is not itself set in stone. I think that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who well said many years ago that in civil cases—and it is the commonplace of the burden of proof in civil cases such as defamation—the court always directs the jury, or itself where there is no jury, that the more serious the allegation the more important it is to have a high standard of proof. Therefore in civil cases it is axiomatic that it is not just 51 per cent., and judges and magistrates direct themselves accordingly. It is a flexible instrument. If the court has particular concerns, one would expect it to apply a higher test. I believe that it is a matter best left to the courts.
In this context of general anxiety about the safeguarding of the individual's interests, I have already mentioned Amendment No. 13 and shall revert to that in its appropriate place. We therefore feel that it is wrong in principle to specify a criminal standard. They are civil orders. There is no risk of imprisonment to the defendant. He does not even have a criminal record.
Having answered the questions, I hope, reasonably fully, I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may say one thing in support of the noble Lord. We want to try to keep as many people as possible away from criminal proceedings, especially when they are young. Once they are enmeshed it is extremely hard to get them out. This system can become a method of warning, consequentially stopping people going down the ghastly line of juvenile courts, imprisonment, and so on. If it has that effect, it will be very good.

561
If we put standards of criminal proof into the provision, I suspect that it will make the issue more criminal than civil. That is an important point to bear in mind.
Viscount Bledisloe: The Minister has not fully answered my question. I understand that if some lady complains that children have been making a row outside her house, knocking on her window all night, and so on, a representative of the local authority can go to her house, experience the incident, and give evidence of that event. He cannot say that it has been happening for the past six months night after night. Alternatively, the children may be wise enough to know that the representative is there and may avoid the situation. But if the evidence of the lady herself is necessary, will it be essential for her to attend, or may she either give evidence or make a statement to the local authority which the local authority reads out or in some way adopts?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I confirm what I did not make plain earlier. There will be no requirement for the complainant, the old lady to whom the noble Viscount refers, to attend court.
Lord Henley: On the question of burden of proof, I am entirely satisfied. It would be difficult for me not to be entirely satisfied when the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Renton, have supported the noble Lord, Lord Williams, as has my noble friend Lord Onslow. With that support, the noble Lord should be well pleased. I can say to the noble Lord that I have no intention of coming back to this issue at Report stage or later.
The noble Lord did not address what might be described as the "going to work" issue, which is important. We shall return to the matter on a later amendment. It is important to remember that subsection (4) makes it quite clear that the order can prescribe anything. The words are:
"doing anything prescribed in the order".
It therefore could prohibit individuals from going across a particular area, irrespective of whether they are, or are not, causing harassment, alarm or distress as they go across that area. As I said, we shall return to the matter. As regards this amendment, I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation given and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 16. leave out ("anything described in the order") and insert ("further anti-social acts similar to those proved on the application").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of Clause 1 allows a court to prohibit a defendant from "doing anything". That has to be read in the context of subsection (5), which states:
"The prohibitions that may be imposed…are those necessary for the purpose of protecting persons…from further anti-social acts".
In practice, I suggest that the question of what a magistrate thinks is necessary for that purpose can be highly subjective with the consequence that the order made could be extremely wide.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said earlier that the antisocial behaviour order was analogous to a civil injunction—and so indeed it is. But if an injunction was made by a civil court, what that court would prohibit would be the continuance of the course of conduct that gave rise to the application for the injunction. I suggest to the noble Lord that this Bill should do the same. It should ban continuance of conduct similar to that which led to the application of an order. Incidentally, it would also have the advantage of making the clause slightly shorter by rendering subsection (5) redundant. Why do the Government not restrict the order in that way? I accept that there may be a reason and am interested to hear the noble Lord's reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said in relation to the previous amendment that an order would not be made to exclude the defendant in the case envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, from crossing an area that he needs to cross in order to get to work. It is, however, very difficult to see what provision there is in the present clause to prevent that. Therefore I suggest that the Government should consider restricting, in the way proposed in Amendments Nos. 12 and 15, the ambit of an antisocial behaviour order. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will look favourably upon this amendment, at least in principle— not least because he seemed to imply, when replying to Amendment No. 3, that it was the Government's intention that the court's powers should be restricted in the way suggested by the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: There are two areas of concern in relation to the words,
"doing anything described in the order".
One is the curfew; the other is the exclusion order. The temptation for a court—for example, in the situation I described earlier of playing football outside an old lady's house—is to say, "All right, nobody goes near her house after eight o'clock at night"; or alternatively "You stay indoors from nine o'clock every night." Restrictions of such a wide ambit would come within the wording of subsection (4) and should not be there.
Lord Henley: I voiced my concerns earlier about the use of the words,
"anything described in the order".
However, having said that, I see that there could be a case, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, put it, for exclusion orders which in fact the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would rather not see. Therefore, for that reason, I cannot go so far as to support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Monson.

563
As I said, I have some considerable alarm, or possibly distress, in relation to,
"anything described in the order".
I wonder whether some other small limit could be imposed on "anything". I make that point merely to say that I will give some thought to the matter and possibly come forward with a further suggestion at Report stage. I do not think that I could support a limit as extensive as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It would exclude exclusions, which would be a useful part of the armoury available to magistrates.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's amendment and the purpose behind it, as I think does the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The effect of what is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would be little different in practice from what is contained in the clause at present. I say quite specifically that we would generally expect the prohibitions in the order to reflect the defendant's current behaviour.
However, there might be some circumstances where what the noble Lord proposes could be too limiting and lead to endless argument about what is a "similar" antisocial act. There may be different forms of continual nuisance, for instance in a shopping centre, which is quite distressing to some people and quite alarming to others. One does not want to be too restrictive in what is intended to be—I echo the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Mishcon—a flexible remedy and not too circumscribed.
However, we have to bear in mind that when both Houses of Parliament have passed the Human Rights Bill, which I hope will not be too long, all of these provisions will have to be construed under that over-arch. That will be extremely important. These orders are to be local and geared to the needs of a local community. They need a certain amount of flexibility, as the phraseology presently allows. We would not expect them to be used inflexibly by magistrates and, if they were, that could be put right readily on appeal. So, generally, I believe that the consequence of the power that is given would produce the conclusion that is desired by the noble Lord's amendment.
One finds under subsection (5) of Clause 1 that:
"The prohibitions that may be imposed by an anti-social behaviour order are those necessary for the purpose of protecting persons in the local government area from further anti-social acts by the defendant".
We should have thought that the introduction of proportionality is sufficient to meet what I recognise might be an adverse consequence if the provision were not there.
Lord Goodhart: In view of the noble Lord's assurance that in general the orders that are expected to he made are likely to be in the form envisaged in the amendment, I am happy to withdraw it and beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) For the purpose of determining whether the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above is fulfilled, the court shall disregard any act of the defendant which he shows was reasonable in the circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: I mentioned this provision earlier, so I hope to be reasonably brief. The amendment indicates that an order should not be made where a defendant can show that any of his acts are reasonable in the circumstances. That meets in part the various proposals put forward that some complainants are unduly tetchy, unduly susceptible or unduly sensitive. It may well be that apparently antisocial actions may have been reasonable in the circumstances although that was not immediately apparent.
We originally took the view that the reasonableness of the behaviour would be one of the factors taken into account by the court in assessing whether the need for an order be made out. Following debate at Second Reading in this House and outside comments received, it was quite plain that there was substantial concern from a number of quarters that the clause as presently drafted is not sufficiently tight.
We paid attention to the remarks at Second Reading, and to the representations, and believe that the concern is valid. We have therefore included the defence of "reasonableness" on the face of the Bill. I take examples at random. A charity worker, for instance, is collecting door to door; an aircraft company has aircraft flying over a residential area during permitted hours. There are all sorts of actions which might be "offensive" but where a sensible explanation ought to provide a defence. That is one of the reasons, bearing in mind what was said by your Lordships and others, for our belief that the provision should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I much appreciate the spirit and intention that underlie the amendment. However, it seems probable that many of the people complained about will be children or young people for whom it will be much harder to show that their actions were reasonable than it will be for adults. I should be interested to hear from the Government how that difficulty may be overcome.
Lord Goodhart: I believe that Amendment No. 13 is defective in two ways. First, it will apply only where the defendant's actions are reasonable whereas it should apply also to circumstances where the actions are not entirely unreasonable but the misbehaviour itself is trivial. An example might be when someone produces cooking smells from a flat which cause genuine distress, but not serious distress, to the neighbours. That is not behaviour which should be capable of being made the subject of this very powerful order. Amendment No. 13 should therefore apply not only to actions which can be proved to be reasonable but also to actions which in the circumstances do not justify proceedings before a magistrates' court.

565
The second defect in the amendment is that it puts the burden of proof on the defendant to show that his actions were reasonable. Surely the burden of proof ought in general to be on the applicant for the order to show not only the existence of something technically within the present definition of "antisocial behaviour"—namely, something which caused alarm or distress—but also that it was likely to cause a level of alarm or distress sufficiently high to justify the making of an antisocial behaviour order.
Those defects led me to prefer the formula in Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 which I moved and withdrew at an earlier stage of the debate. I ask the Government to look carefully at what I consider the potential defects in the amendment to see if something more effective can be drafted to deal with the subject more thoroughly.
Baroness Warnock: The intention of the amendment in seeking to limit the possibility of triviality or misunderstanding falling within subsection (1)(a) is very good. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will consider the use of some alternative to the word "reasonable". Noble Lords will be expecting a lot of orders to be made against young persons, as has already been said. The problem is not only that they will find difficulty in proving that what they did was reasonable but also that a lot of the things that they do are not particularly reasonable but are done out of thoughtlessness or high spirits or some other defect of youth which may well cause the required degree of exasperation or distress. I believe that some other way of limiting the definition of what falls within subsection (1)(a) other than having to prove that the behaviour complained of was reasonable should be incorporated in this kind of amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am obliged for those comments. Obviously, when dealing with a new remedy magistrates' courts will have to adapt their procedures, particularly when defendants are not represented. It seems to me that the Magistrates' Association would undoubtedly wish to join in the consultations with the aim of giving indications to magistrates about how to deal with children and young persons or people who may be inarticulate and not assisted.
On the increasingly inflexible model that our courts adopt, I see no difficulty in a court itself being a shade more proactive and finding out from someone who is disadvantaged what the true circumstances are. All that has to be shown by the defendant on the civil balance of probabilities is that his action was reasonable in all circumstances.
For a number of reasons, I do not believe that cooking smells will be a difficulty in practice. First, the order cannot be made except within the constraints of Clause 1(1)(b); namely,
"that such an order is necessary to protect persons in the local government area in which the harassment, alarm or distress was caused or was likely to be caused ".
566
In the inquiry into the smell, whatever kind of smell it was—Kentucky Fried Chicken or tandoori lamb—surely the defendant would say, "But I have planning permission; I have complied with the building regulations; I have met all the constraints which the local authority put upon me. This is just trivial." I suggest that such a complaint would not get beyond the first stage of local authority approval.
As far as concerns domestic smells—for example, if someone does not like the smell of fishcake batter wafting over the garden, or the barbecue irritates the next-door neighbour—I stress that this law is not for those eventualities. I believe that someone going to the local authority or the chief police officer in those circumstances would receive a very short answer. I delete any expletive that might be added to the advice given. It is plain that, if one wants to be fanciful, one can produce all kinds of difficulties about what is intended to be a useful measure of public support.
I say in answer to the noble Baroness that, of course, young people are sometimes thoughtless and their behaviour just high spirits. In those circumstances there would be no question of an order being capable of being made because the situation would not fall within Clause 1(1)(b) or Clause 1(5). This provision is being introduced to safeguard the defendant's interests. Examples can be conjured up but they are simply the product of imagination.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) When considering an application for an order under subsection (1) above, the court shall take into account evidence provided by a relevant authority that witnesses are being or may be intimidated.").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 14 but perhaps I may revert for a moment to the previous amendment. The earliest dispute between neighbours to which I was called did relate to cooking smells, but in a tenement in Cable Street, not the kind of middle-class scenario described by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, of barbecues in gardens.
Amendment No. 14 is another of my amendments to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has already provided an answer. This one relates to placing on the face of the Bill the possibility of having so-called professional witnesses. As the Minister said earlier, the people who are harassed and distressed are often themselves poor, vulnerable or inarticulate. It is therefore important that courts should accept evidence from housing managers, police officers and other professional witnesses before an order is made.
This probing amendment is also intended to allow the Minister an opportunity to tell us about the progress of the working group which is looking at the problem of witness protection where witnesses are harassed or threatened or are afraid to give evidence. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to express some support for this amendment. It is important that we

567
dispel the myth that defendants will not know who is complaining about them. I believe that the process of investigation, which I am certain will include some form of attempted mediation, will ensure that it is not possible to make a secret complaint and that, although the complainant may not have to go to court, he or she will be well known to the defendant. We should not be under any misapprehension that such a degree of protection will be possible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In dealing with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hilton and her point on cooking, I should say that people in all parts of the world and from all social groups cook.
The amendment identifies a real problem with which, in part, the creation of the antisocial behaviour order sought to deal. As my noble friend pointed out, the need to protect witnesses who are the victims of antisocial behaviour should be dealt with to some extent by the fact that professional witnesses can give evidence of those matters that are necessary to make out the claim for the order. That was in the minds of the draftsmen. As my noble friend Lord Williams said, in those circumstances there is strictly no need for the relevant authority to call an intimidated witness; the position can be dealt with by calling what my noble friend Lady Hilton described as a professional witness. To a large extent that is dealt with by including the words in Clause 1 (1)(a),
"caused or was likely to cause harassment".
A description can therefore be given of the kinds of events that are taking place.
I fully take on hoard the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie; that is, that a case must be made out, and in many cases the making out of the case will identify to the respondents to the application who the complainant or complainants are. The position of the vulnerable witness, both in relation to court and in relation to their protection in a wider sense—namely, from intimidation before or threats after—is being dealt with by the interdepartmental review concerned with vulnerable witnesses which the Home Secretary announced in another place on 13th June.
The review is wide ranging and covers procedures relating to the investigation stage through to the trial itself and beyond. The work of the review is nearing completion. A further meeting is to take place in March and we expect some product from the work not long after that. I believe that deals both with the point in relation to the amendment and also with the inquiries involving the working group on witnesses. In those circumstances, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help me once again. Let us assume that we have a case of a frightened couple who have a gang of yobs running up and down the street, making noise and generally causing mayhem. The couple go to the local authority who, with police support, say that it must stop. So far so good.
568
However, the gang of yobs says, "We are not a gang of yobs. We are the Salvation Army and all we have been doing is walking about singing hymns". Somebody must provide proof. Will not that be difficult when one has what is hearsay evidence? I ask this question in a spirit of genuine inquiry. The yob may deny the charge. Do we not then become involved with human rights? The yob may say, "I have had an injunction brought against me by a witness on hearsay evidence".
Does the noble and learned Lord see where my mind is going and can he please illuminate me?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The couple may go to the local authority or the police saying that a gang of yobs is making their lives a misery and the police or local authority will investigate. If that antisocial behaviour is taking place, it is more likely than not that the police or local authority investigator will be able to see it for themselves. If the gang of yobs then says, "We are actually Salvation Armyists trying to encourage proselytisation in the area", as a matter of reality they can lay that before the magistrates' court and the respondents can evaluate the strength of the claim.
In relation to hearsay, it must be remembered that these are civil proceedings and that in certain circumstances hearsay is admissible by statute in civil proceedings. That does not give rise to problems, as long as it is within the four corners of the Act, under the human rights convention. Though I understand the anxiety expressed by the noble Earl, in reality it will not give rise to a problem in relation to being able to prove the applications and the victim will not have to give evidence. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Can the Minister tell us whether the forms have been made out for antisocial behaviour orders? If so, will there be an automatic condition on the form which says that the person subject to the order shall not make contact with specified people, by whom I mean the complainants?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not know whether a precise form has been prepared, though I can find out and write to the noble Earl. Whether the form should contain a condition such as that suggested by the noble Earl will depend upon the circumstances of each application. It will be recalled that the form of the Bill is such that the court can make any order with a view to preventing any sort of conduct. It seems to us that if flexibility is what is sought to prevent that happening, we do not want a form which must be used in every case with a specified form of order; we want a magistrates' court to address itself to the specific case and decide what is best to protect, the community against that antisocial behaviour.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: No legislation will cope with the problems raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. That is one of the realities of life. But I am

569
grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("(not less than two years)").
The noble Lord said: Again, I can speak briefly to Amendment No. 16 which has been grouped with Amendment No. 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord spoke on Amendment No. 3 about a lack of trust of the courts in this clause in terms of what discretion was left to them. I take the extreme libertarian view, such as I am, and give the courts total discretion to do whatever they want for as long as they like.
The Government take the view that, whatever the courts do, it must be for two years or more; the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, puts forward a different variation whereby he gives them full discretion up to two years. I shall be interested, first, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and also to hear the Government's response to these points and why they feel that the discretion of the magistrates' courts should be limited in this matter. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 17.
Lord Goodhart: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 17. In so far as it proposes that there should be no minimum duration of the order, I support Amendment No. 16. However, the Act should fix a maximum and not a minimum duration of an antisocial behaviour order.
Why is it wrong to impose a minimum duration? The answer is that the order is close to being a form of punishment. The defendant is being told that if he does this or that, he can be sent to prison even though he has broken no general law of the land. Most people against whom an antisocial behaviour order will be made will be young. Two years is a long time in a teenager's life. There will be a great deal of change and development in their personalities during that period. Being subject to an antisocial behaviour order will involve a stigma and is likely to be a matter of local knowledge. In those circumstances there may well he cases in which it would be right to make an order for a term shorter than two years.
It would be absurd to make an antisocial behaviour order that lasts for only a week, but for a young person it may well be reasonable to say, "We are imposing the order on you for a year"—perhaps even as little as six months—"and if you comply with the order and do not commit any breaches of it, then it will come to a stop at the end of that period. But if you go back to your old habits of behaviour, it will always be possible to impose another order on you".
570
Why then impose a maximum time for the order? Again I say that the order is very close indeed to being a sentence. It is normal for Parliament to specify the length of a sentence, and that is something it should do here. The effect of the amendment is to make the maximum period of the order two years. I am not specifically wedded to the concept of a two-year maximum—there may be a case for making the maximum length of the order a somewhat longer period—but I do suggest that there is no case for a power to make an indefinite order. If a defendant has had an order imposed on him or her and has complied with it for a period of two years, three years, five years or whatever the maximum length of the order may be, the defendant is surely entitled to have that order lifted and to be treated again in the same way as if he or she were not subject to the order. The order can, of course, be imposed again if there is a resumption of the harassing behaviour. But the defendant should surely be entitled at some point to a discharge from the order in the same way as he or she is entitled at some point, if he or she commits a breach of that order, to a discharge from his sentence. I cannot move my amendment at this stage, although I would if I could.
7 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: Perhaps I may raise a point which is somewhat related to this. Am I right in understanding that under subsections (6) and (8) as presently drafted it is impossible for a court to make an interim order pending, let us say, the rehearing of the matter? Is that not a serious defect in the light of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, a moment ago?
Let us suppose that a matter comes before the court. There is prima facie evidence of nasty behaviour which frightens an old lady. The defendant says that he wants to call lots of witnesses, or the court runs out of time, and so the matter cannot be dealt with and has to be adjourned. Surely it is essential that in those circumstances the courts can say, "Right, you can have an adjournment but until we come back you are not to do X, Y and Z". As I understand it, at the moment the court cannot do that because the order has to be for a period of not less than two years and cannot be discharged within that period except with the consent of both parties. If we are to be able to protect the complainant, surely it is essential that when the matter has come to court once and is then postponed, perhaps for reports from the youth authority, an interim order can be made which will lapse automatically when the matter comes back.
The Earl of Onslow: It is essential, especially bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said earlier on, for flexibility to apply in this case. By imposing a minimum period of two years, one is taking away the very flexibility which is part of the attraction of the scheme. I accept that there is a slight illogicality in the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it cannot run for more than five years. In other words, you must stop being antisocial for five years and after five years and one day you can go back to being antisocial. There is an element of illogicality about that.

571
However, as the noble Lord said, the majority of people who are going to be difficult are young males. Let us be frank about that. It would not be my late great-aunt Vera who was 103. It would not be her. It will be young males. Young males eventually grow up to be either Lord Onslow or Lord Williams of Mostyn. We grow up, we hope, to be sensible human beings and not to behave like yobs. Therefore, it is essential that there should be the flexibility that was attractively proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. If you take out the two years you give back to the magistrates' courts, which are supposed to be, and are on the whole, satisfactory local justice dispensers, the freedom to give a six-month order, a nine-month order and so on. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall respond to both Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. In answer to the specific question of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, there is no power at the moment for an interim order. There are two answers to the problem. First, since we have the original filter that a private individual complainant cannot make use of this procedure and it has to go through the local authority and the police first, one would expect the necessity for interim orders to be limited. However, I am bound to say that the noble Viscount raised an interesting question and I undertake to give thought to it.
On the substance of Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, perhaps I may explain how we view the order. We have included in the clause a minimum duration of two years to emphasise the very serious nature of the order. A number of noble Lords have been good enough to support the Government's stance in recognising the problem and also rightly indicating that it is a novel step and a serious action which affects the individual and therefore ought to be marked with a minimum duration which will indicate to the appropriate authorities—the local authority and the police—how they are to deal with these matters. In other words, this tells them not to seek orders lightly or for trivial incidents but where there is a real problem in a particular locality. In many ways they are a last resort before criminal sanctions.
Replying specifically to the noble Earl, it is important that the minimum duration is not set in stone. He will see that the order can be varied before the end of the period. What we have done is to introduce flexibility within our overall scheme. Under Clause 1(7) the applicant—the local authority or the police—or the defendant,
"may apply by complaint to the court … for it to be varied or discharged by a further order".
So we have the flexibility there. There is variation or discharge by a further order. Subsection (8) states that no order,
"shall he discharged before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date of service of the order",
except with the consent of both parties. It is important to bear in mind that the parties there referred to are the applicant and the defendant. So it is not the individual complainant, as it were, who has the right to agree or disagree.
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord is seeking flexibility, rather than pursuing the amendments that we have
572
pursued, might it not be better to follow the line that his colleagues north of the Border are suggesting? I refer him to Clause 20(7), which states:
"An order to which this subsection applies—
(a) shall have effect for a period specified in the order or indefinitely",
which seems to give the courts there the absolute flexibility which the noble Lord seeks and certainly far more than he is giving to the courts in England under the provisions for England.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The difference between practice north and south of the Border is that, historically, we have dealt with these problems differently. We have scrupulously gone out to consultation within our jurisdiction—I say that without disrespect to the former Lord Advocate—and it received wide support. Views differed north of the Border particularly vis-à-vis the respective involvement of the police authority and the local authority. What we have here is a scheme that gives a minimum duration of two years. In other words, it is saying to the police, to the local authority and to the court, "Do not use this tool except in circumstances where it is manifestly justifiable".
Circumstances may change. The noble Earl was good enough to say that at least two Members present in your Lordships' House had grown up to be mature and were no longer yobbish.
A noble Lord: Only two?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Only two were mentioned. It was a very discreet separation of the sheep from the goats.
After the two-year order has been imposed, with these indicators specifically relevant to them—in other words, one is saying to the applying authority "this is serious"; one is saying to the court and the defendant that it is serious and reflecting to the local community that all relevant participants are taking its seriously—if appropriate, then the applying authority and the defendant, can go to court and agree on a limitation of time. I repeat, if the defendant refrains from antisocial behaviour of such seriousness that it has justified intervention and court sanction, he will have no criminal record and the obligation only to behave lawfully. That is the virtue of having a civil order.
The minimum duration is not a burden on any individual unless he or she wishes to restart the previous pattern of activity. As I said a moment or two ago, we consulted widely on the proposed two-year minimum duration and received widespread support. We believe it to be an important part of the order. I stress that if a court does not believe that a case has been made out for the minimum period of time, it is better not to make an order at all.
As regards Amendment No. 17, I repeat what I said earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and his general review of Clause 1. This is not a tool to deal with petty irritations, grievances or disputes between neighbours. The minimum duration is a mark of

573
seriousness. We believe that everyone will understand that our scheme is intended to be a serious remedy for a serious problem. There is flexibility, but that lies within the scheme that we have set. It may seem harsh and severe, but I believe that it will not be such in practice. We cannot accept either of these amendments.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Lord for that point. I shall look carefully at what he has said. I am grateful for his reaction to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and his point about interim orders.
I have one further point to make on my amendment. Let us assume that abuse has taken place and all the appropriate procedures have been gone through; the local authority and the police have consulted each other. They then go to court and establish a case for making such an order, with the evidence pointing to the fact that such an order should be made. However, there is one exception: that the court does not feel that the matter is serious enough to warrant a two-year provision. I believe that the local authority would find it very difficult to persuade the public that this was not a nonsense. Every aspect of the procedure has been satisfied, with the one exception that the court is not satisfied that an order should be for as long as two years. The court would not have a discretion to make such an order for one year.
I ask the noble Lord to think very carefully about that point between now and another stage of the Bill. As I said, I do not intend to press this amendment tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, might have other views about his own amendment. This is a matter to which we shall need to return, particularly in the light of the rather different provision in Scotland where the courts have been entrusted with greater flexibility. 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to delete subsection (8) of Clause 1 which requires that the local authority or the chief officer of police, shall, in effect, have a veto over the discharge of any antisocial behaviour order within the period of two years from the date when it is made.
I can see that if an antisocial behaviour order is made for a minimum of two years, it could be argued that there should not be a power at all to discharge it before the end of that period. No doubt the Government have appreciated—as I am sure all Members of the Committee have—that there may be circumstances in which a defendant has shown a substantial change in his behaviour before the expiration of the order. It may be that a young tearaway against whom an order was made has settled down, has a steady girlfriend and a steady job, and is a respectable citizen. In those circumstances it is right that it should be possible to return to the court to ask for the order to be discharged.
In such situations why should it not be for the court to decide whether the discharge is justified? Why should the council or the chief officer of the police have a veto? It is wrong that the prosecutor should have a veto over the exercise of the court's discretion in many circumstances. In particular, it is contrary to the principle that the prosecution does not involve itself with sentencing. For that reason, if for no other, I wish this power of veto to be removed.
I wonder how far the Government have appreciated another problem. The power of veto will create problems for a local authority or chief officer of police. It will clearly be their duty to consider whether to consent to the discharge of the order. Again, that duty will clearly be subject to judicial review. Is it really desirable that this duty should be imposed on a local authority or the chief officer of police? Would it not be better that, as on the original application, the local authority or chief officer of police should put before the court any evidence it or he has to show that the order is still needed and that it or he should be entitled to cross-examine the subject of the order on his evidence, which he is putting forward to show that the order is not needed?
Therefore, it may well be a considerable improvement to remove this veto and simply to make the applicants to the order, and the subject of the order, free to put forward the case for or against discharge in exactly the same way as they were free to put forward their case for or against the making of the additional order. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar): I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 18 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 19.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I shall speak very briefly to my amendment, which is grouped with Amendment No. 18. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, stated earlier that there were occasions when, with the consent of both parties, as set out in Clause 8, it would be possible to discharge the order. Our amendment takes that just a little further. It is self-explanatory. It makes it clear that, where there are exceptional circumstances the court shall be able to discharge the order without the consent of both parties. As a safeguard we have made it clear that we believe that the court should state its reasons on such occasions. I hope that the noble Lord follows the reasoning behind our amendment. I shall be very interested to hear his response when he responds to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
The Earl of Onslow: When the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke something immediately came to mind. It is bound to be much easier for a police authority or a local authority not to give consent because that involves making a decision which may then be proved wrong. People in all walks of life tend to take that view. It seems to be wrong that somebody who has reformed, grown up, changed his name to Mostyn Onslow, and is behaving well, should not be allowed to show that to

575
the court. Just because officials, be they the police or the local authority, do not want to get involved—and that is a risk—he should not be prevented from showing that he has reformed, without idleness stopping him from so doing.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support my noble friend's amendment. I began by thinking that the antisocial behaviour order was unsupervised. On the face of the Bill it remains as such, because there is nothing in it about supervision by an officer of the local authority. It is becoming quite clear that there needs to be a review system. Clearly, how can a request for discharge of an order be brought forward without formal consultation?
Are the Government to establish a formal review process? If so, will that be specified on the face of the Bill or in guidance? It will certainly be necessary. I have another question. The Bill refers to the "parties". Does that mean the defendant and the complainant or the defendant and the local authority? Can that point be clarified?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As I said earlier, the word "parties" refers to the applicant authority on the one hand and the defendant on the other. The whole scheme is designed to avoid the individual who is harassed, alarmed or distressed having to be the complainant or party.
I have to resist both amendments. We believe that there are some misconceptions here. No prosecutor is involved. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the prosecutor, but there is no such beast. The Bill as drafted allows for an order to be discharged if both sides agree. There may well be circumstances in which that would be sensible. After all, these are local remedies. I accept entirely what the noble Earl says about the likelihood of such acts being committed by young males. But let us suppose that a teenager goes away to college where he is growing up and maturing. He may move to a different area. That is the kind of change which fundamentally affects the basis of the order. In those circumstances, we would expect there to be no difficulties in discharging the order, but we do not believe that we should go further than that.
The order is not a penalty. There is no prosecutor. The order prohibits antisocial behaviour only. It does not interfere in the defendant's everyday lawful and socially acceptable activities. There is no criminal record implication. All that the defendant knows, and is made to understand, is that he has behaved in such a way that the powers of the court are attached to him. If he ceases his wrong activity, there is no sanction at all. There is no interference with his personal liberty. We do not want to give the signal that the order bans activity which will become acceptable in time. Flexibility is built in so that both parties can agree for an order to be discharged.
I turn now to Amendment No. 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, which relates to exceptional circumstances. There is a danger that a cottage industry may grow up relating to the discharge of orders. That would benefit the legal profession, but no one else.
576
There will be endless opportunities for requests for courts to discharge orders except in exceptional circumstances. If there are truly exceptional circumstances, such as I specified a moment ago, to justify the discharge of the order, there will be no reason for the police and the local authority not to consent to it. We do not want to open up a potential area for legal dispute. That would be a waste of time for the police and the local authorities. This is not an unduly totalitarian approach. I repeat my earlier point: all that this is doing is telling X or Y, "Don't behave unlawfully." That presents no great difficulty. We are all under that obligation. The obligation is simply being reduced to writing by a court.
Lord Henley: I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that occasionally an order can go further than telling an individual that he must not behave unlawfully. We have referred to occasions when it might be suitable for an order to exclude an individual from given areas. Does the noble Lord accept that that makes things somewhat different in relation to his summing up of this amendment as opposed to the position of a court telling an individual that he cannot do certain things and that he cannot behave illegally?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not—because of the nature of the order and the nature of the facilities and protection built into the provisions. The police have to be satisfied. They have to consult the local authority and vice versa. The court has to be satisfied about the nature of the order it is making. An order can be varied if circumstances change, but there is no criminal record implication. It is a serious step that will be taken by a court only if it is really necessary in the public interest. We do not think that there is any analogy with mandatory sentences. This power is intended to be severe, but it is also intended to be appropriate. We cannot accept these amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the noble Lord for reclarifying the point about the two parties. That leads me to ask a further question. I think that we have established that the local authority will have to review a case before seeking a discharge. Will the local authority be required to contact the original complainants and will they be required to give their consent to the local authority seeking a discharge of such an order?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is the sort of problem which is likely to be addressed by local authorities using their discretion on the one hand. It is also likely to be part of the consultation programme about the production of guidelines, to which my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General referred earlier.
Lord Dholakia: Does the Minister accept that making an order is ultimately a judicial decision taken by magistrates and that it is therefore right and proper that the magistrates or the court should discharge the

577
order? Nobody should have the right to interfere in that decision other than to be consulted about the appropriateness of what is required.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely agree. We have looked at this with due seriousness. As the noble Lord indicated, it is the magistrates who impose an order and ultimately it must be the magistrates who reach a conclusion about its discharge. We say that both parties must consent. Both parties do not have to consent to variation, but both do have to consent to discharge. We think that that is reasonable.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not like to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, because much of what he says seems reasonable. However, it seems totally unfair that if the magistrates say, "This chap has grown up; he is reasonable; it is now time that the order was discharged", a policeman or a local authority officer, for perfectly normal reasons of self-protection—because they will feel safer if they say no—has the power to veto the discharge. There is then no way that the magistrates can say that they think that discharging the order is right. It seems wrong that somebody should have the power to veto a court's decision just because he does not like it and is covering himself.
We should trust the magistrates. We trust them with lots of other things. So why can we not trust them to say, "Yes, this person is behaving; he has now grown up; there is no further reason for the order and were it not for the fact that the police are worried we would discharge it?" I find that hard to believe, yet mostly I have considerable sympathy with the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry to be repetitious, but this is an order of, in one sense, last resort before the use of criminal sanctions. It is intended to be serious. It is not intended to be an easy let-out. It is not intended that any court should be able to impose an order thinking, "By the way, this can be reduced without the agreement of the applicant authority." We are quite firm on this point. We believe that we must approach the matter firmly and resolutely. I am sorry to say, without discourtesy, that we do not intend to give way on the amendments. Much thought has been given to these provisions because the problem has been approached and attacked in a number of different ways in different amendments. We are satisfied that we have got it right. We may not have, but we are morally certain we have.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, took issue with me over my description of the applicant in such cases being analogous to a prosecutor. That is little more than a play on words because this is a quasi-criminal procedure. It is certainly not an ordinary civil procedure. It is a quasi-criminal procedure in which the local authority or the chief officer of police is playing a role which is virtually indistinguishable from that of the prosecutor in a criminal prosecution. That is why I believe that the analogy is perfectly fair.
578
Frankly, the noble Lord did not answer my question about why the discretion of the court should be excluded by requiring the consent of the applicant. It was said that removal would lead to a cottage industry in applying for discharges, but the noble Lord did not disagree with my statement that the decision of the local authority or chief officer would be capable of being judicially reviewed. Therefore, what is barred to lawyers by one route comes back through another. I strongly believe that this amendment represents a fairer and better system than that proposed by the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but it is one to which I may return on a future occasion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
[Amendment No.19 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Requirements specified in an anti-social behaviour order shall. as far as is practicable. be such as to avoid—

(a) any conflict with an individual's religious beliefs; and

(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which he normally works or attends an educational establishment.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak to Amendment No. 20 briefly. I imagine that noble Lords prefer to adjourn for dinner fairly soon. I believe that we shall adjourn very soon after the Committee has dealt with this amendment. Amendment No. 20 is tabled as a probing amendment. To some extent I touched on it earlier when I asked particularly about those cases where an exclusion order had been made by the court and how an individual would be able to cope if, for example, his place of work was on one side of the excluded area and his place of residence was on the other side. I asked whether exceptions could be made.
For the sake of clarity, I should explain that the amendment has been lifted from Clause 9(4) where such an exclusion is set out. I should like to ask the Government why they believed it necessary to make an exception in Clauses 8 and 9(4), which deal with parenting orders, but not in Clause 1. I beg to move.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I feel rather uneasy about the amendment. In my experience two cases merit a cautious view in this area. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to the Salvation Army a few moments ago. Some years ago I experienced a serious problem. The congregation of a fundamentalist chapel gathered after evening service to sing hymns very loudly and, after a fairly long period, greatly upset all the people who lived nearby. Fortunately, they were persuaded to move away. However, had they not done so and had the situation today applied they would have been able to claim religious freedom. The second case was a much more serious matter. Some years ago an individual came to see me about a constituency problem. He lived in a terraced house which had a common yard. One day one of his neighbours came to that yard in which his children

579
were playing and proceeded to slaughter a sheep. When he objected the neighbour said that that was his religious freedom.
This amendment would provide an excuse for that kind of behaviour. In my area—it will apply in many others—a great deal of attention, resources and care have been devoted to the promotion of good race relations. That kind of case imperilled those relationships. I believe that we must be careful not to provide an excuse for an individual who may exercise an extremely destructive influence in society. I hope that my noble friend will look at the amendment with very great care.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Henley said that this amendment was intended to be a probing amendment. It gives rise to some difficulty. There are some religions which encourage antisocial behaviour according to our definition of it. Indeed, there is one religion that justifies the killing of a woman who has committed adultery. We would find ourselves in the greatest difficulty if we said that there was never to be a conflict with an individual's religious beliefs.
In case my noble friend intends to pursue this matter at a later stage, I observe that in paragraph (b) the word "works" is rather imprecise. Would working in the garden be a justification for an exemption? I believe that "earns a living" is more appropriate.
Lord Hylton: The merit of this amendment is that it draws to our attention the unintended consequences of the orders that will become possible under the clause. I ask the Government to think of the possible consequences of exclusion. For example, might an individual be excluded from access to his normal place of worship? It may be thought that there are plenty of places of worship for each denomination, but there are minority religions that may be very thin on the ground. This is a serious point. As the whole thrust of the Bill is the prevention of crime, I believe that anything, whether under an order or otherwise, that prevents people from going to their normal place of work or education is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill. The amendment raises very serious points, and I hope that the Government will consider them as fully as they deserve.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am entirely supportive of what the amendment seeks to achieve. We differ on the question of whether it is appropriate to include it on the face of the statute. We do not believe that such inclusion is right. We have said on a number of occasions that we propose to issue detailed guidance on the orders which will clearly set out that this kind of requirement should not if at all possible be included in an order. To put such a provision on the face of the Bill in this context is both unnecessary and may cause problems in itself.
As to the regime under Clause 9(4), the context is entirely different. That relates to parenting orders. It relates only to the parents of children under the age of 16. It is appropriate in that case to make specific reference to the parents' religious beliefs and education
580
because one is dealing only with the parents of children under 16. This is a completely different regime which we believe is best dealt with by way of guidelines. I take the points that have been made. We intend to issue detailed guidelines on the nature of the orders. I hope that the noble Lord regards that as a sensible way of proceeding rather than putting it on the face of the Bill.
Lord Henley: I am entirely satisfied by what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Children with Special Educational Needs
7.40 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that appropriate provision will be guaranteed for those children with special educational needs who cannot reasonably be integrated into mainstream education.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have put their name down to speak in this debate. We have just one regret, that we have only one hour to cover the subject with such an impressive list of speakers. I look forward to hearing the maiden speech and wise counsel of my noble friend Lady Linklater who has had considerable experience of special schools within the education system.
When we talk about special schools within the education system we are continuing an argument which has gone on at least since I joined your Lordships' House. Some people have always maintained their battle cry that everyone should be integrated within the system, while others have said that they should be educated outside it. Both sides of the argument have waxed and waned fiercely, sometimes inside the Chamber but more often outside. The arguments are often based on fears and dogma. I hope tonight that we shall be able to reach a compromise based on best practice. That is finally starting to be accepted across the whole spectrum.
I sought briefing on this subject from outside bodies. I was astounded by the six or seven replies I received. They all said virtually the same thing: inclusion—that is, bringing people into the education system where that is appropriate—is a good thing; integration is essentially a bad thing because it does not take into account special needs. At least that is what the term is thought to mean.
Special schools with back-up facilities and sheltered environments will be needed for the foreseeable future. That was something that was so universally endorsed

581
that I began to doubt it. When everyone is on the same side one always thinks that something must be wrong somewhere. However I suspect that we do have it right. I suspect that, because I have heard the arguments before. It has taken us a long time to reach that level of consensus. Even the Government agree. We should all be worried by that. However, there are certain caveats.
The Government's Green Paper, Excellence for all Children, follows a series of best practice procedures, or something close to them. That is a position for which we have striven for a long time. I shall inject some politics into the discussion. There is always the question of how we will achieve that aim within current spending levels. Excellence in any field is never cheap. With a Government who accept the expenditure plans of the previous government, which my party thought could have been expanded, there is always the danger of going along the integration route as opposed to the inclusion route.
That is effectively care in the community—a concept which sounded so good but which was never given the resources, and indeed probably never could be given the resources, to enable it to work in the way envisaged. That is a worry that always nags at the back of the mind: the image of going down the right path without sufficient will to drive oneself to the end.
If we are moving towards inclusion, we must ensure that there is something to back it up. Special schools are centres of excellence and havens for some people within the school system. The people who are aware of the various special needs are centred at such places and have the resources to provide the necessary support.
Unless there is a vast increase in expenditure on education we shall never be able to match that across the board or in all schools. It is almost impossible. We must bear in mind that some types of learning and support for learning require sheltered environments and different teaching methods from those appropriate to mainstream education.
I promised myself that I would not start my speech by mentioning dyslexia. I shall use it as an example. A dyslexic learns language in a different way and has to be taught differently from someone who is not dyslexic. They need different types of teaching and so the common classroom is not appropriate for both groups.
With a little thought those with moderate disabilities can adjust themselves to the mainstream classroom. Many of the areas of worry can be removed from those with moderate difficulties. People with other disabilities—for example, those whose movement is impaired—can often be easily catered for in the classroom. There is no real problem for someone in a wheelchair, once that person is allowed inside the classroom. It is agreed that there is no reason why someone in a wheelchair, with a stick, or on crutches should not have access to a classroom. There are relatively cheap ways of overcoming the difficulties. Ramps can be installed. One chairlift per floor can be provided in a school. Such things can be done. That removes the problems for a whole group of disabled
582
people. That leaves those people with specialist needs which are best met in a specialist teaching environment. That is the group about which we are talking.
When dealing with children or young adolescents, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with the most conformist group in our society. It is the group which is probably least tolerant towards those outside it. If we place a young person who is vulnerable, because his confidence has been damaged due to his academic failure in school, in such a situation such a person will probably be bullied. If we put someone with severe learning difficulties in a classroom without the appropriate back-up facilities, we might as well put a sign across their head saying, "Victimise here", because that is probably what will happen.
There is the further problem that young people who are placed in such an environment without the appropriate help tend to react badly to school discipline. I know dyslexics who feel, "If I cannot cope with the classroom, I shall ensure that no one copes, and I will disrupt it". If such a young person has not received the help needed to manage in the classroom, a specialist school may be the only answer.
The move towards inclusion could be greatly helped if the Government were prepared to find the appropriate resources or to restructure teacher training so that teachers were better equipped to recognise disabilities within the classroom. I know that the Government are studying that problem now. This is an opportunity for the Government to tell us how far they have gone towards ensuring that teachers have the skills required to give the necessary assistance.
The Government now have the chance to say that they will keep these necessary support structures. They will make available the appropriate resources and back-up to allow them to work and to enable them to be accessible to the rest of the school system. Without such support, there is a grave danger that the Government's best intentions will come to nought, especially if they allow the accountants or the balance sheet to rule their education policy.
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, it is well known that in the field of special education, we have come a long way in a generation. Until the passage of the Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970, the conventional wisdom was that some children were ineducable. It took many years of dedicated work to challenge and overturn that negative approach. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. While I acknowledge his concerns, I must make it clear that I do not support them entirely.
I speak as the chief executive of the Carers National Association which has frequent contact with parents of children with special needs and, more significantly, with the information and opinion received from respected voluntary organisations like Contact a Family and the Council for Disabled Children. They believe that parents of children with special educational needs should be able to choose a mainstream school for these children,

583
no matter what their disability, and that a compulsory direction to a special school is unfair, discriminating and against the best interests of the child. Most parents make it clear that they, too, want their children educated in the mainstream. I therefore welcome the speed with which the Government and the Department for Education and Employment produced a Green Paper on special educational needs for consultation last year and the statement of intent included in that Green Paper,
"to increase the level and quality of inclusion with mainstream schools".
I am sure your Lordships will agree that an inclusive education within a mainstream school has much to recommend it in terms of reducing the social isolation of children with special educational needs, enhancing the range of curriculum subjects available to them and, not least, informing the whole of society about special educational needs and disability issues. The Government's decision to increase the monies available to the School Access Fund, which is directed to improving facilities in mainstream schools and to allow better access for children with special needs, is also to be welcomed.
Parents, then, want inclusion on the whole, but they do want the guarantees which should go with it. They will not be confident about letting children leave special school environments unless they can be confident that the mainstream school will not tolerate bullying; be reasonably resourced in terms of staff, including trained classroom assistants and equipment; have ready access to qualified medical help if a child needs it; and provide a good quality education for each child.
I willingly concede that in some cases this may be a big "if" within the mainstream and therefore welcome the fact that the Government's statement of intent in the Green Paper. while increasing the level and quality of inclusion within the mainstream, goes on to say:
"while protecting and enhancing specialist provision for those who need it"
—the point emphasised by the noble Lord.
Some parents will continue to choose a special school place for part, at least, of their children's school career and I share the noble Lord's concern and agree with him that, where special schools exist and have a valued continuing role, they should be properly resourced and indeed connected with mainstream schools and other educational bodies. The report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, The SEN Code of Practice 2 Years On, published last year, gives examples of good practice. They include the provision of full information to parents and the involvement of parents at all stages; strong commitment by staff and by governors to special educational needs; and the involvement of pupils in planning their individual education plans.
The report also makes clear that not all special schools are centres of excellence. I am afraid that there is scope for improvement in practice in many of the schools, particularly about parental involvement. It is clear that too many schools do not have adequate information about funding arrangements and that there are too many examples of planning for a child being impossible because of lack of information about available funding.
584
We have heard about the need for special schools for children with special needs such as dyslexia. I must also point out the widespread shortage of support services for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and I welcome the fact that the Social Exclusion Unit at the Cabinet Office has given priority to school exclusion and truancy.
Finally, I pay tribute to all voluntary organisations and Members of this House who work so hard on this issue and endeavour to ensure that government, local education authorities and school governors take the view of parents either with regard to mainstream or special education seriously when planning the education of these important future citizens—children with special needs.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we are in a period of great opportunity. The Government's Green Paper. Excellence for all Children, has been widely welcomed for its clear determination to improve the educational opportunities of that wide-ranging group of children with special needs. I declare an interest as the father of a daughter with autism.
There are children whose needs are so complex or severe that from the outset of their education they should be identified as such and given specialist support, perhaps through a special school. It may be that the economics and organisation of mainstream education will, for a long time, make it difficult to address needs such as those of a child with classic autism or challenging behaviour. Does the Minister therefore agree that there is a continuing and important role for specialist schools, underpinned by clear educational principles and by properly trained staff and professionals? In such cases, the vital need is for accurate early identification of the nature of the child's learning and communication difficulties, followed by the right kind of teaching and educational environment. Early intervention is crucial.
So it is disappointing that the Green Paper is so vague about how children with special needs are to be identified on arrival in primary school. We now have baseline assessment, but this, apparently, is not intended to pick up such children. How then will they be identified? What universal mechanism is to be put in place to ensure that children, with less obvious and visible difficulties, are identified at this crucial stage? Without early intervention there can be no assurance that the main aims of the Green Paper can be met. I hope that the Minister will look at this concern, which is widely shared by organisations working in the special needs field.
Early intervention can work only if professional skills are in place. This applies both at the stages of assessment and practical support in the class. A recently published survey showed that in a large sample of families with an autistic child as many as one in three were mistakenly turned away by the health professionals concerned, resulting in years of delay and waste. Will the Minister make a commitment to address this crucial

585
area of supporting teachers in special needs knowledge, without which it will be impossible to achieve effective early intervention?
Finally, I should like to emphasise the role of parents. Speaking as one, I know of the anguish which parents of children with special educational needs feel and I therefore lay great emphasis on the need to involve them and recognise their entitlement. The Green Paper work should recognise the principle of involving parents and ascertaining the wishes of their children. It is premature to set targets for the reduction in statements or special school placements. The more important goal should be to focus on achieving higher levels of confidence in the process from parents. Will the Minister therefore make a commitment to look at ways of measuring relative parental confidence in the system? I say "relative" because, of course, parents of children with special educational needs are hardly overjoyed by their situation. It must, however, be possible to find ways of measuring the progress which the Government hope they will make in helping parents and their children to feel that they are reasonably treated, respected for their views and receive the right level of specialist support where it is needed.
When parents say that they and their children are getting a good deal we will have made some progress.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, it seems appropriate that I am making my maiden speech on education since for any newcomer to this place the experience is just like coming to a new school. However, a key difference from any other school that I have experienced is the unqualified welcome and helpfulness towards my own integration that I have had from your Lordships and all associated with this House, for which I am truly grateful.
I realised the parallel when, having kindly been offered the loan of some robes by a noble friend, he said that he would leave them for me on my peg—the very symbol of a school cloakroom. I then had the pleasure of finding that it is next to that of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, of whom I am a lifelong fan and whose peg is laden with books and carrier bags under which I respectfully squeeze my own.
I should declare a special interest in this subject because I founded a small, specialist secondary school about five years ago which caters for educationally fragile children. I founded it having watched our youngest daughter, who had been born minimally brain damaged but who is nonetheless intelligent, go through mainstream schooling never being truly integrated and, as a result, having a miserable time. My school is now full of boys and girls from all over Scotland, none of whom had been integrated in any way in their previous schools.
I have reservations about the assumed desirability of integration into mainstream of many more children with special educational needs, which is the key thrust in the Government's Green Paper. We have heard also how those reservations are shared strongly by many of those with first-hand experience in the field.
586
We are talking about 1.5 million or so children, so the issue is of major importance. Superficially the notion of integration seems to be self-evidently right. What could be more just and equitable? Who could possibly be in favour of the opposite—segregation? However, I believe that it is a notion belonging to a social model, and what we should be seeking instead is an education model based on educational need. We should aim at policies which encourage us to value differences and celebrate diversity rather than subsuming as many children as possible into some integrated whole.
Today, we talk about inclusion rather than integration. But as Professor Tomlinson states so clearly in his important report Inclusive Learning, it is not synonymous with integration. It requires new thinking and the development of a variety of environments for learning, acknowledging that all students have different learning styles and needs. Of course, the integrated setting has its place but it is not the be-all and end-all.
Policies must take account of how children behave towards the less able—very cruelly sometimes—and the practical implications of learning needs. In that regard, class size is crucial and must be addressed. The reality is that for a significant number of children, current education methods do not work. They also put an extra burden on already overstretched mainstream teachers, and it is no wonder that we have so many excluded and under-achieving children in our system.
Support strategies of attaching a teacher to a child in the classroom or withdrawing children for special help often highlights their difficulties, and those strategies are very expensive in cash and human terms. Simply to put a child into an integrated school setting, even with support, does not make him or her integrated. The experience can be frightening and excluding, with disastrous results, to confidence and self-esteem. That was the experience of all the children in my school: and they are the tip of the iceberg.
If our goals in education include helping our children to realise their potential and have a real place in society, we need more rather than fewer specialist schools and a system which reflects the complexity and diversity of our society. I hope that the Government will look again at their assumptions in the interests of properly meeting the needs of that significant and vulnerable group of children.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as I suspected when I first met the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, at a delicious dinner in Edinburgh last September, and as her maiden speech has confirmed, she will be a most valued addition to your Lordships' House and a formidable ally for those of us trying to represent people with disabilities which create special educational needs. I, and I am sure all noble Lords present, congratulate and welcome her.
The question is mainstream or special schools. The issue is appropriate education. Today's inspectorate report is about standards. Standards are individual things, and how well an individual child does depends on that child receiving an appropriate education.

587
The experience which best explains the origins of MENCAP, which I have the honour to chair, is that of a mother taking her child to school on the first day of the child's school life, and being summoned later in the day to take the child away because it had been found ineducable, the same verdict passed on my own daughter some 46 years ago. She had to be certified as educationally subnormal. Children are no longer being turned away in that peculiarly heartless way.
But we do need to worry about the level of school exclusions of children with severe learning disability from special schools; and we need to be concerned about what happens to children when they are in school, mainstream or special. If children with the most severe learning disabilities are to be taught in school, including mainstream schools, they have to be taught by teachers who know how to teach these children, using methods by which the children can learn, and measuring their progress by standards appropriate to them.
Inclusion which involves putting children with very special needs in a mainstream classroom and keeping your fingers crossed for a fruitful social experience, denies opportunity; it does not provide it. I warmly support the Government's emphasis on standards, underlined again today. I simply ask for relevant standards. The issue is added value: it is what the school has done to ensure that each and every child has fulfilled his or her potential.
If that means good examination results, fine. If it means being able to communicate basic needs, fine. What is not fine is labelling as a successful school one whose very able pupils have not become any less able by the time they leave, while labelling as a failure a school whose profoundly and multiply disabled children have been helped to conquer mountains of achievement but will never come within hailing distance of an exam pass.
Perhaps I may make some suggestions: first, the issue of inspection. Effective inspection processes are a vital tool in raising standards and spreading good practice. I should like to see Ofsted working with schools and the teacher training agency to develop appropriate measures and finding ways for inspections of celebrating non-traditional achievements. Mainstream schools can learn from special schools. MENCAP's profound intellectual and multiple disability project is at the leading edge of this work and has a great deal to offer all interested parties.
My second area of concern is inter-agency working. It is so often the case that for a pupil with special needs, support is needed from a wider number of agencies than just the education department. That is hard to secure in many mainstream schools. As the Minister may know, I have a particular concern about speech and language therapy.
I cannot emphasise enough the importance of such services. I should like to see the work being undertaken in Scotland extended to the rest of the UK. Scottish education authorities can negotiate contracts to purchase specified speech and language therapy services for pre-school and school age children with statements. In three years this has led to the creation of 80 additional speech and language therapy posts in Scotland.
588
We shall never again say that children with special needs are ineducable. That battle has been won. But now we must continue to fight for the best education possible for all children if we are to create a society where all citizens are respected for their abilities and the unique contribution they can make. A society which fails to educate all its citizens has failed all its citizens.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure and honour to be able to congratulate my noble friend Lady Linklater of Butterstone on her maiden speech. She has effected that difficult and delicate transition by translating personal experience into professional and public service provision. It is not easy to do that successfully and in just five years her special school has become nationally known and highly regarded. As such, she brings both familial and professional experience to your Lordships' Chamber.
I thank my noble friend Lord Addington warmly for giving us the opportunity through this debate to look back at what have been, in effect, the results of the Warnock Report of the early 1980s which brought special needs children more into mainstream schools; and I fully support that thrust.
I wish to touch on two schools which are special schools. In that regard I speak against the thrust of the interesting and excellent points put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I, too, know from professional and personal experience, that special schools are needed for some children.
I take Kingsdown School in Southend. Its head is a Mr. Hagyard. It offers specialist provision for physical and neurological impairment for children from all over Essex—quadriplegics, those with spina bifida or cerebral palsy, those with no speech. and so on. Indeed, it contains 115 exceptional children who are also exceptionally fragile physically. It has received a first-class report from Ofsted. I have a list of the practical problems that those children experience in sitting exams. However, because of the shortness of the debate—just four minutes for speeches is insufficient—I shall put those problems in a note to the Minister and doubtless he and I can also discuss them. Much provision has been made for special needs children in examinations but experience shows that more is needed of a different sort.
I turn, secondly, to the Mary Hare Grammar School for the Deaf where the head is Ivan Tucker. It responded recently to the Government's Green Paper. It is a different sort of special school with 200 pupils. Indeed, I believe it is the only special school featured in the Financial Times top 1,000 schools in the A-level league table. That school reminds us that fewer than 400 severely and profoundly deaf babies are born every year in the United Kingdom. Its conclusion, and indeed mine, is that the current educational provision for such children—those who, in terms of decibel shortage, fall into the category of 71 to 95 minus decibels of severe and profound deafness—is, frankly, largely ineffective.

589
That is because responsibility for them is scattered over 132 LEAs, 32 special schools and a large number of units in mainstream schools.
There is, alas, little consistency and, not surprisingly, remarkably little data on educational achievement; there is inefficiency and ineffectiveness due to the lack of critical mass. Those are proven facts and not suppositions. I speak of the educational and not the medical needs of profoundly and severely deaf children; for example, speech and language therapy, acoustical excellence, hearing aid provision and use, and so on. The school delivers the national curriculum profoundly well and still it has no core funding from the Government. It costs £17,500 a year for each child: some special schools can charge up to £45,000. The school has experience to offer us, but solutions cannot be given this evening because there is insufficient time. Again, if I may, I shall write to the Minister and perhaps he will be kind enough to grant me a meeting so as to allow these these two important sectors to be examined. They are positive proposals that I have for him.
8.13 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling this very topical Question this evening. I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, on her most interesting maiden speech which reflected all her experience. Although there are many technical aids to help children with special educational needs, there will still be some children who will need to be taught in very small groups on a one-to-one basis in specialist schools. SENSE finds that most deaf-blind, multi-sensory impaired children fall within the group of children whose needs cannot be met within mainstream education. Inclusion should mean that every single child should have access to the highest quality education which will meet his or her individual needs. Mainstreaming every child, irrespective of his or her needs, will not serve the interests of many disabled children and it will not lead to social inclusion later on.
While most of us agree that it is best for children with special needs to be educated with their peers in mainstream schools, we must recognise that meeting that goal will take time and resources. Mainstream schools need support and advice on how they can meet individual children's needs and to ensure that the child gets an education appropriate not only to his or her needs but also to his or her abilities. Can the Minister say what work is being undertaken to ensure that a curriculum is developed to meet the needs of children with severe and profound learning disabilities?
In 1985, 200 teachers gained a specialist teaching qualification for teaching children with severe learning disabilities, but by 1995 there were just 40 of them. During their training, teachers receive a little training in special needs, but not really enough. Teachers used to teach for a time, and then take extra qualifications for specialist training in severe learning disabilities. It would seem strange that to teach the deaf-blind one needs a special qualification, but not for other equally complex children with a range of severe disabilities.
590
The drop in the number of teachers with special qualifications will surely put a strain on mainstream schools to manage those children who need specialist help and who cannot manage a mainstream school without help. Can the Minister say what can be done to encourage more teachers to specialise in the teaching of children with severe learning problems, and others with mild disabilities who, nonetheless, sometimes find it difficult to follow the curriculum?
Does the Minister consider that there is too much concentration on assessment tests, especially at primary school level with children who have slight problems in learning, which discourages schools at secondary level from taking these children with less serious special needs, such as lack of concentration or dyslexia, which I realise can be severe at times?
The question of choice in education is important to all families, especially those families with children with special educational needs. I know of families who find it difficult to send a child with learning difficulties to the school of their choice because of difficulties with local education authorities which do not agree to pay the other authority. This is possibly a case of where the child lives. Is it still a case of where these children happen to live, or whether or not there is a school for those with special needs? In some areas of England and Wales there is a growth of local specialist services and support which is beginning to recognise and meet children's needs. That is to be welcomed.
I am sure that many will agree with both MENCAP and SENSE that a statement is, for many parents, the end of a long battle to get their child's needs recognised. Can the Government reassure parents that they will in no way undermine the rights that children have to funded education provision that meets individual needs, especially for those who cannot be educated in mainstream schools?
8.17 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for introducing this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, on her truly knowledgeable maiden speech. As usual in debates of this kind, I declare my interest as a father of a 17 year-old daughter who has Down's syndrome. I therefore speak especially on behalf of mentally handicapped children and their parents, and would like to highlight two areas of concern this evening.
First, I share the hope of other noble Lords that the Government's policy of greater inclusion into mainstream schools will not come to mean that children such as my daughter are forced too near mainstream education for their own good, or for their parents' peace of mind. The Government's Green Paper, Excellence for All Children, is a well-intentioned document. But if it has a fault, as my noble friend Lord Astor has already indicated, it is that it does not appear to give enough weight to parents' wishes. Indeed, parents do not seem to get a mention at all in Chapter 5, which deals with the planning of SEN provision. So one is left with the

591
impression that the professionals will continue to decide what is best for our children, without being obliged to listen carefully enough to the people who almost always know those children's needs best—that is to say, their parents.
My daughter is extremely fortunate to go to a Camphill Community Rudolf Steiner boarding school for children in need of special care. There is not time for me this evening to explain to your Lordships just how that school has worked such wonders for my daughter, but I hope that noble Lords can accept that it has done so. I would, therefore, be very worried if the emphasis on inclusion were to damage schools like my daughter's. There is tremendous demand from parents for such schools; indeed, far more than can be satisfied.
Of course, at first sight these schools may appear expensive, but that may not really be so if one looks at what the cost has to be of a special unit in a mainstream school which is really able to offer all the advantages of a special school. Small units lose economies of scale, and so if they are to do their job properly—and that is a very important "if"—their per capita cost must become just as high, perhaps sometimes higher, as that of special schools.
My second area of concern is one which we debated under the previous government on several occasions, but to which a solution was not found then. This occurs when children with fairly severe learning difficulties reach the age of 19. I trust this is not outside the scope of this debate because these young people often have a much lower mental age, and in many ways are still children. But the problem is that social services do not want to take them on, and nor does the FEFC, and so many of them are falling through the gap in the middle. One difficulty here is that higher education tends to be less structured than the school environment, and so lends itself even less easily than primary and secondary education to the kind of protected environment which is so essential for these young people.
Lack of time again prevents me from giving your Lordships specific examples of cases where this is happening but, if the Minister has time, I would be happy to prove to him that this is a serious defect in our educational provision today. I feel sure that the solution is to encourage community special schools and colleges, whereas at the moment they are often discouraged, especially at local level. Whatever happens, we must stop forcing these young people into entirely unsuitable environments or, more often, abandoning them altogether.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my sincere congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on her maiden speech. I thought it was a great speech—and it was—but I doubt whether it fulfilled the criterion of being wholly uncontroversial.
I wish to say a few words about the class of children we are discussing, those children who cannot properly be educated in mainstream schools—the severely emotionally and behaviourally disadvantaged or
592
disabled. I entirely agree with the Green Paper that such children are frequently excluded from mainstream schools, or effectively exclude themselves by simply truanting. Therefore it follows that much of their education is bound to be outside the mainstream.
It is a fact that a large number of these children who are excluded from school are children in care who go to school by day—if they go at all—either to mainstream or to special schools and who are either statemented or not statemented. I think the question of who has a statement and who has not is increasingly irrelevant. On my deathbed I shall continue to regret that my committee ever introduced that distinction, but that is by the way.
The alternative of boarding school for some of these children who are in care—even though they may have to go back into care during the holidays—is an option which I think is largely disregarded. That is no doubt partly on grounds of expense but partly, I fear, because of the continuing grave difficulties which stand in the way of social services and the education services collaborating with one another. Boarding school, uniquely, can provide the kind of 24 hour education which is quite often the only and the last hope for severely disturbed and severely disruptive children. That is especially true for those whose parents are not the wonderful, adequate, co-operative, concerned people so often invoked in documents from the DfEE.
I ask the Minister whether it is not time to consider a policy of providing more, better and more properly inspected special boarding schools to replace those which have been closed—this happened over and over again in the past decade—and for which our greatly missed friend Lady Faithfull had a particular fondness and a particular interest in. In her sad absence we ought to reconsider boarding education for children who are so disruptive that they are positively dangerous in a school which cannot give them 24 hour care and care which is centred on education.
My next point is very important. If such schools are inspected—as they must be—the criterion of success must not be simply whether or not they conform to the regulations of the national curriculum. The aim must be that such children should be educated in accordance with the national curriculum, but first they have to learn how to be educated at all. I hope very much that when the Green Paper is debated the question of boarding education will not be neglected.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I begin by apologising most profusely to the House for having neglected the most basic task of all; namely, that of adding my name to the speakers' list. I am particularly aggrieved that I did not do this as this is a subject which interests me deeply.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for initiating the debate. Although speakers have had little time in which to speak I am deeply impressed by the points that have been made in the course of this short debate which no doubt will be expanded when we discuss the Green Paper.

593
I also add my most warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. I can remember how daunting it was to make a maiden speech in this House. I was full of trepidation on that occasion. But if the noble Baroness's maiden speech is anything to go by, I am sure we shall hear much more from her in the future which will enrich the debates in this House. I wish to make warm remarks about other speakers. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on the work that she did preceding the 1981 Education Act, and the work that she did to bring the whole issue of special needs educational provision to the centre of our discussions on education. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has worked tirelessly for hundreds of thousands of people, young and not so young. Those people have benefited from his work with people with mental disabilities. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has been a doughty fighter—both with me when I was on the Government Front Bench and no doubt with the new Government—in fighting for appropriate provision for young people in education. That will form the thrust of my remarks. We miss my late friend Lady Faithfull when these causes are being fought for.
The 1981 Act was a turning point and a real milestone on the road to placing the needs of young people with disabilities at the centre of education. I am proud to have been involved with the 1993 Act which built on the 1981 Act and came into effect in September 1994. Central to that Act was the concept of giving parents more choice and a presumption always towards meeting the choice where that was possible and where it was consistent with the needs of the child. From that date on all schools were required to have regard to a code of practice—I understand that code of practice has been widely welcomed throughout the educational sector—and all schools had to publish information on their special needs policies and to report annually to parents. The code of practice and guide for parents were published later that year.
Ofsted carry out inspections. It was given responsibility for monitoring the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. That is stated in the foreword to the code of practice. Ofsted has reported twice now on the working of the Act in 1995-96 and again in 1996-97. Those reports are well worth consulting in order to address weaknesses and to build on strengths. Each school is required under the code to keep a register of all children with special needs and to keep records. A five-stage approach was established which makes a great deal of sense. I refer to early identification, dealing with those problems that can be dealt with effectively in school by developing plans for each and every child. However, where the school believes through the special educational needs co-ordinator that those needs cannot be met entirely by the school and require external support, it works with other agencies.
I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said about statementing. However, the system provides an official statement of the needs of a child and the rights of the child to have those needs met.
594
I conclude by saying to the Minister that I hope any changes contemplated will build on the 1993 Act. I hope that the inspection reports will be used, and that policies will be based on a sound assessment of need and the effective provision to address such need. Early identification must be the key. I also wish to thank the Minister's honourable friend in another place, Ms. Estelle Morris, with whom I had a fruitful meeting recently on this matter. Again, the need is for the most appropriate provision for young people. Mainstream is not always the answer. Therefore we must not give way only to some ideological philosophy which says that integration and inclusion is the only way forward.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for initiating the debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for an impressive maiden speech which indicated a vast expertise in this field. I feel very humble because much personal experience and experience as parents have been reflected in the speeches, as well as knowledge of the organisations concerned in this field. It is important that those concerns are reflected back to the department in conjunction with the consultation process on the Green Paper that has already begun. Noble Lords will know that the consultation period on the Green Paper, which was produced with the assistance of a high level national advisory group, ended on 9th January. We have yet to assess the full burden of the comments which came from a wide range of sources. But it is clear that the great majority of those who expressed a view welcomed the Green Paper. It was the first opportunity for many years to consider all the issues regarding special educational needs.
It is equally clear that there are many detailed and important suggestions for ways of improving provision; and some concerns about the safeguards that need to be retained. They have been reflected here today. I welcome the general tenor of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I may disagree with some of his technology. But he recognises that the Green Paper is not dogmatic; it seeks to generalise existing good practice and to stimulate new good practice. I hope that noble Lords will not be worried when I say that I agree with most of what the noble Lord said about special schools as centres of excellence, and his emphasis on the need to consider the different situations faced by children with different types of special educational needs.
I can assure the noble Lord that the Government have no intention to promote inclusion where that might damage an individual child's interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, we are not concerned about dogmatism but the appropriate mix of education for each child.
However, it is the Government's aim, subject to the outcome of the consultation, to increase the level and quality of inclusion within mainstream schools. That does not mean the end of special schools in any sense. Nor does it mean taking away the choice from parents that was incorporated in the 1993 Act, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred. The Education Act enables parents to express a preference for special

595
schools where they consider that appropriate to their child's needs. The Green Paper and the Government make it clear that that right will remain. We want parents to choose a mainstream education in those areas where they feel that it is right for their children. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley emphasised, the majority of parents want inclusion within mainstream schools. It is already the fact that the vast majority of children with special educational needs are within mainstream schools already; and therefore the concentration to some extent must be on improving the quality of that inclusion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and others, perhaps slightly underestimate the success which some mainstream schools have demonstrated in including a wide range of children with special education needs. To say that is not to disparage the achievement of specialist schools but to recognise also that mainstream schools have often been very successful. We want therefore to develop the quality of education in mainstream schools and the necessary support services to keep children in mainstream schools. The Green Paper sets out proposals to cut through the bureaucracy which parents often face. We recognise that there are a variety of views on the sensitive issue of where an individual child or form of disability will best prosper. We believe that some children currently educated solely in special schools would benefit educationally and socially from being in the mainstream school. But all schools are included as equal partners in the school community. The benefits are felt by all.
Traditionally the role of special schools has been to provide specialist teaching, support and facilities to meet the needs of the pupils. In excellent specialist schools, this has often meant a concentration of experience and expertise in a small number of establishments. We want to see a new role for special schools. The context in which they operate has already changed. The categorisation of special schools is no longer as clear as it once might have been, and many now cater for a wide range of increasingly complex needs. We are looking for better, more flexible schools, in some cases more specialised, with boarding facilities, and so on, rather than abolishing or reducing the special schools sector.
I entirely agree with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, about early identification of problems. In many cases that identification should happen pre-school, before even the baseline assessment comes into play. But we know that there are problems for those not identified as having SEN before they start in reception classes in mainstream schools. We need to consider that baseline assessment so that it is more targeted in regard to SEN assessment procedures. We want to make sure that no child drops through the cracks. We shall work with parents throughout, recognising that parents have a unique perspective on this.
We are quite clear that there will be a continuing and increasingly demanding role for special schools. We want to build on the expertise they have developed. We want them to become centres of excellence, working directly with children with complex special educational needs but also providing support to their mainstream colleagues. As with so much in the Green Paper, we
596
know that that transformation will not happen overnight. Staff in special schools will need training to work alongside their mainstream colleagues; and they will need the time to do so. Nor should we forget that mainstream schools may have much from which special schools can learn.
In all of this we want to see a serious and continuing role for special schools. But over time we wish to see special schools providing a more flexible pattern of support. Some children will be in full time placements; others part-time or short-term. Staff will he supporting some children in mainstream schools. They will be helping mainstream schools to implement inclusion policies; and they will be a source of training and advice for mainstream colleagues. This is a challenging medium-term agenda, but it means that the term "special school" will no longer be a totally adequate reflection of what it does.
We also recognise that many different patterns of support beyond the school, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred, will be necessary to cater for the range of individual needs. At present there is a wide variation in the percentage of children in local authority areas who are educated in special schools. There is no reason why children with similar needs in different parts of the country should not have similar opportunities to attend mainstream schools; but in many cases they will need specialist support in the education and other services to take advantage of those opportunities.
When the Green Paper was launched, some people said that the Government were hostile to the process of statutory assessment and statementing. That is not the case. What we are concerned about is that, in some cases, the process is over-bureaucratic and not driven by children's needs. We pay tribute to the work that was done in this field some 20 years ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. She expresses some regret at the over-rigidity of the statement process, and we wish to break that down. Every statutory assessment carried out for a child whose needs could, with the right approach to funding and support, have been met without a statement means that resources that could have been used to provide support are instead diverted to bureaucratic procedures.
The question of resources, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is central to people's approach to the Green Paper. In regard to access to mainstream schools for children with special educational needs, we have already provided a substantial increase under the schools access initiative. In 1998–99, £11 million will be available in that area, compared with the £4 million allocated in 1997–98. The Secretary of State has also made clear his commitment to providing resources for this area in general.
A number of other points were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, requested that we should hold discussions on these issues. I note the points that she made and the difficulties experienced by some children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The noble Baroness may wish to speak to me, but my friend, Estelle Morris, who has special

597
responsibility for that area, would also be willing to have a discussion with her, as she has already with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I assure the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is already working on the issues to which she refers. The outcome will be seen shortly. I recognise the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about post-16 provision. I shall refer his comments back to the department.
The Government are quite clear about the direction in which they want to move in relation to provision in mainstream schools. But they are also quite clear about the vital importance of developing and changing specialist schools. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, a society that fails to educate all its citizens is failing all its citizens. We understand that point. We look forward to further consultation on the Green Paper and further discussion in this House. Certainly, the points made by your Lordships, including some to which I have not had time to reply, will be reflected back to the department during consideration of the Green Paper.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
8.42 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): I have to inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 21 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 22.
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("order,") to end of line 34 and insert ("his conduct shall be punishable as a contempt of court.").
The noble Lord said: We have exhausted the making of the antisocial behaviour order and we now turn to the next stage; namely, the enforcement of that order. We are now in a position where the Government envisage that conduct which is not necessarily criminal may lead to an antisocial behaviour order, and a breach of that order by conduct which is not otherwise criminal can yet make the offender endure the slam of the prison door.
The word for the day that has percolated our discussions in Committee is "flexible". Everything about this Bill is "flexible", except the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and those supporting him. I hope that the noble Lord will take the trouble to consider, with the open mind that he always promises us he has, the proposal that I put forward by way of this amendment. Its purpose is to substitute a far more flexible and sensible method of dealing with a person who is in breach of an antisocial behaviour order than is set out in subsection (9).
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has said that the antisocial behaviour order is a civil order; it is no part of a criminal regime; it is analogous to an injunction. One therefore has to wonder why the noble
598
Lord does not go "the full Monty" and treat a breach of that order as though it were a breach of an injunction, and therefore a person should be punished by way of a committal for contempt.
Perhaps I may give a lightning sketch of contempt orders. The long-standing purpose of contempt proceedings was to impose sanctions for disobedience to a court order which would coerce the contemnor or offender into obedience. The normal practice, until the Contempt of Court Act, 1981, was to commit an individual to prison until such time as he chose to obey the order; and so committals, in the old days before 1981, were sine die rather than for a fixed term. If the contemnor changed his mind, then he was entitled to immediate release. But following the Phillimore Report of 1974 (Cmnd. 5794) the 1981 Act provided that, in any case where a court has power to commit a person to prison for contempt of court, the committal shall be for a fixed term and that term shall not on any occasion exceed two years in the case of a committal by a superior court, or one month in the case of committal by an inferior—that is, a magistrates'—court.
It is my argument in proposing this amendment that such a method of dealing with the offender has a flexibility that is not available in the sentences of imprisonment set out in subsection (9). First, the court has a discretionary power when dealing with a contempt to suspend the execution of the order of committal for such period or on such terms or conditions as it may specify. We were familiar in the past with suspended sentences of imprisonment. Those have now fallen out of favour; but the power still remains and may be exercised to suspend the execution of an order of committal pending good behaviour or whatever condition the court wishes to impose.
Secondly, and importantly, the court may release the offender before the end of his term of imprisonment either on his own application if he is prepared to purge his contempt and to give undertakings to the court about future obedience to the order, or alternatively on the application of the Official Solicitor, who has a duty to review the cases of all persons who are committed for contempt and to take such action as he thinks fit.
That gives an opportunity to the offender, the contemnor, to come to his senses and, instead of serving a term of up to two years' imprisonment, to come to the court and apologise and give assurances of good behaviour in the future. If he is an obstinate person who refuses to apologise, the Official Solicitor has a duty to step in and may intervene if he refuses to repent but has yet been sufficiently punished.
Subsection (7) in Clause 1 of the Bill provides for an application by the offender to the court to discharge the antisocial behaviour order. Once he is sent to prison, that is it—he is a convicted person; he is a criminal, a person who will not be released until he has served his time.
Another aspect of the contempt order is that a court may, in lieu of imprisonment, impose a fine and order costs against the offender. There is no limit in the High Court or the county court or Crown court; but there is a limit of £2,500 in respect of the magistrates'

599
court. In deciding the amount of a fine instead of sending somebody to prison for contempt, the court will consider the culpability of the offender and the offender's means. There is also power in the court to take security for good behaviour and to require the offender to find sureties.
The superior courts, such as the Crown Court, have power to remand an offender for a medical report on his mental condition if there is reason to suspect that he is suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment and may make a hospital order or a guardianship order. Again, there are provisions for young people if they are committed for detention in a young persons' institution rather than in a prison.
Very importantly, when in prison a contemnor is treated as an unconvicted prisoner and has the same privileges: he may wear his own clothing; he may receive as many visits as he wishes; and he is allowed to receive and send as many letters as he desires.
If this is a civil order analogous to an injunction that he has breached, why does he have to be treated as a common criminal? Why does he have to suffer all the indignities of a convicted person? In prison a contemnor is treated as a separate class of prisoner and is kept out of contact with convicted prisoners unless he expresses a desire to associate with them. First, the sentence can be suspended; secondly, it can be removed on his application; and, thirdly, he is treated as a separate class of prisoner and does not have to mix with other prisoners if he does not wish to do so.
It is a far more flexible order for a civil offence that he has committed—the breach of this quasi injunction. We on these Benches submit that he should be treated in that flexible kind of way. The order itself is described as flexible because it gives a wide discretion to the court. As we argued earlier today, the use of these orders by the magistrates' court is likely to be variable and subject to a wholly unstructured discretion about what to do with disruptive or tiresome neighbours.
Under these proposals a breach of the order is a criminal conviction which will appear upon the record of the individual. He will serve an ordinary sentence of imprisonment and will carry that stigma, even if he is a person who has otherwise been of completely good character.
I wish to say a word about Amendment No. 22, which has been linked with Amendment No. 21, regarding the length of the sentence. In my experience, it is inconceivable that an offender could be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, which is the length of sentence on indictment envisaged in the Bill, for conduct which did not otherwise amount to a serious criminal offence. If he has done something serious, he will be tried for assault, for wounding or for whatever it may be. For a person to be sentenced for up to five years' imprisonment for breaching what is described as a civil order is, in my respectful submission—if I may use that expression in your Lordships' House—scandalous.
If we compare the public order legislation, under the previous Tory Government, what do we find? In the Public Order Act 1986 a violent disorder offence carries
600
a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. Breach of this quasi-injunction is being equated with a Tory violent disorder provision attracting a sentence of five years' imprisonment. For affray the previous government said that a sentence of three years was the maximum. For threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, six months is the maximum.
I drew attention earlier today to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which created the offence of intentional causing of harassment by the use of abusive or insulting words or behaviour or the display of any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting. The maximum sentence for that offence is six months' imprisonment. Even in 1994, when things were going pretty well over the top under the previous government, an offence of a similar nature which also had the ingredient of having to be intentional and having the specific means of carrying the harassment, alarm or distress as part of it carried a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment.
The ferocity of the sentencing power in this Bill is extraordinary. It can only be window-dressing. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, Secretaries of State vary so much. Indeed, in the past few years we have witnessed rhetoric which distorted the whole of the criminal justice system, pushed up sentences of imprisonment and filled the gaols to overflowing even before their legislation came into effect.
I had hoped that the new Administration would have got over that aberrant period and would not have thought it necessary to inflict even longer sentences of imprisonment than did their predecessors. Ordinary terms of imprisonment are not the answer to the problem addressed in this Bill. Prison will not make the offender truly and earnestly repent and be in love and charity with his neighbours. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made out a formidable case for his amendment. I wish to support it on the grounds that it will tend to limit the number of people sentenced to prison and the length of time that they are likely to spend there and that those perhaps few—they may turn out to be a small number—who are sent to prison will be subject to a more liberal and humane regime.
Lord Northbourne: I am not at all happy about the Bill as drafted in this context and support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. It seems to me that the Bill goes completely over the top with a potential penalty of five years' imprisonment for what may be just be a bit of bad behaviour by an adolescent. For heaven's sake, all of us were young once. Surely we remember the time when we thought it was rather funny to do something which cheeked older people and perhaps to do it again when we were told not to do it? Surely there were times when some of us got a little drunk, or even perhaps quite a lot drunk? Whether we accept Amendment No. 21,

601
Amendment No. 22 or some other amendment, I believe that the Bill as drafted is not sensible and will be profoundly unfair.
Lord Monson: I added my name to Amendment No. 22 because, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friends on these Benches, I believe that a maximum of five years' imprisonment is quite excessive for an offence of this nature.
Whenever one casts doubt upon the desirability of even higher maximum sentences, the Home Office Minister of the day invariably says, as I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will say tonight, "Yes, but do remember that the maximum sentence is only a maximum; the courts are under no obligation ever to impose it in practice". That may well be so, but I submit that a maximum sentence which looks preposterously high to the man in the street will bring the law into disrepute and will therefore be counter-productive.
Lord Henley: My name is down to one of these amendments and it might be helpful if I say a word or two. I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the subject of sentences. I am sure that the Government are well able to defend their own policies and to justify the inclusion of a maximum sentence of five years for offences which I dare say on some occasions could be very serious indeed.
The amendment I wish to speak about is Amendment No. 24, which has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 37. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has added his name to that amendment. I put it down merely as a probing amendment because I wanted to know, first, what subsection (10) was about. I think I have worked that out now: it will not be available to the court to make an order of conditional discharge. Secondly, I should like to know why that should be the case and why the Government feel that that discretion should not be open to the court. Just as there will be occasions when the offence is of the utmost seriousness and therefore the court may wish to make use of the maximum powers available, there will be occasions when such a decision would not be right and where the minimum would be required. For that reason I believe there may be occasions when an order for conditional discharge could be made. I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.
9 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford spoke eloquently and powerfully on Amendment No. 22, and at this time of the night I do not wish to add anything to what he said except to say that I am in complete support of everything he said, both on the question of substituting the punishment for contempt rather than a gaol sentence and also on the length of the sentence if a gaol sentence was to be imposed.
I should like to add a few words on Amendments Nos. 24 and 37 which have perhaps been wrongly grouped with Amendment No. 22. They raise a different point, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said. They are
602
more than simply probing amendments. They relate to the question of why the power of the court to punish a breach of an order by a conditional discharge has been excluded. The same point arises in the case of the anti-social behaviour order and in the sex offender order in Clause 2(9) which is covered by Amendment No. 37.
What is the point of excluding the power to grant a conditional discharge? It is a useful weapon in any court's armoury. It leaves the possibility of having a sentence hanging over the offender's head if a further offence—not necessarily an offence of the same kind—is committed. It may well be that there are cases where that is the appropriate order. As matters now stand, if the possibility of a conditional discharge is excluded and the courts find themselves in a situation where there has been a breach of the order which they regard as trivial, they can still deal with that. They can indicate that they regard it as trivial by imposing a nominal fine of £5 or £10 or something like that. Why should small fines be allowed but, at the same time, the court be refused the power to order a conditional discharge which may well, in those circumstances, have a stronger deterrent effect?
The subsections appear to be without logical justification and are explicable only on the basis of a distrust of the courts. I believe them to be wholly unjustified.
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I may add a further dimension in relation to Amendment No. 22, which I support and for which a strong case has been made out.
It is an accepted principle that the use of imprisonment and the length of a prison sentence takes into account the seriousness of the offence. That was acknowledged by the Government in the White Paper, Community Safety Order. That paper stated that proceedings for breach of an order would be dealt with summarily.
I do not dispute that, from time to time, there may be cases where imprisonment for a period over two years may be justified—not for the breach alone, but due to persistent criminal behaviour. What worries me is that none of that behaviour has to be proved to the criminal standard. The normal procedure available to defendants in criminal proceedings should not be set aside in a process which can result in a serious criminal conviction and a lengthy prison sentence.
Baroness David: I support Amendments Nos. 24 and 37. I was mystified as to why the possibility of a conditional discharge was put out of court, so to speak, and look forward to hearing the explanation for that from my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 24 and 37 are grouped together and I shall speak to them all together. They go to the heart of the policy on the new orders. We want a two-stage process: first, the civil order with preventative force acting like an injunction but not a perfect twin to an injunction; secondly, punishment for breach of an order by a criminal offence.

603
The reason for that is very strong. Anti-social behaviour is a menace on our streets; it is a threat to our communities. We aim to prevent it as far as we may. A civil order is part of the regime for doing that. But, ultimately, we regard such behaviour as criminal. If it cannot be stopped at stage one—the order, after the safeguards I identified earlier—it must be recognised and dealt with for what it is. That is why we made the deliberate decision to invoke the criminal law at the breach of the order stage.
I deal now with some hyperbole. This is by no means unprecedented. If one looks at the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Section 3 provides that,
"A complainant may obtain an injunction against a defendant from the High Court or the county court".
If there is in fact a breach of such an injunction granted by the High Court or the county court, and the defendant, without reasonable cause, commits a prohibitive act, he is guilty of an offence. What further happens if he is found guilty of that criminal offence? He is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine, or both.
Lord Goodhart: Will the Minister accept that there are two vital differences in the case of an order under the Protection from Harassment Act which distinguish it from the proposed order under the Bill? One is that under the Protection from Harassment Act a restraining order or injunction can only be made following an actual conviction for criminal harassment, and the making of the order requires a criminal standard of proof. Secondly, the restraining order can only be broken by an act which is itself a breach of the general criminal law of the land.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That does not go to the point of principle being addressed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford; in fact, it does not bite on it at all.
If one looks at Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 an actual or apprehended breach of Section 1 may be the subject of a claim and an injunction may be granted. My point, to which I return because it will not elude us, is that on breach of the injunction, the conviction on indictment carries a maximum sentence not exceeding five years, a fine or both.
The injunction itself is analogous, we suggest, to an antisocial behaviour order. Perhaps I may tease out one or two further points in the spirit of flexibility and open mindedness for which I have been so often, and indeed, rightly, commended. What the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, wishes is this. A man is subject to an antisocial behaviour order. He breaches it. It may be grossly, wilfully and continuously breached. We say, balancing all things as they are duly appropriate, that if it is relatively minor, on summary conviction the offender may be dealt with by imprisonment of not more than six months—the usual magistrates' court limit. On indictment, he may suffer a penalty of up to five years. So introduced there, as is customary in our law, is that if a sentence of more than six months—I omit the
604
occasional two consecutive sentences in the magistrates' court—is to be passed, a man or woman can look in our system to trial by jury. That is what our system provides. But the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, does not wish that as a safeguard for a defendant. He wants judge, and judge alone, to decide on guilt and sentence up to five years.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In answer to my query, what circumstances does the noble Lord envisage would have to have occurred for a five-year sentence of imprisonment to be passed for a breach of one of his antisocial behaviour orders and where a more serious offence has not been committed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My learned friend is like the mariner upon the icebergs. One of them is sinking and so he jumps on to the other one. I just want to sink the first one fully. I return to my point. If someone is liable to serious consequences by way of extensive imprisonment, our regime—liberal, enlightened and well informed—is that the man should be tried by a jury.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the noble Lord intend, therefore, to change the system of civil injunctions so that anyone who is liable to two years' imprisonment for a breach of a civil injunction will now face trial by jury?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, because at the moment, as is normal in these circumstances, we are dealing with law reform one step at a time. What I am attending to now is the proposition that the noble Lord put forward. I do not mind if he is sorry that he put it forward when I expose what might charitably be described as internal self-contradictions.
There are circumstances that we know well—they are possibly rare but not as rare as we want them to be—where the kind of behaviour, but much, much worse, that my noble friend Lord Mishcon referred to earlier—racist behaviour—may have continued for a significant period of time, with people having no redress.
Lord Northbourne: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am trying to answer the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I am perfectly happy to answer all conceivable questions on all possible subjects but I want to deal with the noble Lord's specific question. We reach the situation where the only redress for the individual citizen—black, white or whatever—is to try to establish through the relevant authority (a local authority or the police) that the order is required. If behaviour of that kind continues time and again even after the offender has been brought to court, even after the proceedings have been introduced, there

605
may well be extreme circumstances where a five-year sentence would be justified. I can easily conceive of those circumstances. I now give way.
Lord Northbourne: I was going to ask the noble Lord whether under those circumstances the offender could not have been indicted under other legislation, possibly the Race Relations Act.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord's point is well made. If that were so, the prosecuting authorities would have their choices, as they have choices now, as to the basis on which they wished to bring charges against a particular individual. If that were so, that might be the appropriate action to take. What we are offering here—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, anticipated my answer—is a maximum. It is a maximum which may be of utility in some circumstances. It is a maximum also which is intended to demonstrate the seriousness with which we regard this type of activity in certain circumstances.
I stress that imprisonment follows only when the order has been made, when criminal proof of the order has been demonstrated and when the defendant has the safeguard, if he wishes it, of trial by jury before he is exposed to a sentence of any more than six months.
I believe that we have put the balance right. I am very glad to have had the opportunity to deal with these questions and these propositions. I believe that the five-year maximum may never be used or very rarely indeed. It may well be appropriate in the circumstances which I have described.
We now come to the linked questions of Amendments Nos. 24 and 37, which I believe the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, rightly put in tandem because they address a slightly different aspect of the problem. As both noble Lords have identified, the consequence is that the conditional discharge will not be available. If a breach of the order is alleged there is provision for the defence of reasonable excuse. So for the breach to be proved that would have to be disproved by the court. To allow a further conditional discharge is really serving a further order, a further final warning and a further last resort.
We have come to the conclusion that that is otiose. The original seeking of the order gives a message to the defendant which is, "Carry on like this and serious consequences may well come about. If you breach the order there will be criminal sanctions." For a conditional discharge to follow a breach there will be the same statement over again. It ignores the original order and we shall be back in a situation which most people have regarded as foolish in the extreme; namely, caution, caution and caution.
We have come to the policy conclusion that if, without reasonable excuse, which is a defence, a breach of the order occurs, it must mean that the defendant has continued in his actions in defiance of the court and in the knowledge that his conduct will be viewed in that way. It means that he has a pattern of behaviour that he either cannot or will not control. In that context, with
606
all the safeguards built in, we believe we are right not to accept these amendments. We are talking about serious matters. I recognise the rights of defendants. We believe in giving the defendant the opportunity of trial by jury and the reasonable excuse defence. We believe that that is the right outcome. We do not believe that a conditional discharge, which so often, as they say in the trade, is just a slap on wrist with a wet lettuce, is appropriate.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Would it be possible for the court to impose a fine of £5 or £10 or does the Minister intend to exclude that power as well?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord has rightly scanned the Bill and come to the same conclusion as I have. A fine is possible, but a conditional discharge is not.
Lord Northbourne: I am sorry to delay the Committee. Can the noble Lord give me an example of a situation in which the five-year prison sentence would be appropriate and which could not and should not be dealt with under other legislation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It may well be that there are evidential difficulties with other legislation, but I do not know. I cannot possibly scan all possible hypothetical situations. We are saying two things: firstly, this is serious business to which we are intent and, secondly, the prosecutor still has the discretion to choose the appropriate charge. I do not believe anyone in this Committee has any doubt that there is serious social mischief here.
Lord Renton: In support of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said and with deep respect to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, it is a fairly frequent practice, when drafting indictments, to create more than one offence out of the same facts. The prosecution need to play for safety. If it does not get a finding against one statute, it may do so against another. So, as a matter of precaution, that is done quite frequently.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It is a sad day that the Government Benches have to support their arguments by reference to the final kick of the previous Home Secretary in the previous administration; namely, the Protection from Harassment Act. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to that legislation because I attacked it root and branch for precisely the same reasons as I am attacking this. I put forward a scheme very similar to what I am arguing today. I am completely consistent. Unhappily, the Labour Government have followed in the footsteps of their predecessors. As I say, it is a very sad day. That legislation was swallowed up in the rush to get things on the statute book just before the general election. It is for that reason and because the Government are now relying on the last Act of the previous Home Secretary that I welcome the lack of support from the Conservative Front Bench. That rather makes my point.

607
However, I most warmly welcome the support that I have received from other noble Lords, including my noble friends, who have recognised the importance of this point.
When the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, uses the word "serious", which is now replacing "flexible" as the word of the night, is he suggesting that I am joking? Is he suggesting that I do not appreciate that there is a social evil which has to be addressed? But that social evil has to be addressed with regard to the liberties of the people of this country. These matters should be dealt with properly and sensibly.
The noble Lord was unable to answer the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and was unable to name a single circumstance that he could envisage in which a five-year sentence could be imposed when another criminal offence had not been committed. If the argument is that a person may be in breach of the order time and again, the answer is that under my proposals he could go to prison for up to two years at a time on each breach. This is a serious matter. I do not propose to press the amendment tonight for obvious reasons, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I shall return to it in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.22 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) Proceedings under subsection (9) above may be instituted by a relevant authority.").
The noble Baroness said: We come to one of my amendments on which I do not think that I have yet had an answer from the Minister. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the relevant authority—that is, the police and the local authority combined—will be able to apply directly to the courts for conviction in the case of a breach of an antisocial behaviour order. That is partly so that the Crown Prosecution Service will not be able to exercise a veto. It is felt that the CPS might exercise a veto because, on the whole, it is concerned with probably more serious criminal offences than those that may have led to the passing of the order in the first place. It is also felt that the CPS might not be sympathetic to what has gone before or to the long-term harassment and distress of those affected by such behaviour.
More seriously perhaps, the amendment relates to the necessity of achieving a speedy prosecution. If people have been subjected to racial taunts, graffiti, harassment and distress over a period of many weeks or months and, despite the imposition of an order, the distress and harassment continue, it is essential (both in terms of respect for this whole new system and in order to alleviate the distress of those affected and to rescue them from their awful situation) that criminal proceedings can be instituted with the greatest possible rapidity and that some of the law's delays can be obviated.
Local authorities have considerable experience of prosecuting cases in various fields. Therefore, it is not necessary to involve the Crown Prosecution Service. I think that this is one instance where the police and the local authorities combined could be trusted to proceed directly to court and to apply for proceedings in relation to a breach of an antisocial behaviour order. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of the Bill as drafted is that if criminal proceedings are brought they should be treated in the normal way and just like any other criminal proceedings; namely, the prosecution should be in the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has described the reasons why the policy decision has been taken that once a breach is established it should be dealt with not as a matter of civil remedy but as a matter of criminal offence. In those circumstances, the logic of that policy decision is that the matter should be dealt with by an independent prosecutor like any other serious criminal offence—namely, the Crown Prosecution Service—following investigation by the police. The CPS decides whether or not a prosecution should be brought or continue. That is the logic of our position, and I believe that that is the correct approach to take in relation to it.
I do not believe that the concern of my noble friend is justified. Her concern is that, if a local authority is prosecuting, the matter will be dealt with more quickly than it would be by the CPS. One hopes that the CPS would establish appropriate internal guidelines to make it possible for these matters to be dealt with quickly and expeditiously, particularly where a victim was suffering as a result of the antisocial behaviour that gave rise to the order in the first place and the criminal proceedings in respect of breach.
Although my noble friend raises an important point I believe that the decision to treat this matter like any other criminal offence is the right one both logically and practically. I hope that my noble friend will reconsider the matter and seek to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I understand the logic of treating the matter via the Crown Prosecution Service. The difference is that this will be part of an ongoing series of offences rather than a single offence. Normally, a single offence is committed and the matter is then concluded, but in the case of harassment and distress, as here, there is an ongoing situation which is not like a single act of burglary, murder or other criminal offence. I believe that it is therefore qualitatively different. However, I would like to consider what my noble and learned friend has said. In the circumstances I seek leave to withdraw my amendment, which I may return to at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn] moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 40, after ("section") insert—
(""the commencement date" means the date of the commencement of this section;").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley] moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall within two years of this section coming into effect make a report to Parliament on the working of anti-social behaviour orders.").
The noble Lord said: I promise to be brief. We come more or less to the end of Clause 1. Given that there are a further 95 clauses to go, I do not intend to delay the Committee on clause stand part on this particular clause. This afternoon we have had a pretty thorough discussion on a single clause, albeit one of the more important ones in the Bill. This and a number of other similar amendments in my name which relate to other clauses were originally grouped together. However, I felt it better to reserve the right to take them separately and ungroup them.
Amendment No. 26 is designed purely to ask the Secretary of State within two years of the provision coming into effect to make a report to Parliament upon its working. I move the amendment purely on the basis that this is a new concept in terms of antisocial behaviour orders. The same is true of some of the other later amendments.
It may be that these orders will prove very effective; they may prove to be ineffective. I considered tabling sunset amendments to this clause which would have ceased to have effect after a certain period unless Parliament decided otherwise. Having considered the matter, I thought it best to leave them as they were and merely ask the Secretary of State to make a report to Parliament so that Parliament would have an opportunity to debate the working of the provision. No doubt the noble Lord or the noble and learned Lord—I do not know who will reply to this debate—will resist this with his usual flexibility and tolerance. I believe that this is an important matter. It is important that with new concepts of this kind Parliament should in due course have an opportunity to examine how they are working and decide whether they are as effective as both we and the Government hope they will be. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I hope that the Government will not resist the amendment which I regard as one of great importance. Unless a report is made to Parliament from time to time, Parliament will not know how the Bill is working out. It breaks new ground of an unusual kind. Even if the Government cannot accept the amendment tonight, I hope that they will keep their minds open because, it is, as I said, an important matter.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: It is important that Parliament hears how this new measure is working out.
610
I shall pick up two points which have emerged during the past few minutes. First, I am strongly in favour of the rapid response to a breach of the antisocial behaviour order that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, recommended. That is especially important if offenders are young.
The second point relates to what the Minister said. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but he referred to people who cannot or will not control their behaviour. I am not certain that someone who cannot control his behaviour should be placed under such an order. As a criminal justice social worker I was brought up to believe that one should not set people up to fail. I may be reading too much into the casual expression, "cannot control his behaviour", but such a person should perhaps be made the subject of a probation order. Someone who cannot control his behaviour should not be made the subject of an unsupervised order. I wonder whether I picked up the Minister correctly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It was not a slip of the tongue. Some people are violent criminals. They cannot or will not control their behaviour, because they often enjoy their thuggery and violent behaviour. If it comes to a choice between protecting the public on the basis that they will not or they cannot, then I regret to say that simple supervision by a social worker is not a remedy in every case. It was no slip of the tongue.
I turn to the amendment. I agree entirely with noble Lords who have said that a review of the success or otherwise of legislation is desirable. It will tell us what we may have done wrong, what lessons we can learn for the future, upon the basis of what past experience shows. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we are increasingly looking to do that on a regular basis.
Even now we are looking at proposals to review the early workings of two recent pieces of legislation from 1997—the Sex Offenders Act and the Protection from Harassment Act—both of which broke new ground in the criminal field. We believe that that should be normal practice. So I welcome encouragement to do that. The only difference between us is whether we provide that on the face of the Bill or continue the workings of review which can be the subject of Question and debate in this place.
We believe that it is not necessary to provide for review on the face of the Bill. There was no review on the face of the Sex Offenders Act and the Protection from Harassment Act. I forestall the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, by saying that just because they were Conservative Acts I should necessarily follow them. We believe that there is a strong case for continuing scrutiny, but that that should be done in the way that we are doing it rather than have it as a statutory obligation.

611
I hope that the Committee will take my rejoinder in the way that I took its inquiries; namely, that we need information; we need periodic review; but it is better done in the way that I suggest rather than on the face of the Bill.
Lord Renton: The Minister has given an encouraging reply, but he did not mention the possibility of reporting to Parliament, which is important and the essence of the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that I did, because I indicated that, periodically, as the reviews develop there is the opportunity for a short debate in this Chamber and Answers to oral Questions or Written Questions. A short debate in this place, of which there are occasional examples, is beneficial, because specialists in particular areas can ask about the conduct of reviews. We are united in spirit and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment to the point of having a statutory obligation.
Lord McNally: This is my maiden intervention as home affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Benches. I have remained silent partly out of the trepidation of crossing a fluent Welsh Silk, which is why I have come armed with one of my own! However, I find great encouragement in the Minister's comments.
During recent years, there has been the danger of producing a ratchet effect in our laws. The idea has been that more draconian measures and more imprisonment will solve the problem of crime and disorder. We must take stock of such measures, whichever Administration introduced them, so that we do not continue to fool ourselves that we are on the right road simply because we are responding to popular demand. There is a need for cool assessment and Parliament is the place to undertake that.
Lord Henley: Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I am neither Welsh nor a Silk, nor ever likely to be. I, too, found the Minister's answer relatively encouraging. However, at this time of night I should not wish to press such an amendment; nor should I wish to press it on another occasion, although I might wish to raise the matter in respect of a number of other clauses.
The Minister said that the Home Office would keep these matters under review and from time to time make reports. Do I understand that the reports will be available to Parliament and therefore open to my noble friend Lord Renton or myself to find a way to debate them? Our ingenuity is such that we can always find ways to debate them.
Secondly, speaking with authority as a Minister, can the noble Lord go a little further and give the Committee an idea of the timescale within which the Home Office will review such clauses? When will it make pronouncements about the workings of this clause or others?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That would depend on the date of commencement. All noble Lords have welcomed the process of consultation and guidelines.
612
However, perhaps I may say without prejudice that it would not be unreasonable to be looking at a review of the way in which the provisions had worked in practice after 18 months or two years of the relevant clause coming into effect. That would give local authorities and police authorities an opportunity to bring issues before the courts. I speak without deep thought or consultation. but that timescale would seem to be appropriate. I notice that two years was the period which the noble Lord had in mind.
Lord Henley: I am grateful for the Minister's response. He went much further than I expected him to go at this stage in offering some kind of timescale. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon] moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause I. insert the following new clause—
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND POLICE
(" . After section 28(4) of the Data Protection Act 1984 there shall he inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) A local authority is acting for the purposes referred to in subsection (I)(a) and (b) when investigating any matters which amount to or could amount to a criminal offence notwithstanding that the local authority may be considering civil rather than criminal proceedings as a result of those investigations.".").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment attempts to address a long-standing problem. I have 40 years' experience—your Lordships will be glad to hear that I shall not detail it—of the difficulties of exchanging information between different organisations with different cultures. Mutual suspicion about motivation and what people will do with their precious information can be extremely inhibiting. There are specific legal problems, too. The Data Protection Act, for example, has prevented the exchange of information which may be held on computers. Fear of our draconian libel laws has been another reason for prohibiting the free exchange of information about paedophiles. Sometimes police forces must resort to nods, winks and nudges to inform social workers that perhaps they should look more closely at somebody's background.
Therefore, it is a long-standing problem in relation to the free exchange of information between different organisations. This amendment proposes a way in which, at least under the Data Protection Act, the matter might be dealt with so that information on computers relating to crime prevention can be freely exchanged. But this is intended entirely as a probing amendment. I hope to hear how the Government believe that they can encourage the exchange of information in that field. Common databases could perhaps be set up and formal links established in that way. I hope that the Minister will have some constructive suggestions about how police and local authorities might combine together to set up databases of information to deal with those problems. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. As she may know,

613
my honourable friend Alun Michael and I had a lengthy and fruitful discussion with the Local Government Association about the legitimate concerns which local authorities have, and, of course, consequentially, police authorities have, about the duties which will be laid upon them as a result of the Bill.
As the Committee will know, the Data Protection Act 1984 will be superseded by the Data Protection Bill currently before your Lordships' House which the Solicitor-General and I are presently conducting.
I accept that the amendment is probing. It attempts to exempt certain applications for antisocial behaviour orders from the full regime of data protection. It seems to me—and I believe that my noble friend confirmed this—that the key point is to make sure that statutory bodies, for example, police authorities and health authorities, can exchange and use information for purposes envisaged in the Bill without fear of legal attack.
At present we are giving careful consideration to see whether there is sufficient legal protection for those authorities which properly share information where it is necessary for the purposes of the Bill. I can say to my noble friend that we are determined to remove any doubt about the extent of the power of such bodies to do so. That is the fundamental point and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue. I hope that I have given my noble friend sufficient reassurance.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful for that extremely encouraging response. I feared that this amendment might not fit the bill but I am extremely pleased that the Government are addressing the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Sex offender orders]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley] moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3. line 6, leave out ("serious").
The noble Lord said: This simple amendment is self-explanatory. At present, before orders can be made under Clause 2, it must be shown,
"that the person has acted, since the relevant date, in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from him".
We are merely suggesting with this amendment, and Amendment No. 30 which is related to it and to which I also speak, that the word "serious" should be deleted.
I raise the matter partly because I wish to know exactly what "serious" means on this occasion. Secondly, a more substantial point, I wish to question whether the inclusion of the word "serious" is really necessary, bearing in mind the very real danger presented by certain sex offenders to young children. I am thinking of paedophiles in particular. I wonder whether the word "harm" alone would be sufficient. I bear in mind the possibility that certain lawyers may wish to use a considerable amount of court time arguing that although harm might come of whatever was threatened by the individual, it would not be serious harm. I do not believe that we would wish to see that
614
happen. I hope therefore that the Minister who is to respond to the amendment will be able to give me some reassurance on both those points. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: In speaking to Clause 1(1) earlier, I sought to persuade the Government to include a reference to alarm or distress being serious. I am sure, therefore, that it will come as no surprise to the Minister that, on this occasion, I wish to support the Government in the retention of the word "serious" and that I cannot support the proposed amendment.
The sex offender order is an extremely powerful one; indeed, it could quite properly be described as draconian. It is therefore an order which should only be introduced and made applicable to a person where there is a real risk of serious harm. The way that the Government have drafted the wording seems to me appropriate on this occasion.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Can the Minister indicate what sort of conduct is envisaged by this paragraph in the clause which would cause harm or serious harm and which does not amount to an offence in itself? In this particular instance. I find it difficult to understand. For example, stalking is now an offence. So what particular kind of harm is envisaged that this sex offender order will prevent?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am bound to say that I have a certain sympathy with the purpose behind these two amendments. The whole purpose of the proposed new sex offender order is to protect the public, especially its most vulnerable members, and it is tempting to see that as the only consideration. I have to tell the Committee that we have looked long and hard at this definition and there has been much anxious discussion about it. We came to the decision that we should not dilute the test of serious harm. If one looks at the order, it will be seen that we start from the presumption that a person is a sex offender. That covers all offences in Schedule I to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and all disposals. including cautions.
After the commencement of the clause, if an offender acts in such a way as to give cause for concern, that does not necessarily mean a further offence. The behaviour may be unexceptionable if it were not for his past history. I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in that respect. Stalking may be an offence as, indeed, may other forms of harassment. However, the noble Lord and I know perfectly well from a recent notorious case in north Wales, which I shall mention generally only, that one can have the classic example of watching children in a school playground. The activity in itself is, of course, potentially neutral, but with the knowledge of the offender's previous history and activities it no longer remains so. Therefore, what one has here is, I believe, a fair balance. There has to be reasonable cause to believe that an order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. Of course the paedophile who may be devious, who may have a large number of previous convictions—but, equally dangerous, who may not have a large number of

615
relevant previous convictions—and who is acting in that way, really needs to be caught by such an order. It would be very difficult to categorise that sort of action as a criminal offence at present, but it needs to be caught.
I am happy that the noble Lord posed the question because it is the sort of question with which officials and Ministers have been wrestling for some time. There is no doubt at all about the enormous and well-justified public anger over some recent cases where sometimes the law is powerless, even when children are involved. I believe that that has been a matter of reproach to all of us on all sides of the Committee.
It is indeed a narrow line we are walking and I do not overlook that fact. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said earlier, we must bear in mind that it is very easy to be benevolent in the human rights context to nice people who are reasonable and as open-mindedly flexible as we all are here. However, it is much more difficult to bear in mind that others also have rights.
Therefore the order sought will be preventive only, but it may prevent an individual from actions which for another individual—as I have indicated—might be neutral. I use the word "neutral" but perhaps a better word is "unremarkable". We must have justification for this measure and we feel that the words "serious harm" constitute the proper level to achieve that. The term "serious harm" is used in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 covering psychological and physical harm. Protecting the public from serious harm under Section 31(3) of the 1991 Act constitutes violent or sexual offences. Although this is not a decision that one can reach with any absolute conviction, we believe that we have the balance about right. It is difficult to achieve a balance here between human rights in their broadest sense and the absolute necessity of protecting, in particular, children. What we have tried to balance is the question of reasonable cause and, on the other hand, serious harm.
We must bear in mind that the police do not have to prove that an order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm; all they have to prove in this regard is that the person has acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order under this section is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. I believe that we have reached a difficult conclusion which is probably the right one. However, I entirely respect what has been said; this is a delicate balance to achieve. We believe that if we take the word "serious" away, that would constitute an undue infringement. We have balanced reasonable cause with the prospect of serious harm. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. All Members of the Committee who have spoken recognise the problem and are aware of the difficulties. One can only trust that one has achieved the right balance.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support what the Minister has said. I believe that paedophilia is generally untreatable. I also think that any act of paedophilia constitutes serious harm. I question whether there is
616
anything that a paedophile does which is not serious. Therefore I think it would be wrong even to suggest that such an act is just harmful; it is seriously harmful.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten me on a small point as to the definition of a sex offender, which on the face of it is pretty simple. Is it or is it not the case that sex offences are subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, in which case there may be people in this category who are not known? That seems to me to affect the way the Bill will work when it becomes an Act. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The definition of sex offender is someone who has committed any offence covered in Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. I always shudder at specific questions from so informed a source as the noble Lord, Lord Elton. My recollection is that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act relates to the Sex Offenders Act. If I may, I shall research further the specific connection which the noble Lord has mentioned. I shall, of course, write to him as soon as I can.
Lord Henley: I am most grateful for the care with which the noble Lord has responded to my amendment. I entirely take his point about the fine balance as to whether one should include the word "serious". I have listened carefully to what he has to say. I accept that he has made a perfectly good and valid case for including "serious" in conjunction with "harm" on this occasion. For that reason I have no hesitation in withdrawing the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos] moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert?
("( ) The chief officer shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to provide that as far as is practical he shall consult the council for the area and every probation committee any part of whose area lies within the local government area before applying for an order under this section, and in any case shall consult such bodies as soon as possible afterwards.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to ensure that the police consult with the local council and the Probation Service either before applying for a sex offender order or as soon as possible afterwards. Once granted, an order will have implications for the Probation Service, which will be responsible for the supervision of such offenders, and for the local authority, which may have to rehouse the offender or provide other services. We are all aware of recent cases which have shown that the identification of sex offenders in a locality is fraught with difficulty. It is important that all the relevant public agencies are made aware of what is taking place before an order is granted. This would build on the collaborative multi-agency approach which is the consistent theme of the Bill and of the Government's approach to crime prevention. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have real sympathy with the view expressed by my noble friend Lady Amos

617
that wide consultation should take place before, or even shortly after, an application is made for an order, for all the reasons she gave—for example, rehousing, and SO on.
It will be the Government's intention to issue guidance in due course which will cover all aspects of consultation. However, we believe that the cases where applications for orders under this section are made should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. To impose an obligation, for example, to consult a body which has not been involved in the case in question, could merely hold up the process and might impose an unnecessary and over-bureaucratic obligation to consult. Again, not all of those against whom orders are being considered or have been granted will be on probation. Moreover, focusing on one group to be consulted could lead to others being overlooked.
Although the Government are in sympathy with the idea of consultation with all the appropriate agencies, they do not think that the appropriate way to deal with this is by such an amendment or any provision on the face of the Bill. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Amos: I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. I am reassured by the commitment to consultation and to publishing guidance. I in no way wish to add or create a further layer of bureaucracy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart] moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) No order under subsection (4) above shall deprive the defendant of the right to seek and undertake employment (other than employment of a type which is inappropriate having regard to the nature of the offences in question) or of access to facilities which are reasonably required in the normal course of life.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. The powers in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 2 are extremely wide. But there must be some limit to the nature of the orders which a court can make. What limits do the Government envisage? It surely cannot be right to make an order, for example, which prevents the subject of the order from going into a public place. That would amount to house arrest, which clearly would not be an acceptable application of the power to make an order.
My amendment is intended to ensure that the subject cannot be prevented from obtaining or holding a job unless that job is itself inappropriate because of the nature of the offence—for example, a paedophile obtaining a job in a school. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that an order cannot prevent the subject of the order from going shopping, going to see the doctor, or doing all the other things that are reasonably necessary in the course of leading an ordinary life.
The answer to the problem may be that when the Human Rights Bill comes into force, Clause 2(3) and (4)of the Crime and Disorder Bill will have to be interpreted as being compatible with the right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If so, it would follow that an order could be made only in so far as it contained restrictions that were themselves compatible with Article 5. Do the Government accept that that is so? If they do, that would satisfy the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely accept both propositions put by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The aim of the sex offender orders is to prevent further offences, not to interfere except where absolutely necessary in a defendant's life. I am sure that, in making the orders, the courts will be well aware of that principle. We intend to set out guidance along those lines to accompany the order.
It is very difficult, as the noble Lord implied, to produce definitions on a general basis. For instance, one looks at:
"employment of a type which is inappropriate having regard to the nature of the offences in question".
Some employment is quite easily categorised—for instance, working in childcare services or areas of that sort. I have had these problems in discussion with the NSPCC in the past. What does one say about a taxi driver? His employer may well have a contract for delivering children to the local school, or perhaps disabled children to special residential accommodation; or a bus driver similarly; or perhaps a café proprietor—which may not present a problem in general, but the cafe may be visited by vulnerable small children who hang about there, which may be a problem. We are very much aware of the difficulty.
The second principle put forward by the noble Lord was how the proposal would tie in with the European Convention on Human Rights. We believe that interference with personal rights and individual freedoms without real necessity could easily be struck down as contrary to the European Convention. To divert for a moment, that is going to be one of the significant and glorious effects of incorporation. I have always suggested, and believed, that the simple headline, "Bringing rights home", does not do justice to the concept which I know the noble Lord so fully supports.
I hope that in this very short reply I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The officials in the Box provide such service as would shame Rolls-Royce at Crewe and have reminded me that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has no application to Clause 2—which will save research and a first-class stamp.
Lord Elton: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is any help to be given to the courts to avoid the endless cases that would otherwise flow to test their orders against the Convention when it becomes part of our statute law?

619
I see from Clause 96 that there is no precise date for this part of the Bill coming into effect. I do not know whether it has been decided yet; it is to be at a date decided by the Minister. It would be interesting to know when the measure is expected to come into effect, and whether there are to be guidelines. The noble Lord's noble friend has already mentioned that some guidance will be brought forward in due time. I presume that that will be before the coming into effect of this Bill as an Act of Parliament. Is there any prospect of any guidance to the courts? I speak as a layman, but magistrates, with due respect, are to some extent laymen themselves. It is important—is it
not?—that we should avoid endless referrals of magistrates' decisions eventually to the European authorities.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord raises two questions: one spoken, and one consequential. It has not been decided as to when the commencement date will be, in respect of the noble Lord's specific question. Of course, the commencement date of the Human Rights Act has also not been decided.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that a large amount of funding is to be put to judicial training. Inevitably there will be queries and questions, significantly we believe in the criminal courts—we believe that the major activity on ECHR is likely to be in the criminal courts. There will obviously be guidance. We work together very happily with the senior judiciary and very productively with the Magistrates' Association. I take the noble Lord's point absolutely. There has to be training; there have to be guidelines and guidance. As I think we have demonstrated, we believe in constructive co-operation and inquiry with those who will have these tasks. We accept that all orders made in this context will have to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. I happily re-emphasise that nothing in Clause 2 detracts from that proposition.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: At the beginning of Clause 2 it states:
"If it appears to a chief officer of police that the following conditions are fulfilled…"
The conditions laid down are that the person be a sex offender and that he has acted in an unacceptable way. We have talked about guidance. Will the guidance be that the chief officer of police and the police force should be proactive in promoting such an order or will they have to wait until members of the public complain that a person is acting unacceptably?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: First, I suggest that that is much too general a question. The guidance will follow consultation. I believe that, if there is to be consultation, the consultation should take place before the guidance is given. In specific answer to the noble Earl's question, it will depend on the circumstances. For instance, if a well known convicted and potentially dangerous paedophile is lurking around a school yard and the local constable notices that, in a sense—though I am not sure that the label is particularly helpful—the police will be proactive. If the local beat constable does not notice but
620
the head teacher does, the police will be reactive to what the public have told them. However, I believe that that is a distinction without a difference.
Lord Goodhart: In view of the most helpful reply by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on Amendment No. 31, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart] moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("(not less than five years)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which raise a slightly different point. Amendment No. 32 raises the question of whether there should he a minimum time limit for sex offender orders. That question was also raised in the debate on the antisocial behaviour order in respect of Clause 1. Unlike the case of the antisocial behaviour order, I do not seek a maximum time limit for a sex offender order. There may well be cases where it is necessary for the order to remain in force for many years because of the unquestionable tendency of paedophiles and other sex offenders to re-offend. There may be some cases where even a five-year order may be excessive. This is so particularly with young people, in whom great changes in behaviour are possible over quite short periods. The court has a discretion as to whether to make an order at all. Why should it not have a discretion as to the length of the order? I would be less concerned about the minimum time limit if the court had independent power under subsection (6) to grant an early discharge from the order where the circumstances justified it.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 raise the same point as was raised in connection with the antisocial behaviour order; namely, the restriction on the court's power to discharge an order before the expiration of the five-year period without the consent of the chief officer of police. The effect of this is to transfer the power to grant early discharge from the court to the chief officer. The court cannot give a discharge if the chief officer does not agree. Equally, it is unlikely to refuse to discharge the order if the chief officer of police does agree to a discharge.
I repeat briefly the arguments that I raised before. First, it is contrary to the principle that sentencing should be a matter for the court and not for the parties to the proceedings. Secondly, a decision of the chief officer of police in these circumstances cannot be arbitrary. He will be under a duty to consider whether to give consent to the discharge. Refusal of consent would therefore be subject to judicial review, which I do not believe would be in the interests of the police. I suggest that here again it would be much more appropriate for the court to have a discretion after hearing the arguments placed before it by the parties for and against the discharge of the order. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I too wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34. I accept, as I said a moment ago—not least in the context of the European

621
Convention on Human Rights—that a sex offender order is a serious matter. It should not be sought lightly and can only be justified by the overriding need, which we identify, to protect the public from serious harm. Unfortunately, the reason such orders are necessary—as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated—is the dismal likelihood, of which we are all well aware, that particular offenders in this category of case will re-offend. It is no good pretending otherwise and I am sure that no one will.
That likelihood—again, it is a gloomy assertion that I make confidently—is a near certainty in some cases, as we all know perfectly well. If that is so, and bearing in mind the seriousness of the situation in the context of human rights, we ought to look at a five-year minimum duration for these orders. For the order to be justified at all we should look at a period of at least five years for its continuation. The order should not be sought lightly. It should not be granted where there is not real concern for the protection of the public. The minimum duration ought to be an in-built check that an order is only sought and granted when the situation really demands it. It is therefore intended to be, in part, a safeguard against misuse.
We do not believe that we are fettering the discretion of the courts by setting down such a minimum period. It is a determined acknowledgement of the nature of the orders and the likely victims of continued offending—in other words, the serious harm that they are designed to prevent. I do not pretend that this is an easy decision. It is again a balance and we have tried to get it right.
Lord Goodhart: I hear the Minister's response. We do not wish to press the matter of the minimum period further. However, the fettering of the courts' jurisdiction, without the consent of the chief officer of police, to discharge an order early is one at which we might possibly look again; however, not tonight. I am happy therefore on this occasion to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford] moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("order") to end of line 38 and insert ("his conduct shall be punishable as a contempt of court").
The noble Lord said: We heard from the Minister a short time ago that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to sex offenders. By that I understand—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the convictions for sex offenders cannot be spent so that they remain with the offender for the rest of his life.
There is a grave danger that we forever talk in terms of paedophiles, rapists and so forth, forgetting that sex offenders are involved in a wide range of offences from the most serious to the least serious—the youngster convicted at an early age, for example, of an indecent assault which caused little harm. He carries that conviction and is to be termed "a sex offender".
I do not propose to worry the Committee at this time of night with a repetition of the arguments that I addressed on Amendment No. 21. The Solicitor-General appears to be relieved at that. I do not wish to be hyperbolic twice in one evening. However, I ask that the Minister and those advising him consider the argument that I addressed and the possibility of an alteration in the framework which they have so far envisaged. I plead with them to try to justify their position from first principles and not from the record of the previous government in matters of this sort.
I wish to address only one specific matter. Under subsection (8) there could be a jury trial on indictment. But so far from being a protection for the defendant, it would be the reverse. What would the prosecution set out to prove? They would prove that the defendant was a sex offender and thereby reveal instantly to the jury the whole of his chequered past and the convictions he has for sex offences. Secondly, they would prove the existence of a sex offender order which would have been made for unremarkable conduct and which would not remotely constitute a criminal offence or any offence if the person concerned were not a sex offender in the first place. Then they would have to be satisfied that the defendant had been guilty of further unremarkable conduct; so if, for example, the jury were told that he had been standing outside the school playground looking at the children inside, they would be bound to convict him; the conditions would all be fulfilled and he would thereby be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of up to five years.
That is the result of adopting the hybrid approach of having the equivalent of a civil injunction and then bringing in the criminal law to deal with breaches of that injunction. If, instead of doing that, the Government were prepared to follow the path that I have outlined—despite the minor clashes we may have had on that, I hope that will not prevent the Government from considering the arguments put forward—that would be a far better way of approaching the issue and would satisfy many of the problems that the Bill causes.
10.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 36 under the pre-emption rule.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord indicated, we have gone over the principle of this construction between the prohibitory order, which is not a criminal order, and the criminal sanction for breach. As cocoa time approaches (though I am told by some noble Lords that by the end of the evening they will be looking forward to something a little better than a cup of cocoa) I hope your Lordships will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not rehearse the arguments which, as the noble Lord recognised, we have already gone over.
Perhaps I may deal with his specific question, because it is a legitimate one, about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which derived from the earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The 1974 Act does not apply to sex offender orders; but it applies to sex

623
offenders, for instance, in so far as they are applying for employment. If their convictions are spent, they do not need to declare their previous convictions in the employment context. So there is a difference there which I am happy to have elucidated.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Am I right in thinking that if it came to a trial, on indictment the jury would have to be told that the defendant had previously offended in a sexual context?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It would be a case of adopting a formula between Crown and defence, approved by the judge, a formula with which the noble Lord and I will be familiar in our previous incarnations. The same difficulties arise with the specific offence of being in possession of a firearm within five years of discharge from prison. Notoriously, the courts—prosecution, defence and certainly the judges—bend over backwards to try to have a neutral formula to draw the sting so far as possible. I imagine that that is how this would be dealt with. It is possible to attend to the problem but I do not think one could have a perfect solution in those circumstances. There are many other offences one could think of, though I shall not elaborate them, where similar problems arise.
There is a difference between the position of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my position. One of us—I shall not say which—believes the world is flat; the other believes it is round; and I do not think we are going to convince each other.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Standing as I do on this circular globe, it would be churlish of me to waste the time of the Committee any further because I hope that the sun is going to rise sometime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I have listened as carefully as I could to the various debates on this clause. I am still not entirely clear or necessarily happy about some of the wording. The very beginning of the clause reads,
"If it appears to a chief officer of police".
I have the feeling that that really means that the chief officer has a reasonable suspicion. I am reinforced in that surmise because of what is said in line 5,
"give reasonable cause to believe".
I am not sure whether "appears" is the right word. That is my first worry.
My second worry arises because, if I heard him rightly, at one point the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said—describing the person who would be subject to such an order—that, "He has committed a sexual offence". On another occasion I believe I heard him say, "With or without previous convictions". That opens up a certain area of doubt.
624
Thirdly, I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord can explain because I have not got a copy of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 here. Perhaps he can explain the meaning of "the relevant date".
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Since the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has raised the issue of whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill, perhaps I may express my one concern with this type of order. Nobody in the Committee disagrees that we are dealing with very serious misbehaviour. I am concerned that this remains an unsupervised order. Is that really sustainable?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not think there is any real difficulty about the words,
"If it appears to a chief officer of police".
That implies that he has made appropriate inquiries or material has been brought to his attention. He therefore comes to the conclusion that the following conditions are fulfilled. When I spoke of a sex offender, I defined that as someone who has committed an offence within Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act. I did not say, "With or without previous convictions". I said that he might have been cautioned. I am happy to repeat the definition of a sex offender. He is someone who has committed one of the offences in Schedule 1.
As regards "relevant dates", I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will find that in Clause 3(2) on page 4 of the Bill. It states,
"the relevant date, in relation to a sex offender, means"—
and then the words are set out there. I am happy to read them, but they are on the face of Clause 3. I hope that that deals with the three specific questions that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Sex offender orders: supplemental]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart] moved Amendment No, 39:
Page 3, line 46, at end insert ("(the conviction for such offence not being a spent conviction for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974)").
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee may well be pleased to know that apart from this amendment and the two amendments with which it is grouped, the next amendment to which my name has been appended comes in at No. 122, so the Committee will be spared hearing any more from me this evening and perhaps for some time to come—
Noble Lords: Ah!
Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 39 was intended as a probing amendment to see whether the Government took the view that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act applied to sex offender orders. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has told us on information provided from the official Box that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has no application to the sex offender order, but I wonder whether that is correct. An application for a sex offender order is not itself a criminal proceeding. Therefore, it appears to me that Section 7(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply so as to exclude the operation of that Act. If

625
that is so, a spent conviction cannot be used as the basis for a sex offender order although it might have to be taken into account in a criminal prosecution for breach of such an order.
Whatever the answer to that might be—I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reply to me by correspondence—I hope that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does apply to the making of a sex offender order because that Act never applies to a sentence of imprisonment of more than 30 months, which excludes most convictions for serious sex offences. For shorter terms of imprisonment, the Act will come into operation only after seven to 10 years from the date of imprisonment. It seems wrong that an offender who has not reoffended for a substantial period and whose crime did not justify a sentence of more than 30 months should have the possibility of a sex offender order hanging over his head for the rest of his life.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41, which are grouped with Amendment No. 39, but which raise the entirely different point of whether a sex offender order should be capable of being triggered by a caution. Amendment No. 41 is merely consequential, striking out a definition of what constitutes a caution. It would not be appropriate for an order to be triggered in that way because cautioning applies only where an offence is regarded by the police as insufficiently serious to justify a prosecution. There would have been no trial and no conviction. I suggest that it is inappropriate that anything short of conviction by a court should trigger potential liability to a sex offender order, which is a draconian order (although in many circumstances it can, indeed, be justified), but the very strength of the order means that the threshold must be high enough to justify the application of that order. Where an offence has been dealt with by a caution, I do not believe that that threshold has been passed. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I have my name down to Amendment No. 40 but the Committee will be pleased to hear that although my name is appended to a considerable number of amendments between now and Amendments Nos. 99 and 100, when the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I start again, I shall be exercising a self-denying ordinance for the next few clauses and leaving the next amendments to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.
I put down my name to Amendment No. 40 originally as a result of misreading Clause 3(1)(c) regarding the cautioning of an offender. I thought it somewhat severe that someone who had only been cautioned should be considered to be a sex offender. Having studied the clause, I see that it relates to a person who has been cautioned by a constable,
"in respect of such an offence which, at the time when the caution was given, he had admitted".
Having noted the words "he had admitted", I am perfectly content with the clause as it reads and have no intention of pressing Amendment No. 40 any further.
Lord Northbourne: I am inclined to support these three amendments in so far as I understand them. While
626
being rightly anxious to protect young people from sex offenders and having a degree of righteous indignation about sexual offences we must be just to people who have made this mistake in their lives. Earlier this evening reference was made to Lady Faithfull. One of her concerns in your Lordships' House was the rehabilitation of sex offenders. It is wrong that any one particular crime in the whole plethora of possible crimes should be unforgivable, unredeemable and never removed from the records. We must balance the protection of young people with the need to be just to those who have committed offences but have reformed their lives. I urge the noble Lord to ponder these matters.
Lord Monson: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and his noble friends on the Front Bench who appear to have had second thoughts, I strongly support Amendment No. 40, in part for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in moving Amendment No. 35. As he pointed out, sexual offences vary enormously in heinousness. Take indecent assault as an example. It may range from an act that is almost as bad as rape—perhaps even worse than that in one or two instances—to something as trivial as planting an unwanted kiss on the cheek of a 17 year-old girl. It is the latter type of indecent assault that is likely to be dealt with by a caution rather than prosecution. I believe that it would be quite inappropriate for people to be caught for something as trivial as that. I strongly support the principle of Amendment No. 40.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I strongly support my noble friend's amendments. If those in authority, the police, thought it sufficient to caution a person for a sexual offence, whether or not admitted, that should be the end of it, unless the person committed a further offence. For him to have to carry the stigma of being a sex offender for the rest of his life, or a substantial number of years, is not fair and may lead to fewer cautions being accepted.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may start usefully with Amendment No. 40 bearing in mind that the recent contributions have dealt with that amendment. One must look at how cautions work in practice. There may be many reasons for an original disposal by way of caution: the age of the offender, the promise of a supportive environment to help him overcome problems or other matters. Typically, the reason may be that the complainant is simply not up to the trauma of giving evidence in court. In this connection one thinks of quite small children. I believe it is the commonplace experience of those who practise in this area that the mere fact of caution does not always mean that the offence is simply one of giving the blushing 17 year-old a kiss at Christmas. There is quite a wide spectrum of cautions.
We believe that what really matters in the assessment to be made in this context is the nature of the original offence and the up-to-date assessment of the offender. The original disposal is not something that necessarily matters. If on the spiral of sexual offences, which everyone who has spoken tonight recognises, there was

627
a time when someone was sentenced to 20 months, if quite young for a first offence, it might, nevertheless, have been serious. Therefore, I am not persuaded by the arguments on Amendment No. 40, because disposition is not the point; it is the nature of the offence, and the present nature of the offender.
On Amendment No. 39, no order is capable of being granted unless the behaviour of the individual concerned, at the time the order is applied for, gives reasonable cause to believe that the order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. So the proposal hears no element of being retrospective, because it is behaviour which decides whether the order is appropriate, not the previous offence.
The order is not a sentence; it is not a conviction. To deal with the philosophic point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about rehabilitation, the previous conviction merely serves as evidence that the defendant has a history of offending in this particular way. I readily accept that to use the words "sex offence" is sometimes prejudicial. There are many sex offenders who will never re-offend. The boy of 17 who has sexual intercourse with his girlfriend of 15 years and 11 months is different from the sort of dangerous sex offender upon whom we are focusing in our discussion this evening and whom the Bill is intended to catch.
The fact that the conviction is spent is just a fact; it does not mean that he may not re-offend. We believe that we have the balance right again: duty to protect the public; duty to have due regard to individual rights and liberties.
We have difficulties with Amendment No. 41. I have reached the last ignoble refuge of thinking that this is technically misconceived. I have treated myself to that.
Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 41 is purely consequential upon Amendment No. 40. It merely removes something that would become irrelevant were cautioning no longer the basis for a sex offender order.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept that. We believe that there are technical deficiencies, but I am sure that the Committee is not panting for a description of the deficiencies.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I remain not wholly persuaded by it. One of the problems with using the caution as a basis for a sex offender order is the fact that there has been no conviction in a court. That would be the necessary prior basis for the making of any sex offender order.
On retrospectivity—to refer to an amendment which is not here—on Second Reading I raised the point about whether there was an element of retrospective punishment, where the original conviction occurred before the Bill is enacted. I have seen a copy of the letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on that subject. There is an arguable point here. The appropriate place at which to decide that point is in the courts, and I have not tabled an amendment to raise the specific point of retrospectivity.
628
The question of whether a caution is an appropriate basis for a sex offender order is one which we will consider. We may return to it. For this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Anti-social behaviour orders]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon] moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 14, line 29, after ("authority") insert ("on credible evidence, from two or more witnesses,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 42, 1 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 69. In turning to the provisions of Chapter II, which deal with the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders and sex offender orders into the law of Scotland, I am reminded of the old Scots expression of something tasting like cold kale. Another expression which might be more fully understood is: "reading yesterday's newspapers". Undoubtedly, a number of the issues which are to be addressed in Amendments Nos. 42 to 97, which I suspect we shall not complete in the next 20 minutes, were addressed in particular in Clauses 1 and 2.
As the Minister indicated, there are differences between the procedure in England and that in Scotland. I listened with interest to the full and reasoned—and to himself convincing—arguments he advanced in defending the English provisions from criticism or attack from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on the role of the police during the minimum period for which the orders are to exist and the existence or otherwise of the penalty of conditional discharge. Members of the Committee who have read the Scottish provisions will note that in all three respects a different approach is followed in Scotland. Ministers might do well to reflect between now and the Report stage on whether the differences can be as fully justified as they suggest.
It might assist the Committee if I indicate my approach to Clause 18. Those Members who were present on Second Reading will recall that, although warmly and without qualification I welcomed certain parts of the Bill as they apply to Scotland, I expressed a measure of reservation about these orders, in particular the antisocial behaviour order. Since then, I have been able to carry out further research and have been much assisted by two fellow members of faculty; they are, Jonathan Mitchell QC and Simon Collins. Mr. Collins has written a book entitled Anti-social Behaviour and Housing Law, published last year. Much to my surprise, both colleagues, although they are considerable experts in housing law, do not support the proposal to introduce antisocial behaviour orders. Even more to my surprise, I discovered something I should have been aware of: that the Scottish Affairs Committee of another place, in a report prepared during the previous Session, reported to the other place on housing and antisocial behaviour. That is a cross-party committee which took evidence from a considerable number of witnesses. Although it

629
made a large number of recommendations about how the law in this area might be improved, and although it considered the possibility of introducing antisocial behaviour orders into Scotland, it did not support that.
Among its recommendations which are set out towards the end of the report, it invited the then government to consider whether the law on interdict ought to be altered; whether a power of arrest should be added to interdicts pronounced by the civil courts so that as soon as an alleged breach occurred the person who was interdicted could be arrested by the police; and it recommended speeding up the procedures.
Unfortunately, the consultation paper on that topic which was issued in Scotland in September, with a four week period for responses, failed to mention the existence of the Scottish Affairs Committee report and the fact that it had not supported antisocial behaviour orders, and failed to mention the recommendations which it had made and which the government of which I was a member had accepted.
Therefore, while I accept readily that in response to the consultation paper, the majority of those consulted supported the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders, I suggest that they did so without being fully informed by the Government of what many might think were relevant considerations.
In moving and speaking to these amendments, I pose a number of questions to which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will respond either this evening or when we return to the matter a week today. First, do the Government intend that an antisocial behaviour order could be justified by conduct which would not found a criminal prosecution; in other words, whether the behaviour which would satisfy the first hurdle to be found in Clause 18(1)(a) which would not at the same time justify a conviction for breach of the peace, assault or other offences relating to the question of antisocial behaviour?
Secondly, could such an order be justified by conduct which would not be sufficient to justify the granting of an interdict at the instance of the person against whom the conduct was directed? In other words, putting it in shorthand form, could an order be pronounced when no crime had been committed and no civil wrong had occurred?
It is important that those issues should be addressed and answered by the Government before the Committee can be satisfied that this idea, which has been discussed fully in relation to England, is appropriate for Scotland. When one reads the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, one sees that it was unable to find any clear evidence of an increase of antisocial behaviour. Furthermore, I understand that the Scottish Office is currently commissioning research as to the best way to deal with such behaviour. In particular, it has instructed and funded Glasgow University to carry out research as to the cost efficiency of legal solutions to antisocial behaviour compared with non-legal solutions. It has funded other research as to the actual workings of the court process when dealing with antisocial cases in relation to housing tenancies.
The more research I have undertaken since Second Reading—and I apologise to Members of the Committee for not having done it before—the more concerned I am that the case may not have been made out. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to provide answers to the questions that I pose but, as I say, research has failed to convince me any more than I was convinced on Second Reading that this is a sensible way forward.
It is against that background that I turn briefly to the detail of the first group of amendments. In the debate which took place today issues were raised about whether it is right to mix criminal standards of proof or criminal requirements of sufficiency of evidence with what is undoubtedly a civil proceedings. But if there is to be no requirement for corroboration, if the rules of hearsay will not exclude hearsay evidence and if professional witnesses employed by a local authority will be sufficient, there is concern, both at the stage of deciding to bring an application and at the stage of placing it before the sheriff, regarding the risk that the latter could be satisfied on the evidence of one witness that it is appropriate to impose an order of a very serious nature.
I listened earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when he said that this was a last resort before prosecution or a last warning before that stage was reached and that, once the order was pronounced, then, provided that the defender—as we would call him in Scotland—behaved himself, he would have no need to worry. I find that difficult to reconcile with what the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said on the last occasion; namely, that in terms of an order pronounced under Clause 18 it would be possible to exclude a man from a house indefinitely even though he was the tenant of the house or the owner of the house. So undoubtedly in appropriate cases an order could have very serious ramifications. That is why I pose the question whether, as an additional safeguard, it might be sensible to require a local authority to look for evidence from two sources before it decides to go forward, and to place a similar requirement on the sheriff.
I have a further problem with the Bill as drafted. How precisely is the local authority going to deal with the matter? That point was made by my noble friend Lord Windlesham earlier today. Is it to be dealt with by the social work committee? Is it to be dealt with by the environmental health committee or by the housing committee? How do the Government envisage this happening? Will it be dealt with by officials, or will it be the decision of councillors? These are practical matters. They may, no doubt, be dealt with in guidance, but we have not as yet seen anything in the nature of draft guidance or in the form of a consultation paper about guidance. Those are the matters of unease that I have and which I very much hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will answer either tonight or when we resume proceedings on the Bill next Tuesday. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like briefly to add the same type of start to this discussion on antisocial behaviour orders in Scotland. I have four brief points to make. The first is that I believe an antisocial behaviour

631
order will meet real need. As long as we get the legal side of it right, it will be a useful addition to the armoury of social policy in Scotland.
Secondly, as a former criminal justice social worker, I approve of these forward-looking orders because they attempt to control future behaviour or ask the person who is the subject of such an order to control his behaviour in the future. That is a dramatic improvement on the effect of, say, a charge of breach of the peace which looks back at past behaviour.
Thirdly, if I was unhappy about these orders being unsupervised in England and Wales, I am unhappy about them being unsupervised in Scotland. Normally speaking, when an order is made the person who is the subject of that order goes to the social work department where it is explained to him. The probation order, the community service order, or whatever it is, is discussed and the social workers ensure that the person fully understands what is required of him. After all, there are distinct consequences involved. I wonder how that will happen. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, asked whether the provision would be the responsibility of social services, housing departments or environmental health departments. Those are valid questions.
My fourth and final point is that this is a new task for local authorities and they already have many tasks imposed on them. They will be required to re-organise their schedules because although some extra money has been provided it will not go very far, particularly if it is to be divided 32 ways, and no doubt Clackmannanshire will not get its pro rata share being one of the smaller authorities.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, for setting out his stall, as it were, against a fairly simple group of amendments which did not need much said about them. However, it is useful to know what his position is. As regards the noble Earl's point about funding, as he has already noted, additional funding is being provided. As a fellow native of Clackmannanshire I doubt whether anyone there will be subject to an anti-social behaviour order of this kind because there is no such behaviour in Clackmannanshire.
I shall deal with one or two of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. First, as regards the arrangements of local authorities concerning which committee will deal with this matter, those are essentially matters for local authorities themselves, but guidance will be provided to them. There will be full consultation and no doubt different authorities may make different arrangements according to their funding allocations.
As regards whether an interdict would be appropriate, as the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, this order will be made at the instance of the local authority and not the victim who would normally be the pursuer in an interdict. There may be some question as to the title and
632
interest of a local authority to raise a petition of interdict in relation to behaviour. It is for that reason that this order provides an additional safeguard.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive my intervening. I am well aware of the fact that at the present time in Scotland a Scottish local authority would not have such a title. One other criticism of the consultation paper that has been suggested to me is that it omitted to draw attention to the fact that English local authorities have such a power. The view was expressed—in my submission it seems to have some force to it—that that is a relevant consideration which ought to have been placed before those who were consulted, if for no other reason than it touches on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, as to whether that is a preferable way forward; that is, to do it by way of interdict, the Scottish injunction, or to have a new statutory procedure.
I am willing to be convinced but I invite—it may be unnecessary to do so—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to consider in detail the concerns that have been expressed today, which I share and which I now raise, because in my submission it is necessary fully to demonstrate that this new procedure is necessary before many can be convinced that it will work and before it will command respect. If it leads to false promises that it will somehow solve the problem of dealing with anti-social behaviour which has not been solved by existing procedures, at the end of the day it may do more harm than good.
11 p.m.
Lord Hardie: I do not wish to rehearse what my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in his comments about the justification for the similar English provision. The reason underlying the policy is the same; it is to afford an added remedy to local authorities in situations where we are dealing with members of that community who are behaving in a certain way to ensure, as far as possible, that they cease to do so. It is an added protection for the public at large; it is an added weapon for the local authority to use.
I welcome the comments by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, supporting the principle behind the orders. If the noble and learned Lord seeks some indication of the justification for such orders and the approach adopted by the Government, he might do well to listen to the noble Earl who has considerable experience in social work in Scotland and has dealt with such matters at first hand.
The amendments would increase the standard of proof for antisocial behaviour orders from the test in civil cases to that which prevails in criminal cases either by introducing the requirement for corroboration or by imposing the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. I do not wish to rehearse what my noble friend Lord Williams said in relation to Amendment No. 11, but, as he explained, antisocial behaviour orders are prohibitory. They are neither convictions nor punishments. In these circumstances, it is right that the laws of civil evidence should apply and corroboration

633
should not be required. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, to consider this. Why should a higher standard be placed upon a local authority than upon any other litigant when the local authority is engaged in civil litigation, which this will be?
An order should be able to be granted if the need for it is proved on the balance of probabilities. This is what happens with interdicts, as the noble and learned Lord is well aware, and with applications to the civil court for non-harassment orders. Antisocial behaviour orders will be similar in effect. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for dealing with many of the questions I raised. He posed the question as to why there should be a higher standard on local authorities and other litigants. If the Government were following the interdict route I would fully appreciate that. But this is a new procedure. It has been
634
said numerous times today that it is only a prohibitory order. It is not a punishment; it is not a sanction; it will not carry any criminal convictions, and so on.
My concern is that the order will be perceived by those upon whom it is imposed as a punishment. If the individual is prohibited from staying in the house that he has bought or tenanted and is separated from other members of his family as a result, that will be as much a punishment in the eyes of the recipient as other orders pronounced by the criminal courts of a non-custodial nature.
However, I do not intend to press the amendments to a vote. I might be tempted to do so to see whether it might be possible to count the Committee out. But as we are all going home early, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Unlawful Discrimination Complaints: Timely Hearings
  Unlawful Discrimination Complaints: Timely Hearings
  Non-Departmental Public Bodies: Information Access
  Non-Departmental Public Bodies: Information Access
  Higher Education Institutions: Information Access
  Higher Education Institutions: Information Access
  New Deal Regulations
  New Deal Regulations
  Customs and Excise: Diversion Fraud
  Customs and Excise: Diversion Fraud
  Abortion Laws: Private Member's Bill
  Abortion Laws: Private Member's Bill
  Scotland Bill: Judiciary
  Scotland Bill: Judiciary
  Scotland Bill: Schedule 5
  Scotland Bill: Schedule 5
  Mineworkers' Respiratory Disease Claims: Costs
  Mineworkers' Respiratory Disease Claims: Costs