Sitting of 5 February 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The President of the Board of Trade was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: How many copies of "EMU-Practical Guidelines for Business" have to date been circulated to small businesses. [25684]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): In total, about 65,000 copies of the booklet have been distributed. Copies have been sent to the regional offices of the Federation of Small Businesses and to many trade associations and other intermediary bodies.
    Mr. Bruce: By my reckoning, that figure is up by some 15,000 since last July, which is not a huge amount. Many small businesses are gradually realising that the euro will happen and will affect them, but they are concerned about not knowing exactly what they should be doing in practice and the fact that they may have to make expenditure for an uncertain outcome. Does the Minister accept that we need a clear timetable against which small businesses can plan the future?
    Mrs. Roche: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been extremely clear on this matter. I accept that small businesses are concerned about the nuts and bolts of what they need to do. That is why all the Government's efforts are concentrated in that direction, and why my Department and the Treasury are working very hard with business. We are compensating for the lack of information from the previous Government who, because of their splits and divisions, put party before country.
    Mr. Gapes: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, over the next few years, there is a continuing stream of publicity to emphasise the importance of business being ready for the single currency, so that it can take advantage of it should the Government decide that the time and the economic circumstances are right for this country to join?
    Mrs. Roche: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is absolutely right that business is given as much information as possible, and we shall continue to do that.
    1208
    Great efforts are already being made in the private sector to ensure that all the relevant information is given, and we shall leave no stone unturned in seeking to assist business.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does the Minister agree that from as early as 1 January 1999—in about 47 weeks' time—small British businesses could face additional costs from the euro, irrespective of the UK's position, as firms that export to Europe may be forced to tender in euros to maintain their competitive advantage and will then have to bear the exchange and subsequent risks to their business?
    The Minister's circulation figure of 65,000 is pathetic. She may be surprised to know that when I telephoned the Department of Trade and Industry this morning, I was told that there were no publications or advice available from the DTI. I was even asked what EMU stood for. Is that the service that business can expect from the DTI? As time is running out and the DTI has been curiously silent in giving advice to businesses, what steps will the Department take to inform small businesses and help them prepare for the change? How much money will it spend to make small businesses fully aware of the implications and danger of the euro, or is it going to rely on the Treasury to do its job?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Lady doth protest too much. It is no good her complaining now, given that in the past 18 years when the Conservatives were in government they did absolutely nothing to help the business community. The DTI and the Treasury are working very hard not only with large but with small businesses, which are represented on the advisory group and in their small business organisation. I am not surprised that the hon. Lady uses a smokescreen to disguise her policy on this issue. She recently very honestly admitted that her party had lost the small business vote. She also said in a great fit of honesty—which I very much welcome—that there will be very little policy on small business coming from the Conservatives. That is why the latest quarterly survey by Office World on small business shows that the party in government, the Labour party, enjoys record support among small businesses.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Sutcliffe: What steps she is taking to assist British companies to improve their competitiveness. [25685]
    Ms Kelly: What steps she is taking to improve the competitiveness of British companies. [25698]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I launched my competitiveness UK initiative last summer, and it is at the heart of my drive to build a partnership with business to identify practical policies that address business needs and help companies improve their competitiveness.
    Since I launched that initiative, I have held a major business summit to establish the areas to be tackled, and have published a benchmark for business to compare the United Kingdom's performance with that of our main competitor countries, and to meet business peoples' request for sectoral analysis; I have set up my competitiveness advisory group of prominent business

    1209
    people to ensure that the initiative retains a business focus; and I have established six working parties of business people to identify practical ideas for the White Paper later this year.
    In addition, I am pushing forward the competitiveness agenda in Europe through the UK's presidency of the European Union. The Industry Council, under our presidency, will hold its first ever competitiveness debate.
    That radical approach will lead to policies for sustainable wealth creation, based on a high-skill, high-investment, innovative, modern economy.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. Does it not show the stark contrast between the approach of this Government, who are prepared to support business in a practical and positive way, and that of the previous Government in the past 18 years? In 1979, manufacturing industry represented 30 per cent. of gross domestic product. That figure is now down to below 20 per cent. We have the lowest growth in manufacturing of any of our European competitors. Will the Government support manufacturing to ensure sustainable growth, because that affects employment? Our constituents vitally need the jobs that manufacturing can create.
    Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of manufacturing, and have always, both in opposition and in government, stressed how mistaken it was of the Conservative party to neglect that vital sector of the economy in the mid-1980s. My hon. Friend will be aware of the steps that the Government have taken recently, in partnership with companies such as Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and Jaguar, to secure the high-quality employment that manufacturing can still offer this country.
    Ms Kelly: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that after 18 years of Conservative government, our average company performance remains below that of our main competitors? I re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) about manufacturing industry. Our manufacturing productivity is 25 to 30 per cent. lower than that in France, Germany and the United States. Do not those facts fully justify the Government's determination to involve industry in a new partnership with Government to improve economic performance?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Part of the unfortunate legacy left to us by the Conservatives was that they told at best half or partial truths about the state of the economy. There have been improvements in productivity in recent years, but my hon. Friend is right that there is still a great deal of work to be done. That work can be done effectively only in partnership with the business community, and we are engaged in that process.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was with a large group of business people last night, and the main complaint on which they lobbied me was the uniform business rate. Is the right hon. Lady aware of the Conservative party's proposal at the last election to make a £1,000 deduction from the uniform business rateable value? That was extremely popular with small business men. Would she consider such proposals in the review that she is about
    1210
    to undertake? Would she consider particularly the unfair impact that the uniform business rate has on small businesses as compared with large businesses?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the profound unpopularity of the uniform business rate with small businesses, and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to it. It was, of course, introduced by the Conservative Government, and small business made repeated representations to them over the years asking them to do something about it. I accept that the Conservatives underwent a belated, deathbed conversion and tried to do something about it. Proposals as to how the matter should be handled are a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I know that it is actively considering those proposals.
    Mr. Redwood: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her choice of a very old Labour outfit to show some solidarity with the principles that she is ditching.
    Does the right hon. Lady plan to make any more exemptions to the national minimum wage in the interests of British competitiveness? Why did she tell the House that there would be no sectoral exemptions, and then exempt the armed forces? She must have known that such exemptions were being planned. I certainly did, and I told her that they were being planned. Will she now apologise for misleading the House in such a blatant way?
    Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in everything that he said. I picked out this outfit to match the departmental folder.
    Let me turn to the serious point made by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not consider the armed forces to be a sector, and I do not think that the armed forces do either. As I believe everyone recognises, they are in a unique position.
    In the National Minimum Wage Bill, we have sought to provide coverage that is as broad as is practically possible, and we have made every effort to accommodate the specific and important operational requirements of the armed forces. The decision that we made, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced in Committee on Tuesday, recognised not only their unique position but the unique machinery that exists for them through the armed services pay review body.
    Mr. Redwood: Why did the right hon. Lady not warn us at the time of the debate on the issue that the Government were considering exempting the armed forces? I told her that they were considering other exemptions, and she made no mention of it. Will she now tell the House categorically whether any other exemptions will be made under the Bill, or whether that is the last exemption that will be pulled out of her by the Chancellor and other Ministers?
    Mrs. Beckett: What I actually told the House was that these were matters of considerable importance and complexity, which would be debated in full in Committee and through the legislative process of the House. That is precisely what I said, and that is precisely what has happened.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mr. Dalyell: Pursuant to her answer of 18 November 1997, Official Report, column 105, on locating in Scotland, if she will make a statement on the status of the Committee on Overseas Promotion after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. [25686]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I expect the Committee on Overseas Promotion to continue as an administrative forum which enables the Invest in Britain Bureau and all its partner agencies in the UK to liaise and to co-ordinate their activities as necessary.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who will umpire the game of beggar-my-industrial-neighbour between Holyrood and Westminster?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend asked that question in my deaf ear.
    The proposals are intended to secure better coordination and co-operation between all parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—and to provide best value for United Kingdom taxpayers, ensuring best practice and transparency so that the United Kingdom remains the No. 1 location for inward investment. That is what the Government have attempted to do and will continue to do. When we are ready, we will announce the proposals relating to the concordat.
    Mr. Baldry: The Minister seems a bit confused. The question is about overseas promotion, while the concordat is clearly about inward investment. We know that there will be a concordat on inward investment, but will there also be something akin to the concordat to ensure that there is no competition between the various parts of the United Kingdom in the promotion of exports?
    Mr. McCartney: The whole purpose of the Government's strategy is to promote not only inward investment but exports. That is why we have shown the way that the Government are moving forward on our competitive agenda. The body will co-operate and co-ordinate activities in these areas. That approach differs from that of the hon. Gentleman and the previous Government who did nothing to co-ordinate activities in this area.

    EU Structural Funds
    Mr. Kirkwood: If she will make a statement on the Government's proposals for reform of the objective 5b criteria. [25687]
    Mrs. Roche: We welcome the Commission's proposal for continued support for vulnerable rural areas under the new objective 2. We want to see a fair balance of the available resources between rural, industrial, urban and fisheries areas, ideally determined at the national or regional level. We will seek an overall system and detailed criteria which are fair and equitable to the UK regions and to the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Can the Minister do anything to allay the fears that are circulating in the Scottish borders and
    1212
    in other areas of the country as a result of the rumours that have been flowing from Brussels, suggesting that the eligibility criteria for rural areas will change substantially? Would it not be perverse and unfair for the United Kingdom, which is the fifth poorest of the member states but the fifth largest net contributor, to be denied millions, if not billions, of ecu in structural funds? Will she seek to persuade her opposite number in the Commission of the need to adopt GDP per head figures rather than unemployment rates as the future eligibility. criterion for objective 5b areas?
    Mrs. Roche: I recognise that the Scottish borders, like many other areas, face particular social and economic problems. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the area benefits from its objective 5b status. At this early stage, I cannot predict the areas that will be eligible for the new objective 2 status. However, we are seeking a proper balance between rural and other areas and we want to use that objective criterion to determine areas of greatest need. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the House want that. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we certainly prefer a system under which the total eligible population of each country is related to national GDP. I assure him that my colleagues and I are working hard on this issue.
    Ms Atherton: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend's answer on structural funding. In view of the devastating news that has just been announced that we have not been successful with a viable package for the last tin mine in Europe, South Crofty in Cornwall, does she agree that perhaps objective 5b has not delivered for Cornwall in the way that many of us had hoped? Will she and the Government seriously consider objective 1 funding for Cornwall?
    Mrs. Roche: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her leadership in the campaign to save South Crofty. I know that that sentiment is shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House. My officials and I have worked hard, in hand with my hon. Friend and with local management and the work force at South Crony on the application for regional selective assistance. I regret that the application has had to be rejected as the proposal would not lead to a viable business. I think that that is understood by all the relevant parties. The Government are looking hard to see how the local economy can be regenerated, and we recognise Cornwall's strong arguments for objective 1 status. The House may be assured that the Government will push hard to secure the best outcome for Cornwall and for other parts of the UK in the reform of the structural funds.
    Mr. Boswell: Moving from one metal to another and from the real problems of Cornish tin miners, may I ask the Minister whether she concedes that her answers will go down like a lead balloon in rural areas where farmers already face a record slump in their incomes? The Rural Development Commission has been filleted and there are threats to country sports and concerns about an overall right of access. There is a profound belief that the Government do not care about rural areas and will not provide continuing support for them—and that all they are going to do is build houses all over them.
    Mrs. Roche: I have considerable respect and admiration for the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that he

    1213
    takes that view. Plainly, he did not listen to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) when I stressed the importance of rural areas. We are keen to achieve the right balance and a fair deal for all areas. Rural areas are close to our hearts, particularly, of course, because Labour Members represent so many rural areas as a result of the last election.

    Multilateral Agreement on Investment
    Dr. Tonge: If the Multilateral Agreement on Investment will include a legal requirement for parties not to lower environmental and labour standards in order to attract foreign investment. [25688]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: Draft text on that issue has been discussed at the negotiations of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in Paris. The UK is at the forefront of widespread but not universal support for such a legal requirement. We will continue to press the case up to the conclusion of the negotiations in April 1998.
    Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister accept that his Department gave full support to the aims of the White Paper on international development? Indeed, does he recall that, in a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), the Department pledged to sustain development, to protect the environment and to protect labour standards in relation to the agreement? Does the Minister accept that if there are no legal constraints on both parties in the agreement, it should be delayed?
    Mr. McCartney: The agreement should not be delayed. It is an opportunity, not a threat. It is the first major investment treaty to have substantive provisions on the environment and labour. The sooner we can conclude it and partners recognise it, the better it will be for many millions of people throughout the world.
    Mr. MacShane: I agree with the Minister's last point. Does he accept that the worldwide backlash against globalisation—whether the crisis in Asia, the failure of President Clinton to achieve fast-track trade negotiations or the riots in France—show that free trade and foreign direct investment that does not take social considerations into account is a dead-end street? Will he therefore assure the House that the Government will not be signing any multilateral agreement on investment that does not include exactly the aims that he has been stressing?
    Mr. McCartney: The Government are totally committed to international and national standards in these sectors. Those standards are vital to us and, as a consequence, we are trying our best to conclude this agreement to ensure that the objectives as set out are carried through practically.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Yesterday, I had the pleasure of reading the hon. Gentleman's speech on age limitations and age discrimination in the labour market in the UK. Have the Government and the Minister done a complete U-turn on this issue—I hope that he will re-read his
    1214
    speech, which was made just a year or so ago—because he wants inward investment to the UK, or simply because the Labour party no longer has any principles?
    Mr. McCartney: It is the hon. Gentleman's arguments that are aging. This week, the Government have made it absolutely clear that we oppose age discrimination at work in all its forms. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education and Employment are proceeding with their work to ensure better practice and better standards. I am absolutely certain that, by the end of their five-year term, the Government will have done more than the previous Government did in 18 years to tackle age discrimination.

    Unfair Contract Terms
    Mrs. Organ: What action she is taking to tackle unfair contract terms in consumer contracts. [25689]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): On 26 January, I issued a consultation paper on proposals to strengthen consumer protection. We proposed that, for the first time, a range of bodies representing consumer interests, including the Consumers Association, trading standards officers and the utility regulators, will have power to take action in the courts to stop the use of unfair contract terms.
    Mrs. Organ: I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking that important new initiative. Will he confirm that the change in the regulations will make life much tougher for the rogue trader and improve consumer standards, which will be widely welcomed by consumers?
    Mr. Griffiths: Consumers will indeed benefit considerably if more bodies are empowered to act. Widening the scope for ction will provide consumer bodies with a powerful weapon to tackle unfair contract terms. The 1994 regulations were deliberately framed to block such action.
    Mr. Chidgey: Is the Minister aware that there is growing evidence that the new licensing arrangements introduced by Ofgas to protect consumers from predatory selling and enforcement of contracts by the various gas supply companies are not working? To give just one example—I hope that he is aware of it, but he can tell me if he is not—recently, in the Eastleigh area, where this is becoming current practice, an elderly person with cataracts who is blind was conned into signing a gas contract which he thought was a request for further information. There have been dozens of such examples in the past three or four weeks and they clearly show that the new regulations are not working. Will the Minister assure the House that he will take action to bring predatory selling of these contracts and protection of the consumer to the fore as soon as possible.
    Mr. Griffiths: I know that the hon. Gentleman and certainly Labour Members will welcome the action that has been taken since the election to ensure that, for the first time, after years of most blatant mis-selling, conditions on selling and mis-selling are included in the licence. If that should prove not to be adequate—evidence

    1215
    has been coming in only during the past few days and weeks—we shall revisit it, and primary legislation cannot be ruled out.

    Exporters (Assistance)
    Ms Keeble: What measures her Department has taken since 1 May to help British exporters; and if she will make a statement. [25690]
    Mrs. Beckett: In accordance with our manifesto, we established the Export Forum, which recommended a series of improvements to our export promotion effort, which we are now implementing. In addition, we have reversed our predecessors' decision to abolish the trade fairs support scheme and have announced the largest ever programme of trade fairs and missions overseas. I plan to increase funding for my Department's export promotion work for 1998–99 by around £1 million compared with this year. I expect shortly to be able to announce a series of new measures to help British exporters.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer—and particularly for the trade fairs, which my local chamber of commerce will welcome. On Monday, I shall be visiting the Bostrom group, an extremely successful firm in my constituency which exports its products around the world, to talk about its current problems, which it attributes to the strength of the pound. What message does my right hon. Friend have for that company about the importance of the Government's long-term strategy for securing economic stability and the way in which that will resolve its short-term problems?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am glad to learn that, like so many Labour Members, she continues to cultivate her links with the business community. We fully recognise the anxieties that are expressed, although, as I am sure she is well aware, the picture is not uniform—different sectors are affected to different degrees and in different ways. However, we accept the long-term need for a stable and competitive exchange rate and believe that the Government's actions to achieve long-term low inflation and stability will contribute to that end.
    Mr. Bercow: Has the President of the Board of Trade studied the most recent survey of the British chambers of commerce which reveals that a balance of firms is still losing exports? If she has, why is she alone in failing to understand that all the steps that she is taking to help exporters are grossly outweighed by the massively damaging effects of an overvalued exchange rate caused by the precipitate five interest rate rises perpetrated by her Government?
    Mrs. Beckett: I wonder where the hon. Gentleman was during the 1980s when the previous Government deliberately pursued a policy of a high exchange rate in defiance of economic reality and threw many firms out of business. Some firms have been disadvantaged to a degree, but it remains the case that the figure is somewhat patchy. In the three months to November, the volume of manufacturing exports was 6 per cent. higher than a year earlier and exports of goods and services in total are expected to grow by around 5 per cent. in 1998.
    1216
    The Government are not complacent about the position and we shall continue to work with the private sector to promote exports.
    Mr. Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that at present around one third of exports come from companies that have settled in Britain as a result of inward investment and employ roughly about 18 per cent. of the work force. There is evidence that during the past 18 years the Tory Administration failed to nurture indigenous industry. Therefore, will she consider what mechanisms might be introduced to transfer technology from universities to British companies so as to strengthen British indigenous industry?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right that Britain has a tremendous potential competitive advantage in the creativity and innovation of the British people and in the work that is done in our universities and other research establishments. We continue—partly by promoting the foresight programme and partly by other means—to work with those in such establishments to build better links between them and British companies. We fully realise that Britain's future competitive advantage lies in creativity and innovation rather than in the sweatshop mentality of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with the right hon. Lady that we made mistakes in the early 1990s. We have learnt from them and we have apologised for them. Will she now learn both from that experience and from the current experience of manufacturing and exporting industries? I do not think that she has realised how serious it is out there for people who are trying to make things and sell them abroad. Will she tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is grave damage from high sterling and high interest rates, that his Monetary Policy Committee has caused that damage and that he has added gravely to it by taxing savings and taxing business? Will the right hon. Lady get him to change policy before manufacturers and exporters go under because of her policies?
    Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is reducing taxes on business, so we are heading for the lowest corporation tax rate in the developed world. It is nonsense to suggest that the Government are complacent. We are well aware of the private sector's anxieties and concerns, and we are in continuing discussions with them about the issues on which we can support and be of assistance to them. I am rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman being so critical of the Monetary Policy Committee and of the Bank of England. My impression was that many Conservative Members supported moves towards the type of independence for the Bank of England on interest rates that my right hon. Friend has introduced.

    Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology
    Mr. Timms: What assessment she has made of the European Union Green Paper on convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors. [25692]
    Mrs. Roche: Both the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry have

    1217
    circulated the Commission Green Paper for consultation to a wide range of United Kingdom interests. The Government intend to prepare a response to the Commission Green Paper on the basis of the replies that we receive to our consultation. Getting the framework right is vital for development of the information super-highway.
    Mr. Timms: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the offer made by BT and the cable companies to connect every school in the United Kingdom to the information super-highway demonstrates that the Government are grasping the huge potential benefits of the changes described in the Green Paper. In the months ahead, as she discusses those matters with her European counterparts, will she impress on them the benefits of maximum choice for users of telecommunications services—as demonstrated, for example, by the fact that UK telecommunications charges are considerably less than those in other European nations.
    Mrs. Roche: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate both the cable industry and BT on their imaginative offers to schools for internet access—which is another example of the Government working in partnership with industry to improve United Kingdom competitiveness. I shall certainly continue to impress on my European colleagues the benefits of choice in telecommunications, which has resulted in huge benefits to United Kingdom consumers.

    Formula One
    Mr. Wilkinson: What discussions she has had with the European Union Commissioner, Mr. van Miert, about his investigations into the request by the formula one motor racing industry for exemption from regulations relating to EU competition law. [25695]
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: None; does the hon. Gentleman think that there should have been?
    Mr. Wilkinson: What—or who—has induced the Government to be so indulgent towards blatantly anti-competitive practices in formula one motor sport? Is the Minister unaware that the position of the generous benefactor, Bernie Ecclestone, is highly invidious in as much as he sits on the board of the regulatory body—the HA—while running his own company, Formula One Holdings? Has not the European Commissioner, Mr. van Miert, said that
    "the whole set up is layer upon layer of exclusive deals'?
    Only yesterday, in the Belgian Parliament, did not Mr. van Mien say that
    "Unlike national governments the European Commission would not bow to pressure from the sport'?
    Why are Ministers so indulgent and so ineffectual about such blatant malpractices?
    Mr. Griffiths: I have not followed the proceedings of the Belgian Parliament as closely as the hon. Gentleman, but we support the full and fair application of European Community competition rules. The involvement of particular individuals does not affect our position?

    Offshore Fabrication Yards (Construction Contracts)
    Mr. Godman: If she will list the construction contracts won by United Kingdom-based offshore fabrication yards in the past two years. [25696]
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I have placed in the Library of the House a detailed list of all construction contracts worked on or secured by UK offshore fabrication yards in 1996 and 1997 and known to the Department. My hon. Friend will note that it is an extensive list running to some 130 contracts. It reflects the current competitiveness of the UK fabrication industry, which is winning orders for UK engineering and technology and underpinning jobs.
    Mr. Godman: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that our fabrication yards are among the best in the world. One such company is UIE, which is now located at an excellent facility in my constituency. What assistance is given to yards in respect of the international market for offshore structures? Is not much of the foreign competition underpinned by state and regional government subsidies?
    Mr. Battle: The former Scott Lithgow shipyard in my hon. Friend's constituency is currently being used for offshore construction work and has won orders. There has been a shift in the industry away from fixed rigs and towards floating platform systems. The Department recently launched the fabricators forum to enhance the UK fabrication industry. At the outset, the oil industry was told that 18 per cent. of its work would be within the United Kingdom. The figure has now reached 17 per cent. Significant fabrication requirements for Norway, Denmark, Canada, America and other international markets are being won by the expertise in our shipyards to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will tell me about another offshore fabrication? Will he tell me why an offshore fabrication document has gone to hundreds of thousands of retired miners and miners' widows saying that they have to use another form of fuel and that they will lose 12, 14 or 16 bags of coal? The Minister is responsible, so will he give a guarantee—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister might be responsible, but the question is out of order.
    Mr. Skinner: It was a good try.
    Madam Speaker: It was not even a good try. I do not mind when it is, but it was a very poor one.

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. Bendel: What plans she has to promote investment in new technology within the electricity industry. [25700]
    Mr. Battle: My Department is heavily committed to research in the new technologies for the electricity industry and their use. The foresight programme, to which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and Industry referred, has identified opportunities that we

    1219
    are considering with the electricity generation industry. This year, DTI and research council budgets for research, particularly into new and renewable energy items such as advanced fuel cells and photovoltaics, have been supported to the tune of more than £18 million. We also support the non-fossil fuel levy orders in respect of renewable energy technologies to ensure that we take forward renewable energy in electricity generation in accordance with the targets that we have set.
    Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but I was thinking more in terms of domestic users. Does he agree that, in respect of domestic metering, the United Kingdom is still living in the dark ages and that new meters are now available that enable and encourage users to make much better use of electricity and perhaps reduce waste? The introduction of such metering systems will probably depend on the Minister's introducing a national standard. That would allow suppliers to invest in meters while retaining competition between them.
    Mr. Battle: As electricity competition opens up, electricity companies will see what can be done to improve metering. The technology exists and I hope that companies are not waiting to see how the market pans out before introducing it, as it could make a significant contribution to—dare I say it—reducing the price of electricity. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall refer the question of standards to the regulator, who is responsible for such matters.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend look into new technology for answering the telephones in the electricity industry? Norweb and Manweb fail on that.
    Mr. Battle: I compliment my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. He championed his constituents and intervened on their behalf during the difficult period over Christmas when the weather brought down lines. I take his point. He said during an Adjournment debate that communication with people whose electricity supply is cut off is vital throughout the industry. I hope that the industry hears what he has said. The regulator has been asked to report on the issue.
    Mr. Paterson: What will take priority in the Government's strategy for the British electricity industry: providing the cheapest possible electricity to the consumer; honouring the commitments of Kyoto; or protecting jobs in the coal industry? I asked a similar question at the most recent Trade and Industry questions. Several of my constituents commented on the unsatisfactory answer that I received.
    Mr. Battle: Our policy is clear: competition where possible and regulation where necessary. Rather than simply directing regulators to focus on competition, we intend to put consumers at the heart of the process. That will be a great change from the approach of the Conservatives when they opened up the markets.

    Manufacturing Exports
    Mr. Barry Jones: What additional help she proposes to provide to assist the promotion of manufacturing exports. [25701]
    Mrs. Beckett: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton,
    1220
    North (Ms Keeble), in which I referred to our expansion of support for trade fairs and missions, as well as general export promotion.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Aerospace is a fine exporter for Britain, earning an average of £4 billion each year and creating and sustaining some 40,000 skilled and well-paid jobs? May I thank my right hon. Friend for the magnificent part that she played recently in ensuring that £120 million of launch aid came to my constituency for British Aerospace? I invite her to come to my constituency and see the development of wing technology at the Airbus factory. We would like to say a proper and sincere thank you for all her help to the industry.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right: the programme of launch investment that the Government have agreed with British Aerospace will secure 2,000 high-tech and innovative jobs in the United Kingdom. With the engine supply work that Rolls-Royce has secured, almost 50 per cent. of the Airbus 340X will come from the United Kingdom—a further example of British technological success and achievement.
    Mr. Hayes: Will the right hon. Lady comment on the damage that the strength of the pound is doing to manufacturing industries that export? Is she aware of the damage to morale and business confidence, which a survey in my area showed were falling because of the Government's inability or unwillingness to deal with the strength of the pound? What proposals does she have to tackle those problems?
    Mrs. Beckett: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier, but I have already answered that question several times. The Government are well aware of the concerns in some sectors of industry. We have put in place policies that we believe will produce low inflation and sustainable growth in the long term. We also believe that our policies will secure a stable and competitive exchange rate over time.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most effective ways of increasing the export potential of small and medium firms is to put together those who export and those who have not yet exported? Is she aware of the success of export clubs across the country? We welcome the money that she announced in answer to a previous question. Will some of that flow towards the greater stimulation of export clubs and the transmission of knowledge, which is vital for us to ensure export development?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He gives a very good example. The process of mentoring and learning from other best practice is now widespread in British business, where it has a great deal to contribute. I entirely share his view that such advice and support can increase our exports.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Ruffley: What representations she has received from small businesses regarding the impact of the introduction of the minimum wage. [25702]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: I have received a number of representations from organisations representing small businesses about the introduction of a national minimum wage.
    Mr. Ruffley: Will the Minister note that, in a survey of small and medium business men in my constituency, the overwhelming majority opposed the national minimum wage? When will the Minister finally start listening to small and medium business men?
    Mr. McCartney: I should point out that the Federation of Small Businesses voted overwhelmingly in support of a national minimum wage. I should also point out that successive business surveys have favoured a sensibly set national minimum wage. The only people in Britain who are opposed to it are apologists for low pay and Conservative Members.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the national minimum wage policy possesses four characteristics that often go hand in hand these days: it is morally right, economically right, popular with the voters and opposed by the Tories?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those of us who are running the Bill in Committee have managed to get rid of the Tories' filibuster and are well on the way to ensuring that a minimum wage will become law.
    Mr. Hammond: What representations she has received from her ministerial colleagues with regard to the exclusion of groups of workers, occupations or sectors of industry from the scope of the national minimum wage. [25703]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: The national minimum wage aims to cover all workers. The limited scope for exemptions is set out in the Bill and reflects the result of discussions between Ministers.
    Mr. Hammond: The Minister has not answered my question. The House will be aware that the Government suffered a humiliating U-turn this morning in having to disapply the Bill to the armed forces as a result of the Secretary of State for Defence's spectacular victory in his battle against the Department of Trade and Industry. Many employers in the agriculture sector are hoping that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made similarly successful representations that will persuade the Government to reconsider the way in which agriculture workers are treated and allow agricultural wages councils to continue outside the scope of the minimum wage. Even at this late stage, will the Minister consider changing the Bill to allow that?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman and I must stop meeting like this; people will start to talk. He is a member of the Standing Committee on the National Minimum
    1222
    Wage Bill. The Government have not made a humiliating U-turn; we are well on the way to establishing a minimum wage regime to cover all workers of all status. The arrangements for the armed forces mean that they will be covered by the pay review body. That means that every worker in Britain will have some form of pay body to determine their pay and ensure that they receive proper minimum standards of pay. For the first time in Britain, special arrangements have been made, in the National Minimum Wage Bill, for home and agency workers. Agriculture workers, including farmers, agree on minimum wages for agriculture workers.
    Mr. Winnick: Would not it be interesting to know the total income of Tory Members of Parliament who, on every occasion, oppose the national minimum wage? Why do not they declare their income, since they believe in starvation wages for others?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that, in Committee, Opposition Members have spent hours filibustering, supporting low-pay employers who pay home workers as little as 30p an hour. Opposition Members have been exposed for what they are: apologists for low pay. We shall end low pay by introducing a minimum wage as soon as we can.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that there are very strong grounds for arguing for exclusion of workers in hotels and the tourism industry generally? Their work is seasonal, and insisting on a minimum wage in that sector would lead to higher unemployment.
    Mr. McCartney: As a former low-paid catering worker, I can tell the hon. Lady that there are absolutely no grounds to continue poverty pay in the hotel and catering industry. Large and small companies now recognise that a minimum wage will be as good for their business as it is for their employees.

    Working Time Directive
    Mrs. Humble: If she will make a statement about the implementation of the working time directive. [25704]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: Our aim is to publish draft regulations, for consultation, around the end of March and complete the consultation in time to have regulations in force by 1 October.
    Mrs. Humble: Does my hon. Friend agree that this directive is a sensible and flexible measure which introduces minimum standards that already apply in Europe? Will he share my hope that the Opposition will stop scaremongering about the impact of the directive and recognise that British workers deserve the same rights as workers in the rest of Europe?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. For the first time in Britain, some 2.5 million low-paid workers will be entitled to paid holidays. Millions of other workers will gain the right to consultation with their employers before being forced to work unsociable, unhealthy and long hours. Some employees—mainly low-paid workers—work 80 or 90 hours a week on some occasions. The directive will give them minimum

    1223
    standards and protection and the ability to negotiate with their company a sensible package in terms of their working hours and the right to paid holiday leave.
    Mr. Page: In view of the vital contribution made to our economy by the offshore industry, what guarantees will be given to that industry that it will be protected from this measure? I ask the Minister because the Government have given up the protection of Maastricht and embraced the social chapter.
    Mr. McCartney: The current directive excludes that industry, which is playing a part in the discussions about the further extensions of the directive. The industry is committed to high standards of employment practice. It will work with the Government and the European Commission to ensure that, whatever arrangements are put in place, it will remain at the forefront in terms of high standards of employment and conditions.

    Small and Medium Enterprises
    Dr. George Turner: What action she is taking to provide information relating to the work of her Department to small and medium companies. [25705]
    Mrs. Roche: My Department provides more than 1,100 publications giving information and detailing the initiatives and programmes carried out across all parts of the DTI. All titles are listed in our "Publications in Print" catalogue, which is also on the internet. Included is a series of booklets and factsheets produced specifically for small businesses.
    Dr. Turner: I acknowledge the work being done in the Department on the use of information technology. Does my hon. Friend recognise that nothing is more important for a small business to succeed in the new millennium
    1224
    than investing in IT? What is the Department doing to encourage that? Will she take to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor a clear message that any help that can be given in his Budget this year to small firms to invest in IT will be most welcome?
    Mrs. Roche: I absolutely agree that the use of IT by small and medium enterprises is essential. In the Department, we are focusing our efforts on the promotion and uptake of the new information technologies, spearheaded through the information society initiative programme for business. I have seen for myself a number of businesses—particularly small businesses—coming in to use the local support centres, which is impressive. The message that we need to get across to small businesses is that the use of IT is not a luxury or an add-on; it is essential for their competitiveness and vital for British companies in an increasingly global marketplace.
    Mr. Gray: If the Minister is so committed to the use of information technology, would she care to comment on the rumour circulating Whitehall that the backlog of unopened red boxes in the Secretary of State's office is such that extra shelves have had to be built in her office? She is simply not opening them, far less dealing with their contents.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That question was a total waste of time.
    Mr. Skinner: Can my hon. Friend or any other Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry shed any light on that other little bit of information that is being sent out to small and medium companies, concerning the delivery of concessionary coal to the 55,000 miners who look like losing up to 16 bags of coal? Will she reverse the contents of that circular?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that we shall now move on to the statement/

Public Health
3.29 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about public health.
On 9 December last year, I announced to the House the publication of our White Paper, "The new NHS", which set out our proposals to modernise the health service, so that in years to come people will be able to depend on it to look after them when they fall ill. Today, I announce the publication of our proposals to do more to stop people falling ill in the first place. The proposals are set out in the Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation".
Health in our country has generally improved over the years, but far too many people still fall ill more often and die sooner than they should. That is bad, not only for the individuals concerned and for their families, but for the country as a whole, with 187 million working days lost to the economy through ill health every year.
There are huge inequalities in our society, and the worst are in health. Poor people are ill more often and die sooner. That is the greatest inequality of all: the inequality between the living and the dead.
Successive surveys have shown that over the past 20 years the gap between rich and poor has been growing. As a result, as recent official figures show, the health gap between rich and poor has also been growing. In the early 1970s, there was scarcely any difference in the percentage of deaths from heart disease between men in social class I and men in social class V. Today, men in social class V are three times more likely to die from heart disease.
Far from addressing those growing problems, the previous Government pretended that they did not exist. They even banned Department of Health officials from using the very words, "inequalities in health". Things have changed: we recognise inequalities in health, and we have changed the policies.
The previous Government concentrated their attention exclusively on trying to get people to change their personal life styles, which sometimes needs to be done, but they ignored the factors that made people ill but were beyond the control of individuals. The Labour Government are different: we recognise that poverty, poor housing, low wages, unemployment, air pollution, crime and disorder can all make people ill in both body and mind.
The Green Paper sets out how we intend to tackle the root causes of bad health; how we intend to concentrate on the major killers: heart disease, stroke, cancer and accidents; and how we shall take major initiatives to promote healthy schools, workplaces and neighbourhoods. We shall also give equal priority to mental health, which has been ignored for far too long.
The drive to promote better health is not a matter for the Department of Health or the national health service alone: it requires concerted action by the Government as a whole, in partnership with local organisations. That is happening already.
Far too many people have been made ill by what they eat. Food poisoning incidents have trebled in the past decade. We have already spelt out our detailed proposals for a Food Standards Agency. That will improve people's health.
1226
Having nowhere decent to live is bad for health. We are already tackling the problem of homelessness and bad housing, and have already released the first £900 million of the takings from the sale of council houses for investment in new and better housing. That will improve the health of the worst-housed families.
Low wages leave people without the money to buy decent food or warm clothes, or to keep their homes warm in winter. That is bad for their health and for the health of their children. Therefore, the health of the worst-off families will improve when we introduce the national minimum wage. Being out of work makes people ill. It increases the incidence of cancer, accidents and suicide. That is why our new deal to get people back to work, using the £3.5 billion raised from the windfall tax, will improve the health of the people who get the jobs that are created.
The huge increase in crime and disorder has damaged people's health, and not merely those who are actually assaulted. Living in fear makes people depressed, and depression leaves people ill in mind and body. Our crackdown on crime and disorder will help them feel more secure and so feel better.
Air pollution makes people ill. It can make asthma worse—2 million people in England now suffer from asthma badly enough to need regular medical attention. Our transport policies to reduce traffic congestion and promote public transport will reduce pollution. That will improve people's health.
Therefore, right across Government we are already taking action. The changes that we intend to make to the national health service will make a big contribution. Health authorities will be required to produce and then implement health improvement programmes. Those programmes will include the local contributions to be made to the national targets, but—and just as important—they will also set local targets for improving the health of particular local groups. Those will reflect local circumstances and so will vary from to place to place. The top priority in Camden Town, Wigan, Gloucester or Loughborough may well differ from the top priority in Surrey. That will encourage people in every locality, by showing that what they are doing makes a noticeable and worthwhile difference to them, their families, their friends and neighbours. The cumulative effect of all that local effort will be to raise national standards.
This Green Paper sets out our proposals for concerted action by Government as a whole, in partnership with local organisations, to improve people's living conditions and therefore their health. It also recognises that there are limits to what the Government can do, so it spells out what the individual can do, providing the Government do their bit. It is what we call a "contract for health", working together to make it easier to be healthier.
The Green Paper explicitly recognises that, by its nature, life is risky. It is the job of Government to identify risks to health and assess them and, where appropriate, to take action themselves either to reduce the risks or to ensure that people who might be affected are aware of them and know what the odds are.
The Green Paper puts forward suggested specific targets for tackling some of the major killer diseases together with proposals for local action, but it is a Green Paper. This Government do not believe that we have a monopoly of concern, knowledge or wisdom. Therefore,

1227
we are inviting everyone who is interested to let us have their comments on what we are proposing and to put forward proposals of their own. We can achieve a healthier nation only through a partnership with the people and with the professionals. That partnership starts now, before the policy is finally decided. We can succeed in getting a healthier nation only if everyone is pulling in the same direction. That means that we have to give everyone a say in deciding the direction in which we should go. That is what we are doing with this Green Paper today.
Mr. John Maples: On Tuesday, I complained that the contents of the Secretary of State's statement had been comprehensively leaked to the press. The same has happened again today. On Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was not only not his fault, but that he was very angry about it. I can now tell him where to look. He should ask the Minister for Public Health exactly what she was doing yesterday afternoon. I happened to be with someone then, who said, "Excuse me, John, but I have to go and make a telephone call. I've been asked to telephone the Minister of State, so that she can brief me on the Green Paper."
Therefore, Madam Speaker, we now know how those discourtesies arise, and it is time that that practice stopped and that the House was accorded the decency of being told first what the Government plan to do.
On Tuesday, the Secretary of State announced his decision on Bart's and got a nice headline. Yesterday, I visited all four hospitals in the Royal London group, including Bart's, and I could not find a nurse, manager or consultant who thought that he had made the right decision?
Mr. David Hinchliffe: This is about public health.
Mr. Maples: I was discussing public health with them. The trust thinks that the decision will cost it £20 million a year extra. That is the price that the people of east London will have to pay every year for one day's headlines for the Secretary of State.
On today's announcement, we entirely share the Government's objectives. Health policy must seek to improve health, not just treat ill health. In fact, much ill health has nothing to do with health services; it has more to with life style, environment and the genes that we inherit. The Government are building on previous policies. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about public health?"] I am coming to that. May I make my statement in my own time? The Government are building on previous policy: "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, published in 1992 and the excellent work of Sir Donald Acheson and his team. The aim of that policy was to improve people's health, and there has been substantial progress. The death rate from coronary heart disease fell by 20 per cent. for the under-65s; from strokes by 14 per cent; and from breast cancer for women over 60 by 10 per cent. We moved considerably closer to 18 of the 21 targets. The World Health Organisation commended the Government's strategy as
"a model for others to follow."
1228
I hope that the new Government, with the measures outlined in the Green Paper, will be able to build on those successes.
I am pleased that the Government plan to continue with four of our priority areas: heart disease and stroke, cancer, accidents and mental health. Those are important causes of premature ill health and death. I am surprised that AIDS has been excluded just as we appear to be having some success with the public education programme and new drug treatments that seem to be able to arrest the disease. Above all, I am disappointed that the Government have dropped so many targets. They have set themselves only four, but we also need to target the underlying causes of many diseases. "The Health of the Nation" targeted smoking, blood pressure and diet. Without such targets, there is nothing to aim at. We must have some measurable objectives. How otherwise will we or the Government know whether the policy has been a success? I hope that during the debate on the proposals, targets will be reinserted. Without them, it will be difficult to make a serious assessment of progress.
When we launched "The Health of the Nation", the then shadow Secretary of State derided the targets as too easy. The right hon. Gentleman has set himself four, not 21, and all are easier than those in "The Health of the Nation". Will he say by what measures he wishes the policy to be judged? If not, it will seem that the Government want to avoid responsibility for failure in advance.
The Secretary of State made much of the evidence of the link between poverty and ill health, but I do not believe that the relationship is as simple as he makes out. If the Government think that all inequalities are caused by poverty, they will not only fail to correct them, but fail at huge cost. Where there is a link, I believe that it is through unemployment and depressing housing conditions. The previous Government tackled both. [Laughter.] I wondered how long it would take for the barracking to start. I cannot even say what happened in the past 18 years without attempts to shout me down. Unemployment has fallen dramatically over the past five years and there was a huge programme for improving council housing estates, especially the worst ones. I hope that the Government will continue both trends. There is definitely some direct connection: if people live in damp housing—
Mr. Hilton Dawson rose—
Mr. Maples: This is a statement; there can be no interventions.
Madam Speaker: Order. We are not in a debate. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) is responding to a statement by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Maples: Unemployment has fallen dramatically and many estates have been improved. I hope that that trend will continue. There is obviously some direct connection. If people live in bad, damp housing and get chest infections, there is clearly a connection. However, I believe that far more ill health is caused by smoking, the overuse of alcohol, bad diet and lack of exercise. We already know about all those things.
It may be—and it probably is—extremely difficult to get people to improve their life style if they are depressed by unemployment and awful housing, but in many cases

1229
people can and must take more responsibility for their own health. The Government must not give people an alibi for their bad habits by allowing them to blame circumstances for everything. Nor must we overlook the enormous importance of our genetic inheritance. We must recognise that although some people are ill because they are poor, I suspect that there are many others who are poor because they are ill. Reducing unemployment and improving bad housing conditions will help, but getting people to improve their own life style is the key. There cannot be anyone in the country over the age of 10 who is ignorant of the danger of smoking, yet hundreds of thousands of people still do it.
I wish the Government well with their objectives. I hope that they will give greater recognition to individual responsibility. I also hope that they will set more measurable targets by which we and the nation can judge success or failure in tackling the causes of ill health, not just its incidence.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's contribution contained very few questions for response by the Secretary of State, so, before I call them, I caution hon. Members that they must ask questions—this is not a debate. They must ask direct, brisk questions of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State challenged me about leaks—
Mr. Maples: The shadow Secretary of State.
Mr. Dobson: Yes. I shall be able to go back to the office and tell people what to do, but the hon. Gentleman will not be able to do so.
The hon. Gentleman challenged me about leaks of my statement. All I can say is that if there were any leaks, they were from our election manifesto. As for Green Papers, in the past they were often not accorded a statement in the House, but we made sure that there was one today.
As for the apparent unpopularity of my decision on Bart's, I can say only that I must have seen a mirage yesterday when, in a rather strange reversal of the usual arrangements, I received in my office a large bouquet of carnations from the people on the cardiac ward at Bart's, who thanked me for that decision.
As for the questions that the hon. Gentleman actually asked, I emphasise that it is a Green Paper, and we are consulting on it. Provided that the points raised by Conservative Members are couched in reasonable terms, we may even listen to some of them, although I admit that that is not particularly likely.
We do not think that it is a good idea to proceed with as many as the 27 targets that the previous Government set—for instance, their effort to reduce teenage pregnancies. To set such a target in areas where the level of teenage pregnancies is well below the target does not gain very much.
We want to set four major targets. Every health authority will be obliged to contribute to those major targets under their health improvement programmes. They will set themselves particular targets to meet their particular problems. Those targets will be vetted by the national health service, and progress towards achieving
1230
them will also be vetted. We believe that that effort, which is specifically designed to try and deal with the circumstances that arise in particular places, is better than a lot of generalised targets.
We also believe that we must target the fundamental causes of ill health. I make no apology for talking about that in my statement. I do not seek to excuse people for not trying to look after themselves properly, but many people in our country today suffer because they live in lousy housing and have no job, or, if they have a job, they receive low pay for it. They also have to cope with massive air pollution and crime and disorder on the streets or in the park where their child would like to play. The problems that hit the worst-off are like the sorrows referred to in "Hamlet", because
"they come not single spies, But in battalions".
We will roll back those battalions.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Bearing in mind the fact that the public health policy of the previous Conservative Government appeared to consist almost entirely of insulting remarks by Mrs. Edwina Currie about northern males, may I welcome the significant change in approach announced by the Secretary of State today? In accordance with your direction, Madam Speaker, I should like to ask him two brief questions.
First, in view of the success of local authority public health departments—until their abolition by the Conservatives in 1974—in impacting on significant local health problems, what consideration have the Government given to restoring a public health function within local authorities?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Government recognise that the fundamental improvements in public health that he outlined today depend on a fundamental redistribution of wealth in the direction of poorer communities?
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend raises two significant points. Local authorities will have a massive involvement in any programme to improve the health of the people, because health authorities will have to draw up health improvement programmes in collaboration with other parts of the health service, local authorities, voluntary bodies, and anybody else who is involved in a particular locality. All who are signed up to the programme will have to contribute to its development. It is our intention, subject to the outcome of the consultation document to be produced shortly, to place on local authorities a basic duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area, as we said we would before the election.
On my hon. Friend's point about targeting resources predominantly on the areas that are most deprived, the Government are already doing that. In the new deal for jobs, the areas where jobs are needed most are almost certainly those where people will benefit from the introduction of a national minimum wage; they are the areas that frequently suffer most from air pollution, and the areas where people are ill most often and die sooner.
Dr. Peter Brand: We welcome the fact that the Government, unlike the previous Government, recognise the important link between poverty and ill

1231
health. Will the Secretary of State and the Chancellor ensure that some of the nation's wealth is redistributed to improve the nation's health?
I hope that local targets will not be an excuse for complacency or defeatism. It is no more acceptable to have an unwanted teenage pregnancy on the Isle of Wight than it is in the centre of London, and if one is suffering from asthma, it is as bad on the Isle of Wight as anywhere in the country.
I welcome the four specific targets, but will the Government commit resources to achieve them? On heart disease and strokes, the biggest step that the Government can take is to ensure that GPs' prescribing budgets are adequate for them to prescribe lipid-lowering agents. With the cost-limited drugs budget that was recently introduced, that might be extremely difficult.
On accidents in the home, will the Government take steps to set up a screening programme for osteoporosis, and encourage its treatment, so that we can avoid some of the hip fractures, of which there are 70,000 each year and which affect women, predominantly?
Will the Government look at the effectiveness of the Health and Safety Executive in investigating accidents in the workplace?
Will local government be funded to make cycling on our public highways safer for children?
On cancer services, will there be the resources fully to introduce the Calman/Hine proposals? Will the Government extend—[Interruption.] They are all very brief questions.
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall instruct the Secretary of State to answer only the first two questions if this goes on. We shall be here for the entire afternoon if the Secretary of State is required to answer all those questions. The hon. Gentleman has seen the interest that there is in the statement. There can be only one or two questions asked on the statement.
Dr. Brand: May I finish on mental health?
Madam Speaker: Yes.
Dr. Brand: Will the Government ensure that social services are sufficiently resourced so that they have adequate day centres, which are staffed by adequately trained people?
Mr. Dobson: I shall try to answer quickly. The basic object of concentrating on poverty-stricken areas in an effort to reduce ill health is already covered by the priorities of the Government's spending. The new deal for jobs, which is geographically targeted on those areas, the release of funds for building new houses, and the other things that we have done, such as reducing VAT on fuel, will certainly benefit people in those areas. As we promised at the general election, huge sums are already going into the areas that most need them. There is no question of local targets being sloppy and slack. The whole object is to ensure that each locality with its particular problems sets and meets tough targets—tougher than national targets—because, in the most deprived
1232
areas, unless we make a lot more progress than the national average, we shall never reduce inequalities between different areas.
Osteoporosis is one of the major causes of accidents and injuries to old people. As part of our drive on accidents, we shall seek to prevent osteoporosis. I am perfectly prepared to consider setting up general screening for osteoporosis, but I cannot just accept it standing at the Dispatch Box. The same goes for many of the other points that the hon. Gentleman made. I emphasise that we have issued a Green Paper, and if hon. Members on either side of the House want to make sensible suggestions and proposals for improvements, we are very happy to listen.
Audrey Wise: I, too, add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the welcome recognition of the link between poverty, bad housing and ill health. Will he make quite sure that the needs of children are fully addressed? Poverty has a great impact on children, and there are worrying trends in the field of child mental health. Obviously, when we are considering children's health, we are considering future public health. Will my right hon. Friend keep those facts in the forefront of his mind?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words, which are also addressed to the Minister for Public Health, my good and hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), who has made a major contribution towards the production of this Green Paper.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) about the impact on children because some children's afflictions are getting worse, not just among the worst-off. Child mental health is declining and we need to do something about it. As my hon. Friend points out, if we can influence children from the start, we shall stand a chance of having a generation that grows up taking health much more seriously. That is why we shall have a healthy schools initiative. We are reintroducing nutritional standards for school meals, which is a step forward. It is worth remembering that in 1906 a Labour Member of Parliament said that a hungry child cannot learn. That is just as true today as ever it was, which is why schools must now introduce breakfast clubs, so that children get a decent meal and can learn.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Secretary of State will be pleased to note that we all share his vision of a teetotal, non-smoking nation, cycling from new homes in the green belt to new jobs provided through the new deal. Does the Green Paper go into detail about how such people can be persuaded not to spend their increasing wealth on more alcohol and tobacco, and on trading in their bicycles for the kind of car that creates the very pollution to which he objects?
Mr. Dobson: Although I do not drink very much, I am relieved to say that the medical advisers at the Department of Health constantly advise me that a glass of this, that and the other in moderation probably does people good. I would not want to suggest for a minute that the Government endorse the idea of a teetotal world. What we want is a tobacco-free world as soon as possible,

1233
and the drive must be to stop tobacco companies recruiting children. Few adults take up smoking, and we must make that drive to stop children smoking.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What about formula one?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman refers to formula one. Let me remind him that, as a result of the negotiations carried out by the Minister for Public Health, a Europewide directive will soon come into operation to ban advertising and reduce sponsorship all over Europe. The directive could have been introduced years ago if it had not been blocked by the stupid, backward-looking Tory Government.
Dr. Lewis Moonie: For me, as one of the few possessors of an original copy of the Black report, today has been a long time coming. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is for local communities to decide on their health priorities in the light of the health experience of their population, and for the Government to set the general scene? With that in mind, will he consider reinstituting the office of medical officer of health?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, which draw on his professional experience. I can go one better than him, because I possess two copies of the Black report. Between us, we have 3 per cent. of all the copies that were printed: the previous Government wanted to keep it quiet. I agree that it is right for the Government to set the general scene, and for local people and professionals to decide local priorities to address the particular problems of each locality.
I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view on the post of medical officer of health. It is no good me denying that, because I am on record as saying so before the general election. I was disappointed that no one took up the idea of a medical officer of health when the Labour party consulted on the future role of local government. What we must and shall do through the health improvement programme is to raise the status of the promotion of public health in each locality. We shall give real status to the people involved, because it was ripped away when a long-dead Tory Government got rid of the medical officers of health.
Mr. John Wilkinson: There is a much higher percentage of smokers in social class V than in social class I. They are proportionately much more susceptible to the three main killer diseases that the right hon. Gentleman cited: heart disease, stroke and cancer. How are the Government actively promoting his vision of a tobacco-free world to help those people? Is it by providing British taxpayers' money for European Union subsidies to tobacco-growing countries?
Mr. Dobson: I personally believe that European subsidies for tobacco growing are ludicrous, but that is the ludicrous situation we inherited from the previous Government. We want to persuade people to stop smoking, and we shall produce a White Paper setting out our intentions. We propose not only to ban advertising, but to use other methods to reduce the number of children who take up smoking. I am not making excuses for anyone, but for single parents living on a rundown estate
1234
with three or four kids, very little money, not much grub and a world of worry when they wake up every morning, a cigarette every now and again may be their only relaxation, and I find it hard to condemn them.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I welcome the Green Paper and the consequential consultation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by tackling inequalities in many aspects of our lives, the Government will improve the health of the nation? There are no lessons to be learnt from the Opposition. For 18 years they governed this country and created many of the inequalities that cause people to suffer ill health.
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree. Let me remind the House of a plain statistical fact. In the 1970s, the incidence of death from heart disease was the same across all social classes—for men, that is. Now men in social class V are three times as likely to die from heart disease.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is not that because the lives of some have not changed? Is not that the lesson that we learn both from Keith Joseph's studies following his "Cycle of Deprivation" speech and from the Black report—of which there are two copies in our household? [Interruption.] I am not saying that we have done better than the Secretary of State; I am saying that we have the same number of copies as he has.
Is it not true that the only significant aspect that the right hon. Gentleman omitted from his introduction to the Green Paper is sexual health? Is it not also true that people in this country are more likely to contribute to the statistics for conceptions and terminations than they are to take up smoking? The figure for the former is 6,000 a week, while the figure for the latter is 5,000 a week.
The Secretary of State spoke of using reasonable terms. Should he not try to unite the House rather than artificially divide it?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that members of all parties come to the House with the aim of reducing avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap, and acknowledge that by working together we can learn from each other? To argue that we have started from scratch with this Green Paper is to deny that he has read the last one.
Mr. Dobson: We appear to have tracked down five of the 100 copies of the Black report. I do not know whether anyone else has a copy.
The fact that I did not mention sexual health—AIDS and HIV, for instance—in my introduction does not mean that it is not mentioned in the Green Paper. There is an awful lot in the Green Paper, and a good deal of work has been done.
I must be fair to the hon. Gentleman. When he was a Transport Minister, he did a substantial amount to reduce the number of accidents and deaths from accidents, and he deserves credit for that. As I said at the beginning, we are willing to listen to points that people make, and it is true that the previous Government made some efforts to promote health; but they were unwilling to recognise one factor. I believe that it was the other half of the Bottomley duo who ruled out the use by officials of the words

1235
"inequalities in health", because she did not like to hear them. If people will not listen to the words, it is very unlikely that they will address the problem.
Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public health is a matter of concern not only for every locality, but for every Department of State? Will he assure us that his Minister for Public Health will be responsible for the co-ordinating and shaping of public health policies across all Departments?
Mr. Dobson: We promised at the election that we would appoint the first-ever Minister for Public Health. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has that task. We are co-ordinating efforts right across the Government, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Council chairs the Cabinet Committee with that responsibility.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that demand for complementary and alternative medicine is at record levels. Has he any plans for greater use of the 750,000 complementary and alternative practitioners in the national health service? Does he accept that, as most complementary and alternative medicine is currently available only in private practice, poorer people are being discriminated against?
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned heart disease and asthma. Is he aware that very effective homoeopathic and herbal medicines are available to treat those conditions?
Mr. Dobson: I certainly recognise that complementary and alternative medicines work for some people in some circumstances. We are looking at the report produced by the Prince of Wales's group on what should be done to promote them, while protecting people from charlatans. After all, one of the reasons for the regulation of the medical profession was the fact that there used to be charlatans in it. If we are to allow people to practise, we need some rules and regulations, and those are being extended. I hope that they will provide the protection that people need, while also giving them the opportunity to use treatments that work on them. That is the test in the end: if something makes people feel better, it obviously works.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Does not the delivery of targets greatly depend on the quality of local authority services and advice? What does the Green Paper propose in order to make social services and other advisory departments work closely with NHS departments? That conflict is at the heart of problems in many parts of our health service.
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Since we came to power, I have been concerned about the Berlin wall between the NHS and social services. Some of the proposals in the White Paper that was published in December are intended to address that problem, as are some of the suggestions in today's Green Paper. We shall also produce a White Paper on social services. We must reach the stage where people who need treatment and attention will simply be dealt with. They will go to officialdom, and officialdom will treat them. It should not
1236
be up to them to sort out whether to go to a community trust, a mental health trust, an acute trust, a social services department or a voluntary body. They should be able to go where they know that the best that is available will be given to them straight away when they need it. That is the object of all our changes.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am pleased to see the inclusion of targets in the Green Paper, which speaks of setting tough new targets in the context of various causes of death. None of those targets is new: they are all included in the White Paper entitled "The Health of the Nation", and none of them is tough, because every Green Paper target is lower than the corresponding one in the White Paper. Why has the Secretary of State reduced those causes-of-death targets?
Mr. Dobson: I have not.
Helen Jackson: I wholeheartedly welcome the Green Paper. My right hon. Friend spoke about local circumstances. When such circumstances include specific problems affecting public health, such as water supply and lead piping, will the Secretary of State expect all agencies, public and private, to co-operate with health authorities to remedy them?
Mr. Dobson: I shall. That is covered in the Green Paper, as is the need to make sure that adequate water supplies are available to everyone at prices that they can afford. That applies especially to large families or to families in which someone is incontinent and they need a great deal of water for laundry.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his statement will sound a bit hollow to councils, for example, in Oxfordshire where, as a consequence of this year's local government settlement, millions are being cut from the social services budget? Does a penny of new departmental public spending go with the Green Paper?
Mr. Dobson: I do not know how any member of the Tory party can complain about the allocation of funds to social services, because we are allocating to them this year for next year more money than the Tories intended, even if the witless Liberal Democrats did not notice it when they issued their press releases yesterday. We are allocating £1.5 billion more to the national health service. I should like to see more than that and I hope that more will go into the NHS eventually. We look forward to that, but I will accept no criticism from that lot opposite.
Dr. Howard Stoate: As a proper doctor, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that the role of a caring and compassionate Government should be to narrow the health gap between rich and poor? How will the Green Paper set about doing that?
Mr. Dobson: Over a lengthy period, I think that there will be a gradual improvement in the health of all social classes. Our object is so to target the additional resources and address the problems that batten down on the health of the worst-off that their progress will be faster than that of the well-off and reasonably healthy. That is the thrust

1237
of what we are trying to do, and I hope that we shall command support throughout the country. Our White Paper on the organisation of the health service has proved extremely popular with the professionals who will have to implement it, and I hope that today's proposals will be too because, as with the White Paper, this Green Paper is based on much talking by us, but even more listening.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I represent the healthiest constituency in Britain, but it is by no means necessarily the richest, so perhaps the Secretary of State will accept that there is no straight-line relationship between those two facts. Will he have the good grace to acknowledge the gains that were made in public health after "The Health of the Nation" White Paper? Will he explain how those gains can be built on by dropping some targets, diluting others and shuffling responsibility for public health away from his Department and on to every other Government Department? Furthermore, will he explain how a healthy schools initiative will be furthered in my constituency by the Department appearing to consent to the abandonment of the school nursing service?
Mr. Dobson: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was working in the Cabinet Office before he was elevated to the House of Commons. I say again that the spending totals that may have caused his local health authority not to be able to afford the school nursing service were set when he was advising the previous Government; I do not know whether he gave bad advice and they took it, or good advice and they ignored it.
There has been no dilution of targets, although they have been changed. The point that I try to make at all times is that there are some national targets, but we intend that there should be local targets that reflect local needs. Those targets are going to be tough and the people responsible will have to meet them.
Ms Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency of Luton, South, the incidence of tuberculosis is twice the national average and is clearly linked, despite the comments of Conservative Members, to unemployment, bad housing and poverty? Will he join me in commending one of our local preventive health projects, called "Our House", which works primarily with women and children from the Kashmiri and Bangladeshi communities? Will he seek to extend that type of project, so that we can begin to tackle the appalling health inequalities that are the legacy of 18 years of Tory government?
Mr. Dobson: The scheme to which my hon. Friend refers is precisely the sort of local initiative that we wish to encourage.
Dr. Evan Harris: Sex was an area that the previous Government were not good at in terms of delivering good public health and meeting their targets on things such as sexually transmitted disease, teenage conceptions, and HIV infections—particularly in specific groups such as young gay men—which continue to occur. Will he give an assurance that—by working with other Departments, if necessary—the HIV strategy to follow will be adequately financed, that sex education can be brought into the national
1238
curriculum so that it can be delivered effectively, and that the stain on our law that is section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prevents good sex education in schools and elsewhere, will finally be abolished?
Mr. Dobson: I was rather taken aback by the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks in relation to the previous Government; I personally try to avoid any moralising about anyone. It is certainly true that we need to ensure that further efforts are made to reduce and to stop the further spread of HIV and AIDS. It is also important that we find the resources to give treatment, which appears to be working in either restraining or, apparently in some cases, almost setting back the disease altogether. It is expensive, but it is worth while, which is why we have made additional funds available for the forthcoming year and why I personally ensured that those funds were still targeted at hospitals and areas that provide the bulk of the service, which have developed the necessary expertise and to which some people wish to go for reasons for anonymity, rather than going to their local hospital. However, we must counter any feeling which may develop that, because it may be possible to treat the disease, we need not care any more about whether we catch it.
Ms Tess Kingham: How do the Government intend to address the wide regional variations in the level of infant deaths, which are clearly unacceptable?
Mr. Dobson: As I explained, the object is to have four national targets and to require each health authority, in collaboration with the rest of the health service, local authorities and other people, to say what is needed to deal with a particular problem, and then to get on with addressing it. The whole object is to achieve real, targeted, effective effort in each locality, addressing the problems of that locality. Having 27 targets did not really do the trick, although I do not deny that some progress was made and they helped in certain spheres. However, we do not think that they did the trick of encouraging the effort to be made where it was needed.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: My right hon. Friend will realise from some of the comments that have been made this afternoon and from some of the speculative media coverage of the Green Paper, that the identification of four main targets is being misinterpreted by some people as suggesting that other issues, particularly sexual health and HIV, have dropped off the agenda. Will he consider what he can do during the next few months to ensure that people, particularly those who do not read the Green Paper itself, realise that that is not the case and that they are still regarded as important? Will he ensure that, particularly for a condition such as HIV, which tends to be concentrated in a small number of health authorities, the health authorities that do not have many cases are not absolved from responsibility for doing some preventive work and setting their targets, even though they may be different from targets in high-prevalence areas?
Mr. Dobson: I commend my hon. Friend on his work as the chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS.

1239
There is no question of our downgrading the effort; we want to upgrade the effort. As one of my local hospitals, the Middlesex, is one of the world's leading hospitals in the treatment of HIV and AIDS, I have a close interest in what goes on there and I do not want to see anything that it is doing held up or reduced. However, as my hon. Friend says, we must ensure that every health authority and trust makes a proper contribution to the fight against the spread of those diseases and, where possible, to treating them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House
4.22 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the business for next week.
MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [7th allotted day].
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on the Child Support Agency, followed by a debate on railway services. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Third Day).
Motion relating to the beef bones regulations.
WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until 7 pm, motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given the Official Report.
Consideration of Lords amendments which are expected to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Fourth Day).
FRIDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week is as follows.
MONDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Sixth Day).
WEDNESDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the first report from the International Development Committee on Montserrat, followed by a debate on the first report from the Education and Employment Committee on teacher supply.
Debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order, the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-Rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order, the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order and the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations.
THURSDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Until 7 pm, motions on the Scottish Revenue Support Grant Reports.
FRIDAY 20 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 18 February there will be a debate on the Court of Auditors report for 1996 in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 11 February:
Relevant Reports—The Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1998–99; The Limitation of Council Tax (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1998–99; Special Grant Report (No. 2) (Wales) 1998.
Wednesday 18 February:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: OJ No. C348, Court of Auditors Report for 1996. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xiv (1997–98).]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement. I am sure that she will wish to reassure the House that if there are developments in the situation in Iraq, the Government will want to update the House regularly on any changes.
May I remind the right hon. Lady that this is the third week that I have asked her whether we could have a debate on the national health service? This week, there have been two statements on the national health service, and the two papers have produced an enormous amount of material. I hope that we can soon have a debate on that very important matter so that those statements and other issues can be aired.
I commend the right hon. Lady for including debates on two Select Committee reports on 18 February. Inevitably, those debates will have to be held at the expense of Members' Adjournment debates, but the serious work of Select Committees deserves the serious scrutiny of the House. Their inclusion is very much in the spirit of the work of the Modernisation Committee.
What, sadly, is not in the spirit of the Modernisation Committee is the Prime Minister's continuing refusal—or perhaps inability—to give straight answers to straight questions at his once-weekly appearances in the House. Two weeks ago, I asked the right hon. Lady to convey to the Prime Minister our concern that he appears to prefer bluster and lecturing to straight answers to sensible questions from Opposition Members. I think that she, like the rest of us, will have noticed that there has been widespread press comment echoing that view.
I have noticed that the Prime Minister seems to be a little more successful with questions that he has prepared in advance. I begin to wonder whether, to get some sense out of those sessions, Opposition Members should perhaps give him a crib. Certainly that might have enabled him yesterday to know by how much farm incomes have fallen in the past year—although I suppose that farmers might have expected him to know that anyway, given that the figures came from his Government and were issued only last Friday.
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to come to the House to explain the Lord Chancellor's extraordinary utterances on press censorship—or, as he calls it, "prior restraint"? Is it the Government's view that press reports of stories embarrassing to the Government should be suppressed at source, as the Lord Chancellor seems to imply? What is the Government's policy on that important matter? Is it the same as the Lord Chancellor's? If not, why not?
Will the right hon. Lady tell the House the Government's position on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill? Is it the Government's view that the Bill is seriously defective? If so, for how long have they held that view? Would it not have been less wasteful of public resources to make that known a little earlier? Is the
1242
Government's policy towards the Bill one of strict neutrality, as is reported in the press this morning? I think we should be told.
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Lady raised several questions. She first asked me to give an assurance that the House would be kept informed of any developments on Iraq. She will be aware that Foreign Office Question Time will be held on Tuesday, and that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here. I know that he hopes also to make a statement next week to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of all developments, which will be of benefit to all hon. Members.
In respect of the right hon. Lady's request for a debate on health matters, she rightly pointed out that this week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made two statements to the House, both of which have been widely welcomed. He has made seven statements since we were elected, so he has been extremely good at making himself available to debate such issues.
The right hon. Lady knows that we have a crowded programme. As I have explained to her on one or two occasions, although we have much to discuss and to boast about in respect of health matters, our crowded programme means that it is not always possible to have all the debates that we should like.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomed the fact that we are debating the Select Committee reports on Wednesday morning. It is true that there is always a great deal of pressure on time for such debates, and indeed for Adjournment debates. She knows that the Modernisation Committee is looking at the matter seriously and I hope that eventually we will come up with some suggestions that will be of benefit to the House and to those who do so much work on Select Committees.
In respect of the right hon. Lady's point about Prime Minister's questions, it is not the quality of the answers that worries me, but the quality of the questions, which are not always trying to elicit a reply. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been giving the Opposition answers that they do not like, but they will have to get used to that in the next few years.
The right hon. Lady will know that issues of privacy have concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House at different times. She referred to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor's statement in response to questions during an interview. There is no change in the Government's position. We have not reached a final view on these matters. We are currently discussing them with the Press Complaints Commission with the objective of strengthening the present system of voluntary self-regulation, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made clear during his interview.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my right hon. Friend consider having an urgent debate on sport and the importation of players, particularly in rugby league? As she will be aware, it is difficult to obtain the services of Australian rugby league players, but easy to obtain the services of Russian football players. Does she agree that the matter needs to be sorted out so that we have a commonality of policy? I declare an interest on behalf of St. Helens rugby league club. It is not a personal interest. It is important that we have a common policy in respect of all sports.
Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps I should declare an interest. As my hon. Friend may know, my local rugby league

1243
club, Dewsbury, has an interest in the matter. I cannot promise a debate, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns, as well as those of other members of the rugby league group, are passed on to the Department for Education and Employment.
In my reply to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), I did not address her point about the fox hunting Bill. The Government's position remains neutral. If she reads the Hansard report of the Committee debates, she will see that, just before Christmas, the Minister said that if there were technical problems with the Bill, assistance would be forthcoming. There followed discussions between my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and the Minister, and the latest announcement—that technical assistance is available—is a consequence of that.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Has the Leader of the House noticed the increasing support, particularly among Labour Members, for early-day motion 689 to which I referred last week?
[That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1998, (S.1., 1998, No. 71), dated 15th January 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be annulled.]
Early-day motion 709 also relates to that issue.
Has the right hon. Lady seen the leading article in the Financial Times today which draws attention to the fact that the Government have still not made an announcement on the reappointment of Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England? Is that statement not long overdue? When can we expect it? Is not the delay causing some uncertainty—indeed, instability?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, on the explicit instructions of the Prime Minister, the long-awaited and heavily trailed White Paper on lifelong learning has been scrapped—indeed, pulped? Will she confirm that the comprehensive, united document is to be replaced by a series of consultation documents? Does she recognise that that will be a huge blow to all those who felt that this was the right moment for a full statement on the Government's intentions?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked about the jobseeker's allowance last week. I cannot add to my reply then or tell him anything about the Bank of England appointment that he referred to. He mentioned stability. He will know that the thrust of the Government's policy on economic and financial matters is to increase stability. We shall do nothing to cut across that.
A great deal of work is going on in the Department for Education and Employment on lifelong learning. It is taking on board many other issues. There is not always time to do everything on one day.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit that I have been lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate on Friday 13 February on the military situation in relation to a possible attack on Iraq, is it not important in a parliamentary democracy that unpalatable views should be heard? That cannot be done through Foreign Office questions, or even statements. We should be told the legal basis for military action.
1244
Mr. Marc Weller of the centre of international studies in the university of Cambridge said in The Times that preventative war was unlawful. I have discussed the issue with four international lawyers, whose names I have given to Downing street. Three of them believe that Mr. Weller is correct. Should there not be a full statement on the basis on which this country might go to war? Matters of war and peace should be discussed in the House of Commons.
Mrs. Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining his Adjournment debate. I have already told the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk that the Government will keep the House informed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is planning updates whenever necessary or possible. We take our responsibilities to the House seriously. I do not rule out a debate on the issue, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the timing of any debate needs careful consideration. It is most important that the House should be kept as informed as possible. We should also maintain the diplomatic momentum.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In acknowledging what the right hon. Lady has said, may I push her further and support the views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? We hope that the diplomatic initiatives are successful, but it looks increasingly as though we are sliding inexorably towards more aggressive action against Iraq. Is it not important that the British armed forces—there is a substantial carrier group in the Gulf actively training for any operation—should know that the will of the majority of the House of Commons is behind them in the event of their having to go into action?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my point. The House has to be kept well informed. We are well aware of our responsibilities to the House. I have not ruled out a debate. I have said that we would have to give careful consideration to the issue.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Department of Trade and Industry with a view to a statement being made about a document that has gone out to hundreds of thousands of retired miners and widows of retired miners? The Government assumed control of the delivery of concessionary coal after the privatisation of the industry. It seems clear from the circular that as many as 55,000 of those widows and retired miners will receive up to 16 cwt less smokeless fuel than before. It is pretty clear that a mistake has been made. Will she ensure that the relevant people in the Department of Trade and Industry make a statement or make everybody happy by withdrawing the circular?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on that subject, but I shall ensure that Ministers respond to the points that he has raised.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Leader of the House believe that it would be in the Government's interest to have an early and urgent debate on press freedom? Is it not extraordinary that the Lord Chancellor should make a statement and then be slapped down by No. 10 Downing street? That is a very serious Government split on an important issue. Surely the

1245
Leader of the House agrees that it is in the Government's interest—not to say that of the House of Commons, the electorate and the readership of newspapers—that we all know what on earth is going on. At the highest level of government, two completely contradictory statements are being made.
Mrs. Taylor: As I said, our objective of strengthening the system of voluntary self-regulation was mentioned by the Lord Chancellor in that argument. There is therefore no need for a debate of the kind that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Mr. Harry Cohen: First, and most important, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Prime Minister makes a statement on Iraq when he returns from the United States? She will know that I favour action against the regime, but not war against the innocent people of Iraq.
Secondly, did my right hon. Friend see that outrageous survey that put Leyton Orient bottom of the league for food in football clubs? Instead of going to war with Saddam Hussein, would not it be better to invite him to lunch at Leyton Orient on match day?
Mrs. Taylor: I should choose my words carefully on both matters. I cannot add to what I said about the importance of keeping the House informed on Iraq. I think that I have made the position clear.
On the survey of food at football grounds, I must declare an interest. As yet, Bolton Wanderers is not in the same division as Leyton Orient, so I can safely keep off the issue. My hon. Friend has made his point, but I do not think that it will be possible to have a debate on the issue.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Leader of the House share my concern that 910,000 taxpayers—one in nine of all required to do so—failed to complete self-assessment forms by 31 January, and therefore face fines and penalties? Does she agree that that is likely to impact most heavily on smaller business people? Will there be a chance to raise the issue next week? I am sure that there would be widespread support for the proposition that, in this unique situation, the implementation of the deadline should be delayed by one month.
Mrs. Taylor: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government not only introduced the system but set the time scale. Many people managed to meet the deadline. I also remind him that it is Treasury Question Time on Thursday.
Mr. John McAllion: May I ask for an early debate on the multilateral agreement on investment—certainly before the Government sign it in April? My right hon. Friend will know that the proposed MAI, like the existing North American Free Trade Area, forbids Governments to discriminate against multinationals. She will also know that NAFTA contains clauses that are supposed to protect the environment in other areas, but unhappily have proved totally inadequate. For example, one American multinational is suing the Canadian Government for $250 million because they dared to ban a dangerous dioxin—on the ground that, as the multinational was the only producer of that dioxin, it would be discriminatory to ban it. We should have a
1246
full-scale debate on such issues before the Government commit us to an agreement that will give multinationals massive rights but very few responsibilities.
Mrs. Taylor: I am afraid that there just is not time for all the debates that hon. Members would like. My hon. Friend could apply for an Adjournment debate, or he may wish to approach Ministers in other ways.
Mr. David Maclean: May I return the right hon. Lady to the subject of the Government's policy on privacy? Although the Lord Chancellor said, among other things, that he would like a strengthening of the voluntary code, we heard today the head of the judiciary—the man who is second in precedence to Her Majesty the Queen, and is a senior figure in government—pronounce with all the authority that he could muster that the press should be prohibited, barred, from revealing the events of the Foreign Secretary's sacking a civil servant to replace her with someone else. The right hon. Lady cannot pretend that the Lord Chancellor's comments were blandly reciting Government policy. We must have a debate to get to the bottom of the matter.
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether he could return to the subject, and then confirmed that what I said the Lord Chancellor had said was in fact the truth. What he went on to imply is not so. I have absolutely nothing to add to what I said earlier.
Mr. David Winnick: Would not one advantage of a debate on Iraq be that Members would have an opportunity to discuss the very important matter and dwell, as we should, on the terrifying weapons of mass destruction, which have been well publicised in today's newspapers? A vote at the end of such a debate would show the overwhelming support in the House of Commons for action if Saddam Hussein refuses to allow any flexibility in weapon inspections. That vote would undoubtedly reflect the feeling in the country.
Mrs. Taylor: I think that I have made the position clear about a debate on Iraq. My hon. Friend's comments about the overwhelming majority of the House supporting the Government's position are important. Statements so far have demonstrated that support.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I refer the Leader of the House to the three hours only that she has allotted on the evening of Wednesday 11 February for consideration of Lords amendments to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill? Is she not aware that the two amendments in question are of the greatest significance to Londoners? One concerns whether Londoners should have an opportunity, as their lordships rightly suggest, to see the Bill, rather than only a White Paper, before they exercise their vote in the referendum. The second concerns asking Londoners two questions: whether they want a mayor and/or an assembly. Is not allowing only three hours a grotesque abuse of democracy? Will the debate be time-limited? Will she

1247
impose a closure motion with her big majority or will we be able, if we wish, to debate such matters beyond 10 pm on Wednesday?
Mrs. Taylor: I did not say that the debate would be time-limited. The hon. Gentleman's presumption is incorrect to start with. I remind him that the House has already passed its opinion on such matters.
Mr. Derek Twigg: In view of the many positive initiatives on education, such as extra money for schools books, the abolition of the assisted places scheme, which allows money to be put into reducing class sizes, the greater flexibility for primary school teachers so that they can spend more time on numeracy and literacy, and, of course, the year of literacy, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on those issues?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand why my hon. Friend wants a debate on those matters. All of us have schools in our constituencies that have been told that they will receive £1,000 for books in the near future, which is good news for every school. As he says, changes to the curriculum have been widely welcomed by teachers. We shall soon be hearing about savings from the abolition of the assisted places scheme, which will go into reducing class sizes. As I have said on other occasions, it is not always possible to find time for debates on all the issues about which we would like to talk and, indeed, boast. I am sure that his constituents appreciate as much as mine the progress that has been made.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I raised with the Leader of the House last week—and in previous weeks—the time it takes for Ministers to reply to letters. May we have an urgent debate on this matter? I know that if I ring the private office of a Minister, I can get an answer within a minute on any complicated matter. If one tables a priority written question, the answer is almost always late and takes twice as long as it is supposed to.
I have now received answers from most of the Ministries about how long it takes them to reply to Members' letters. The Home Office, for example, has said that it is hitting its target of 15 working days—which is lamentable—only 13 per cent. of the time. That is appalling. We must have a debate about getting information out to allow Members of Parliament to do their job. After all, we are all just wasting our time if we do not have the right information.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before, and I have invited him to send me specific details. One or two hon. Members have done so. It is important that we get answers to questions and letters as soon as possible, but it is also important that we get thorough answers. It is significant that the volume of correspondence and the number of parliamentary questions in some areas has increased significantly. I am monitoring the situation as best I can, although some information I get is anecdotal. We are aware that there are problems in certain areas, and I will be happy to receive any representations from the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the right hon. Lady remember the Fossil Fuel Levy
1248
Bill, a one-page Bill which received its Second Reading on the Floor of the House three months ago today, but for which the Government have apparently not been able to find time to schedule the Committee? Does she recall that the Select Committee on European Legislation recommended in December that there should be a debate in European Standing Committee B on the harmonisation of energy taxation? However, the members of the Committee have been told that the Government have no plans for such a debate. Is she aware of the growing belief in the House that the Government are trying to manage their business to avoid the possibility of discussing the Government's energy policy, particularly with regard to coal mining? Can she tell the House when these issues will be debated?
Mrs. Taylor: Not next week.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in expressing concern and sympathy to the 300 families in Cornwall who today heard that the Government will not give any support to keep open what is not only Cornwall's last tin mine but Europe's last tin mine. I understand that, despite the many months that the Government have been considering this matter, they have today been unable to give any firm answers on any kind of package to help ameliorate the effect of those job losses in the poorest county in England and one of the highest unemployment and lowest wage areas within that county. I understand that the Government will not be able to give any firm indication in tonight's Adjournment debate either.
Is it not time that the Government had an answer for those families hit by the decision? Would it not be appropriate for DTI Ministers to come to the House as quickly as possible to say what they are going to do if they are not prepared to keep open Cornwall's last tin mine?
Mrs. Taylor: We have just had DTI Question Time and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is an Adjournment debate pending on this matter. It would be wrong for me to anticipate anything that might be said in that debate.
Mr. Owen Paterson: War widows receive a small military pension. If caught cohabiting with a man, they lose that pension. Now that public funds are available to spend on unmarried partners of Ministers to fly around the world, could we have a debate to look at the unfair anomaly that prevails on war widows?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the headline in yesterday's edition of The Times which suggested that the Tories needed more thought and less trivia.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House give early consideration to a full debate on agriculture so that we can properly consider the very serious financial straits affecting every sector of the industry throughout the UK?
Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been extremely good at informing the House of the issues affecting the farming community, and what he is doing about them. I realise that there are serious issues involved, but there is no time in the very near future for a debate on the matter. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to my right hon. Friend.

Points of Order
4.55 pm
Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on two issues. Fifteen days ago, I had a debate on the transactions of the Paymaster General. Following that Wednesday morning Adjournment debate on 21 January, I tabled down a series of priority written questions to the Chancellor; the first such questions I had tabled in about 12 years. So far, 15 days later, only one has been answered. I think that I am right in saying that if Ministers in the previous Government had behaved with such callous indifference to the House, Labour Members would have rushed in here, protesting and seeking emergency debates. I have waited patiently to see when my questions would be answered; only one has been.
What can be done to ensure that Ministers answer questions from Opposition Members? We rarely put down priority written questions, but when we do it is not for fun or amusement—it is because a serious issue is at stake. We should like Ministers to answer them occasionally. [Interruption.] Labour Members are laughing in arrogance. That is typical of the arrogance of the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The right hon. Gentleman must pursue the matter with the Minister concerned.
Mr. Maclean: On a related point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If Ministers continue to refuse to answer, I shall come back to the matter. The related point is that the one question that the Chancellor answered was one in which I asked for a definition of a blind trust. He said that it was a
"trust under which the Minister is not informed of changes or investments or the state of the portfolio".—[Official Report, 2 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 459.]
I wrote to the permanent secretary at the Treasury—as did the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—to ask for his definition of a blind trust. He said:
"We agreed with the Paymaster that a trust would be one where he would receive no information about changes in investment or the state of the portfolio of assets and would make no suggestions for changes in the portfolio."
I have one answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a different answer from the permanent secretary at the Treasury. What can be done to bring the Chancellor to the House to give us the whole truth on this question, or to bring the permanent secretary to account?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It looks as if the right hon. Gentleman now has two Ministers to pursue for answers.

Local Government Finance
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Before I call the Secretary of State, I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has ruled that there should be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
4.57 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 (HC 506), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
As this debate is to be one and a half hours shorter than last year's debate—and as many hon. Members will wish to take part—I shall try to follow the spirit of Madam Speaker's demand. I hope to be reasonable in my contribution.
The House will recall that on 2 December I issued full details of my settlement proposals. The reports before the House today represent the outcome of lengthy discussions with local government, including the formal consultation process launched by my statement in December. These consultations ended on 13 January.
My proposals included the overall provision for local authority spending, known as total standard spending. They included the level of support distributed by the Government for the spending and my proposals for calculating standard spending assessments. I also announced provisional capping guidelines.
My colleagues and I have received written representations from 248 local authorities and have met delegations from 95, as well as from the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government.
We have considered carefully all the points raised during the consultations, and the reports set out our conclusions, which reflect the principles that I explained to the House in December. The settlement is fairer, better and more flexible. It is fairer, because the authorities with real need will get more resources; better, because it is the biggest increase for local authority services for years and includes £835 million for schools; and more flexible, because capping is less restrictive than under the previous Government.
The vital services provided by our local authorities affect everyone's quality of life. I want to express my appreciation to all those involved in providing such services under the most difficult circumstances.
Before I go into the details of the reports, I want to remind the House that, as well as any local authority funding that we are discussing today, the Government are also providing an additional £1.3 billion to improve the state of our school buildings, through the new deal for schools, and £800 million extra for housing, through the capital receipts initiative. That is good news for local government, and certainly for those in receipt of the services.
Mr. Christopher Gill: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to my Question 44 on page 2796 of today's Order Paper:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what additional funding he is making available to Shropshire Local Education Authority: and how the decision was announced."?
I understand that a decision has been made to allow the LEA to spend more money, but I, as a Shropshire Member, have not been informed about it, and neither has my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). I understand that the Government saw fit to make the announcement in a private letter to a Labour Shropshire Member. That is a disgraceful contempt of Parliament, and entirely the wrong way in which to proceed. Does not it make a mockery of open government?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was far too long-winded.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is referring to capital contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and he knows that those are not part of the settlement. He has recorded his views on the matter.
Mr. Gill: Answer the question.
Mr. Prescott: I am trying to answer it in the best way that I can. I am making it clear that it has nothing to do with the settlement. If the hon. Gentleman feels slighted by the procedures adopted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, his protest has been recorded.
Under the SSA for Shropshire, there is a 4.7 per cent. increase for education, and that must be welcome, especially as we rightly ensured that it would not be at the expense of other services, as it was provided for in the revenue support grant. Shropshire has done well, and got more than it could have expected from the previous Government. Education, in particular, has done far better than it would have done under the Conservatives.
Mr. Gill: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again, but I think that he is being most disingenuous, because the extra money is not to be provided by the Government: Shropshire council tax payers are to be allowed to borrow it at their own expense.
Mr. Prescott: It is nothing new for local authorities to borrow money. They are all doing it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman protests to the local authority. His protest in the Chamber has been noted, and there is nothing more that I can add, other than to say that education is doing far better in his area under this Administration than it did under the Conservatives, both in the resources that are available for improving schools and in the quality of education, including nursery education. That is the contribution that the Government have made to his area and to many others.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am interested in this discussion between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), because we in Derbyshire

1253
were also looking forward to a better settlement and did not get it; but my right hon. Friend might like to know that Derbyshire, having lost £220-odd million because of the previous Tory Government's cuts, will be quite happy—as will I—for him or any other Minister to send a letter about the settlement to anybody in the county. I do not care who it is, as long as there is some money attached to it. I could be the last to know, and I would be delirious.
Mr. Prescott: I am certainly grateful for my hon. Friend's support, as indeed I was when we discussed the channel tunnel rail link. As he knows, despite the considerable difficulties in Derbyshire—I acknowledge those, and they have been pointed out by other Derbyshire Members—an extra 5.4 per cent. has gone to education in the area. Derbyshire, like other shire counties, has done well, even though I acknowledge that it has had more than its share of problems arising from the difficulties of arranging the settlement.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Someone else who might want a letter from the Secretary of State is the Labour leader of Northumberland county council, who is faced with the lowest increase of any shire county and who says that, although he told people last year that things would be better this year, he will now have to give them worse services at higher cost. He says that Labour has let us down, even though the council presented a constructive case for a fairer settlement. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that?
Mr. Prescott: I am almost bound to cite the record, which I am sure is known to the right hon. Gentleman. The increase for education in his county was £5.1 million. That is far more than was promised by any political party, including his own.
Mr. Beith indicated dissent.
Mr. Prescott: The evidence is clear. Whatever the difficulties about other services—and it is legitimate to deploy arguments about them—we have certainly done well by education. That is a reflection of our "Education, education, education" priority. We have only made a start, and there is much more to do, but the record shows that we have allocated extra money for the improvement of education, of nursery education and of the fabric of schools. That is reflected in the settlement, and we have every reason to be proud.
On 2 December, I announced proposed total standard spending for England in 1998–99 of £48.2 billion, which included the provision for local government reorganisation. The figure is substantially unchanged, but the provision to cover the cost of council reorganisation has decreased slightly; I referred to that in December, and I shall expand on it in a moment.
The TSS figure of £48.2 billion represents an increase of 3.8 per cent. over the adjusted 1997–98 figure; so next year local authorities will have £1.78 billion more to spend than this year. We would all like to give more money, but we can at least say that local authorities are getting an increase in real terms, even under the current difficult circumstances.
Ms Julia Drown: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and the Government's support
1254
for Swindon borough council. He knows that I am keen that we should deliver everything that is in our manifesto and everything that is good for local democracy. When does he intend to reverse the Tories' destructive policy of rate capping and return more control of business rates to local authorities?
Mr. Prescott: This is the last year in which I intend that the crude capping principle of the Tory party should apply.
Within the total, we have been able to provide an extra £835 million for councils to spend on education, every penny of which will be covered by the extra £835 million of revenue support grant from the Government, so there is every reason for us to expect that the moneys that have been given should go to education and not be used for other services.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend says that the money is allocated for education. Will he make it clear to local education authorities that by education we mean education, and not items such as expensive lawyers for special needs tribunals?
Mr. Prescott: I do not know the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have a personal interest in education in his area, because I went to the Grange secondary modern school in Ellesmere Port. I know that moneys are needed in that area, and that has been recognised in the settlement: £10.7 million is to go there, and that money is well deserved and much needed.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton—Brown: I welcome those passported increases through to education, but in Gloucestershire they are putting severe pressure on the social services budget. One hundred national health service beds are blocked by people who could be clinically discharged, but there is not enough money in that budget to provide a home services, residential or nursing home package. Clearly, that makes no sense on a national scale when a hospital bed costs upwards of £150 a day, yet such a social services package costs between £30 and £50. Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently tackle that problem to find out what can be done nationally as well as in Gloucestershire?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the difficulties of community care. All hon. Members are well aware of the problems in their constituencies. In this settlement, we have provided about £350 million towards that. It is never enough. The difficulties are considerable and we are all aware of people who have to be kept in hospital because no beds are provided outside, which is much more expensive.
Many aspects of the community care programme have been welcomed, but when the hospitals were closed an awful lot of people were dumped into the community. That was the policy pursued by the previous Administration and it has given us extra problems. Nevertheless, we have to find more resources. We have tried to do it this time by providing £350 million because we believe that local authorities are under pressure. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) knows, we may say that the money should go to community services—we certainly hope that it will—but

1255
it is very much within the discretion of the local authorities. We have made it clear that that is a reasonably high priority and that that amount of money should be spent in that way. The Secretary of State for Health has made that clear and the education priority has been made clear. That raises the more fundamental question of how much Governments decide to ring fence and how much is at the discretion of the local authority. That may well be an issue that we shall be judging after this settlement, because we have made it clear that a lot of those resources should be spent in the way that we have stated; that is particularly true of education.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is precisely what has happened in Gloucestershire under the largely Liberal-dominated group. Money is not going to where it should be going to relieve that problem. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it and find out whether he can direct the resources to solving the problem?
Mr. Prescott: Again, every Member of Parliament finds himself in that position and is advised in all quarters about how much is being given in every local authority. It is terrifying trying to understand how each local authority has so much for housing and for education. I am advised that the extra resources given to the hon. Gentleman's constituency amount to about £1.42 million for social services. I am certainly aware of the problem. Every Secretary of State who has stood at this Dispatch Box to tell the House what the settlement is, has been told by hon. Members that the expenditure is not enough in various areas. There is no doubt about that.
There are real problems with the priorities for expenditure, as well as the total. The priorities are not in the right order at present and that is why we will be undertaking a review with the local government associations to find a better way. Indeed, that question is related to the whole principle of capping and expenditure priorities. Shortly, having conducted the discussions with those associations we hope to be able to come to the House with a better way. I predict that however good I might think the new system, there will never be enough resources when I appear here. I am sure that hon. Members, carrying out their obligations and duties, will be telling me why not. That is the nature of democracy, and I accept that that is the case. This settlement is fairer, but it is not an easy one. It is tough and we readily accept that there is still a price to be paid.
I referred to the £835 million in revenue support grant for education and we have included a further £70 million for children's social services—the first substantial increase for three years. Again, that is to be welcomed. It is much better than local authorities could have expected under the previous Government. However, I recognise that the settlement is still tight for many authorities.
In 1998–99, we have gone as far as we can to help local authorities, within our public spending targets—commitments given in the House and during the general election campaign. Extra money has gone to our priorities. The total of aggregate external finance—known as AEF, which is the money distributed by the Government through grants and business rates to help meet the TSS—will be £37.52 billion for England, which is about
1256
£10 million higher than the amount that I announced in December. I explained then that less provision might be needed for the transitional costs of local government reorganisation and that has proved true. Within the total of £37.52 billion, the amount of money provided from central Government to local authorities through the revenue support grant will be £19.51 billion—up some £10 million for the same reason.
Mr. William Cash: Can the Secretary of State explain something? In his discussions with the Treasury, to what extent have the Maastricht criteria been raised? To what extent are the decisions that have been taken in respect of the constraints on public expenditure, which are causing much trouble in Staffordshire because of the increases in council tax in three of the district councils in my constituency, driven by Treasury requirements that are themselves dependent on compliance with those criteria? Has the right hon. Gentleman had those discussions and what did they produce?
Mr. Prescott: I must admit that I have not had discussions with the Treasury about the effect on the settlement of the Maastricht agreement, although I well understand that arguments about the difficulties of public expenditure can be extended into arguments about the Maastricht agreement. We were more concerned with putting the public finances on a proper footing because we inherited quite a mess. The settlement was motivated more by that than by consideration of that agreement.
In December, I proposed a number of changes in the way in which the revenue support grant is shared out between local authorities—the standard spending assessments. The aim of our changes is to remove some of the unfairness in the system. We discussed a range of options with local government during the summer. Ministers then had to choose the most justified options, which most contributed to making the system fairer. We proposed five main changes. Clearly, we needed a new basis for the SSAs for educating children under five following the abolition of nursery vouchers and we needed to move towards our aim of making universal provision for three and four-year-olds.
Now, the SSAs will be distributed on a basis that reflects the number of pupils for whom local authorities currently provide. Authorities will be able to get help from the Department for Education and Employment, where they need to expand their nursery education provision. Of course, that is in addition to the out-of-school hours learning clubs, which will be supported by the new opportunities fund. We have reformed the measures of neediness within the SSA formula. Those carried little credibility before. We have now been able to apply explicit principles to determine what should be included in the formula. The result is a clear improvement on the previous system.
We have overhauled the formula for residential social services for the elderly, using the research commissioned by the Department of Health from the university of Kent, to take proper account of the changes in social services following the introduction of community care. We have also changed the treatment of debt incurred by local authorities before the SSA system was established in 1990. We now treat authorities that opted to invest their capital receipts broadly on a par with those that chose to repay debt.

1257
Also, we have looked afresh at the way in which we take account of visitors and commuters. We have ended the link with the density and sparsity of population and also put an end to the assumption in the old formula that visitors and commuters have the same economic and social characteristics as the residents of the area that they are visiting. That was the nonsense that meant that people staying at the Ritz were treated as being as deprived as local people. That gave rise to absurd results, which were often debated in the House. From 1998–99, we shall take as much account of visitors and commuters as is fair.
We have received representations on many aspects of the SSAs and considered them carefully. Of course, some focused on the short term. There were complaints from those who felt that they had lost out this year as a result of the changes that I have described. Some pointed us more towards areas that we might want to look at again in the future, but where the full facts need to be established.
The result of those considerations was to confirm the methodology for 1998–99 that I proposed in December. However, we do not have closed minds on all this. Our present review of the local government finance system will look at grant distribution for the longer term. For the next settlement, we will look at further improvements in the SSAs, both in the criteria and the period of review.
Mr. Tom King: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not being here for the beginning of his speech. He says that he has abandoned the sparsity factor, but I am not clear whether he has done so for this settlement. Rural poverty has recently been debated in the House. Is he aware that in Somerset, home care provision for the elderly is half that available in urban areas with a greater population density?
Mr. Prescott: There are some genuine concerns in the right hon. Gentleman's complaint, but I should correct him about sparsity, which related only to commuter issues. There are real issues in community services and SSAs must address that. There is a general feeling in the House that it is time for a review, and we are conducting one. When we have reached conclusions, it will be right for the House to discuss them.
Mr. Gill rose—
Mr. Prescott: No, I have given way several times.
Several hon. Members have asked us to examine area cost adjustments. Local authorities may want to urge further changes on us for next year. We shall work closely with the Local Government Association in considering both the short and long term. Hon. Members whose local authorities were disappointed that changes were not made this time round should encourage them to make their case via the LGA.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets on to area cost adjustments, were any changes made to the figures as a result of the mass of deputations that went to see his Ministers? I took part in one on behalf of the borough of Rochford, and I think that hon. Members sometimes wonder whether such meetings are worth while. I think that he knows that while I was happy with the deal that he did for Southend-on-Sea, and said so publicly, poor old Rochford was hammered.
Mr. Prescott: I confirm that changes were made for several reasons such as traffic flows and the use of roads.
1258
All sorts of things were considered, including whether mistakes were made in the figures. On the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the change in the Essex area was as much as an extra £3 million, based, I think, on figures for road and traffic movements. We made changes where it could be shown that we had made mistakes in the figures or in the criteria used to assess a local authority. His area was lucky to get an extra £3 million.
Judy Mallaber: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that he will seriously examine the issues in the forthcoming year. The head teacher of a school in my constituency, who had come from Hampshire, told me that because of the disparity in education SSA between us and some southern counties, he would have had £300,000 more for the school had it been there and would have had fewer statemented kids. Does my right hon. Friend accept that such anomalies have had a serious impact? That is why Derbyshire is in its current difficulties. The cumulative effect has been exacerbated by many years of Tory intransigence to counties such as Derbyshire. The impact of that needs to be examined.
Mr. Prescott: I accept a great deal of what my hon. Friend says. It is a mystery to me why the difficulties in financing Derbyshire under the previous Administration went on for so long. It seems to have been discriminated against for some years. That is history. It is clear that our settlement gave considerably more, as I said before in respect of the education increase of 5.3 per cent. Even that is less than the class average for the shires, which I think is about 5.7 per cent. We need to address such matters, and I shall do so in the Local Government Association assessments that are going on.
Mr. James Gray: Wiltshire is run by a Lib-Lab pact. Half a dozen Labour councillors keep the Liberals in control. [Laughter.] They find it funny. Were it not for the Labour party, the Conservatives would be in control. I was interested by the right hon. Gentleman's response to the hon. Member South Swindon (Ms Drown). She is apparently happy with the education settlement for Swindon. That is not the case elsewhere in Wiltshire, where there have been deep and damaging cuts across the county because of financial incompetence in other budget areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into that incompetence and, in particular, into the off-balance sheet financing, which is coming back to bite? Will he find ways of getting the 5.7 per cent. that he mentioned through to Wiltshire children?
Mr. Prescott: I take on board some of those points, but, whatever the arguments, the education settlement for the hon. Gentleman's area means an increase of £7.4 million. That is more than he could have expected under the previous Administration. It is fine for him to declare that he is proud to be a Conservative, but the people, and children, of his area are better off under a Labour Government than a Conservative one.
Mr. Gray rose—
Mr. Prescott: No. On phasing in, or what the jargon calls damping—which could be applied in the hon.

1259
Gentleman's case—I said in December that I would pay a special grant to phase in changes for authorities that have lost SSA as a result of the changes in methodology. I also made it clear that we need to make the phasing in—the damping grant—fairer. I shall therefore set the threshold for grant in terms of council tax equivalent. That will be fairer to areas with high needs and a low tax base. I shall also limit the amount of grant spent on phasing in the larger corrections to SSAs so that grant will be limited to the equivalent of half the SSA reduction. I shall also pay a damping grant to phase in the changes for certain police authorities on a similar basis. The Special Grant Report (No. 31) will establish those grants for 1998–99, and some £102 million will be distributed to authorities for that purpose.
I am maintaining my proposal to damp council tax increases that are a direct result of reorganisation and come above a £52 threshold at band D, £1 a week, for authorities reorganised in April 1998. The threshold will be £104 a year at band D for authorities recognised in earlier years. That scheme will result in the payment of grant worth £11.5 million and will benefit council tax payers in Cheshire, Newbury, North Lincolnshire, Reading, Rutland and Wokingham. I shall lay regulations to implement the scheme before the House tomorrow.
On notional amounts, I am specifying a base budget for authorities that are being reorganised or whose budgets are affected by the abolition of nursery vouchers. That will allow me to make a fair comparison between years for capping purposes. The amounts are specified in my report on relevant notional amounts for 1998–99.
Finally, I come to my proposed capping criteria. I have listened carefully to the arguments put to me to adjust or relax the provisional criteria that I announced in December. However, I have decided to maintain those provisional criteria. As I advised the LGA conference last year. I will take final capping decisions after authorities have set their budgets and ensure that caps are reasonable, achievable and appropriate to local circumstances. Let me make it clear that although my capping principles for 1998–99 give authorities more room for manoeuvre, I do not expect every authority to spend up to its cap. This year, 70 authorities are between them spending more than £150 million below their caps. There is no reason why local authorities should not do so again. We look to local authorities to set sensible budgets that will keep council tax increases as small as possible.
Mr. Edward Davey: On capping, we in Kingston are disappointed that despite representations from me and Kingston council, the right hon. Gentleman has decided to maintain the cap at 3 per cent. When he said that Kingston was a leafy borough, did he realise that it has areas of deep deprivation on a par with some of the neediest areas of inner London? Will he reconsider, even at this late stage, the capping limit for Kingston? Our borough needs that money for social services to protect people in great need.
Mr. Prescott: The capping limit is more generous than it was last year. That is not to say that the hon. Gentleman's area has not had difficulties. Most councils have difficulties with tough budgets such as this. I do not doubt that, and I am trying to explain the judgments that
1260
I reached. I cannot reconsider the position. We have given much thought and discussion to the matter. That is why we arrived at our conclusions.
The Government are committed to ending the system of crude universal capping, and we will do so. When we do so—and I mean when, not if—the freedom will carry with it responsibility. We have also made it clear that reserved powers will remain to protect council tax payers. We will shortly be consulting widely on the best way to do that as part of our review of local government. The sooner we can reach consensus on change, the sooner we can consign the old Tory capping system to the dustbin. I intend this year to be the last year of crude, universal capping.
Mr. Mark Todd: I certainly say hear, hear to that. Will the effects of the past eight years of capping influence my right hon. Friend's judgment on the appropriate level of cap after the relevant budgets have been set?
Mr. Prescott: We have been in government for nine months, so I am afraid that that decision will not be reached overnight. We will, however, consider all the relevant factors. We have already started the review on which we gave a commitment. We did not agree with the crude universal capping practised by the Tories, which caused great damage to the quality of our public services. Our job is to come to the House with an alternative to that arrangement. Discussions are under way and we will learn from the experience gained in the years in which that capping arrangement has been in operation.
When I addressed the House in December I said that the way in which we talk about local government finance is somewhat obscure, overcomplicated and designed to make the subject inaccessible to the average person. I am pleased to announce that this week we published a plain English guide to local government finance, as I promised to do in December. To do that in two months is not bad. I have already sent a copy to Matthew Parris. I am glad that we have managed to produce that guide and I am pleased that it has been given the crystal mark by the Plain English Campaign. I offered to attend one of its courses, but it felt that I was too far gone and a hopeless case. Nevertheless, I am pleased to be the Secretary of State who introduced that guide. I hope that it will be a small but worthwhile contribution to making the democratic process understandable to many more people.
I have dealt with the main issues considered in the three reports before the House. I recognise that this year's settlement will be tough for local government. That is the price we must pay for the fiscal incompetence of the previous Administration and in order to put public finance on a sound footing. Despite the constraints that we face, this year's settlement is better, fairer and offers more flexibility for local choice than has been the case for many years. I commend it to the House.
5.31 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: I shall try to be brisk because the time available for the debate has been truncated and it is clear that many hon. Members want to speak.
Three months ago, the Government announced to the House how they intended to distribute the resources available to local government for this coming year. Since

1261
then, the Secretary of State has received letters from almost 250 authorities and Ministers have seen almost 100 delegations from local councils. The net result—this is a more direct reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East ( Sir T. Taylor) than that offered to him by the Secretary of State—according to the Secretary of State's press release of Monday and what he said today is that there will be no changes in the standard spending assessment methodology or in the capping guidelines. Apart from the use of slightly more updated statistics, nothing has changed.
The Secretary of State has claimed that this year's statement is, to use his words, "better, fairer" and more flexible. Many council tax payers and many councils that face increases in council tax of 10 per cent. or above will not see it in those terms. Councils such as those in London and the shires have been hit by the changes to the funding formula that the Secretary of State has introduced.
In last year's debate, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), then the Opposition spokesman on local government, said:
"Conservative Members will be voting for a settlement that will force through average council tax increases of 6 per cent., equal to £40 extra for every household, together with cuts in services to local people."—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 691.]
This year, even according to the Secretary of State's figures, Labour Members will be voting for an even higher council tax increase than that which they condemned last year. That is a fact.
It is fascinating to re-read the 1997 debate and see how the language used by those on the then Opposition Front Bench, including the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), now the Minister for Local Government and Housing, has changed.
Twelve months ago, we heard about how the Labour party would fundamentally challenge the system for financing local government. It claimed that a radical new system would be introduced. According to the leaked letter from the Minister for Local Government and Housing, the fear in her Department now is that the Labour party will disappoint its friends in local government because of the lack of radicalism in the Government's plans. In that letter, the hon. Lady warned that relations between Ministers and the Local Government Association could "quickly break down". We will soon learn what the Secretary of State's words about capping mean, but it is clear that they do not mean its abolition.
In the past few months, the Government, far from improving the budgetary position of councils, have imposed new cost burdens on local government. It is an issue of fundamental importance and there is no disguising some of those cost increases. I shall draw attention to what the Labour Government insist on seeking to conceal for some reason—the impact of the pensions tax announced in the Budget. It is a hidden iceberg of cost which will cost local government £300 million each year. It is not a one-off tax, but one that will continue to have an impact on pension funds year after year. The Government say that if the tax fell evenly over all local authorities it would add almost £20 to band D council tax. That average figure conceals the fact that several councils will be hit severely.
Cambridge county council has sent a letter in which it says that the Government's decision will cost it nearly £4 million a year, and more than £6 million a year when
1262
all other employers' contributions are taken into account. Devon county council has also written to say that its costs will be increased by between £7.5 million and £8 million. West Sussex county council has said in a letter that not only might there be a 30 per cent. increase in its costs, but its actuary considers it would be prudent to make additional contributions in the intervaluation years. In other words, contributions should be made in the years immediately to follow 1998. We have heard of similar reports from the authorities of Essex, Norfolk, Kent, Surrey, South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, all of which complain that costs have been pushed up by the pensions tax.
The Minister for Local Government and Housing is trying to claim that that tax will have no impact on local government in 1998–99. The reality is that it has already taken effect. There has been an impact on local authority pension funds from the time the tax was introduced. In that respect, it is entirely the same as any other pension fund or personal pension. The pension tax is a £5 billion a year tax on pensions. It affects local authorities just as it affects everyone else.
Ministers claim that no assessment of the tax can be made until there has been an actuarial revaluation. They argue that since that revaluation will not take place until later this year, there will be no impact on local authorities until 1999. Let us be clear that the actuarial revaluation will simply measure the deficit; the impact is being felt now. All that Ministers are saying that is that the bill for the pensions tax will be postponed until 1999.
Last year, the Local Government Association sent a circular to councils in which it stated:
"From the accounting and actuarial viewpoints, it would clearly be prudent to make advance provision, say by way of an agreed voluntary uplift in contribution rates."
It went on to state, however, that regulations prevent councils from acting in that prudent way and noted:
"The LGA has been advised by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that authorities do not possess the legal powers to increase contribution rates in these circumstances."
We need to be clear where the Government stand on the issue. Do they intend to change the regulations to allow councils to act prudently, or will they guarantee that every penny of the increased cost to local government of the pensions tax will be met by central Government? In other words, will the bill be picked up by taxpayers, many of whom have had to pay increased contributions to their occupational pensions and their personal pensions? The Government should clear up the confusion as a matter of urgency, because, the longer the issue is postponed, the greater will be the bill. If contributions are not increased until 1999 or 2000, the bill for local government will approach £1 billion.
Mr. Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman is raising concerns about the occupational pension schemes of many people in the local government sector. Does he agree that the biggest factor that undermined occupational pension schemes was the introduction of personal pensions, the mess of which is still being cleared up?
Sir Norman Fowler: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is quite on beam or that he comprehends what

1263
is being said. I do not remotely agree with what he says. Nor is there the slightest evidence that the introduction of personal pensions, which have benefited the vast majority of people who did not have pension schemes—unlike the right hon. Gentleman and me—has done the slightest harm to local government schemes.
Why do not the Government address the point that we are making? They introduced a £5 billion a year pension tax. There is no question about that. That cannot be contradicted. It is not just a one-off tax. It comes each year and has an impact each year. Every pension fund in the country and every personal pension provider is taking note of that, but local authorities are not.
Mr. Prescott: The House will recognise the right hon. Gentleman's concern for pensions. Our point is that the costs, which are not included this year, are still right. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that he will review the situation. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that he was the Secretary of State who dealt with National Bus, which was robbed of £250 million of its pension fund—and we have to find a solution. I shall bear in mind his record when listening to his remarks today.
Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I do not mind having a debate on National Bus, National Express and transport generally, but all the proposals that the Conservatives made on transport when I was Secretary of State were successful and they were consistently opposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
As for the Government's pension proposal, it is absolutely clear that the blustering Deputy Prime Minister does not understand a word of what is being said to him. I calmly ask him whether he in any way doubts what I have said: that the pensions tax is currently having an impact on local authority pension schemes throughout the country. Yes or no?
Mr. Prescott: The only argument that the right hon. Gentleman has made is that some pension trustees are saying that they should prepare for it now. They should have heard what the Chancellor said: we will assess it properly when the charge becomes due.
Sir Norman Fowler: Why was there a £300 million bill for local authority pension funds—[Interruption.] Of course it is a bill. The LGA wants to know how that bill will be met. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the regulations should be changed so that local authorities can make proper provision? What is clearly untenable is the position of the Minister for Local Government and Housing, who says that this is having no impact on local authorities. That is laughable.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that competent local authorities do not look at one year in isolation, but look further ahead? They really need to know the balance and shift of money in the coming financial year and the next, the effect that the pensions tax will have and who will foot the bill. Surrey is looking at a shift of between 5 and 10 per cent. If the bill is not paid by central Government, it will be picked up by local council tax payers—and it will be bigger because of the knock-on effect.
Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely the point that I am making. If there is a bill this
1264
year of £300 million, a bill next year of £300 million and by the time the Government get round to doing anything there is another bill of £300 million, local government will have to pick up a bill approaching £1 billion. The Government would do well to address that point.
Of course, the pensions tax is not the only additional cost that has been imposed on local government since May. Inflation has risen since the Government came to office, and the Government have missed the inflation target every month. Prices as measured by the gross domestic product deflator are expected to be some 13/4per cent. higher in 1998–99 than under the November 1996 forecast. In effect, that leads to an estimated cost to local government of about £350 million a year.
The Secretary of State made much of the additional resources for education, but he neglected to mention that the money was taken from the reserves left by the Conservative Government. In other words, the money was already in the previous Government's spending plans.
The principal difference between Labour and Conservative policies is that Labour's higher inflation means that the value of the increase in funds is much less. Once the increase in the GDP deflator is taken into account, the benefit of £835 million is substantially reduced.
Not only services will be adversely affected by Government policies. Substantial council tax rises are clearly on the way. Capping has been relaxed deliberately to allow the council tax to take the strain. According to The Sunday Times Ministers evidently believe that council tax rises are "less visible" than rises in income tax, but there should be no doubt about the impact. A 10 per cent. rise in council tax is equivalent to an average of £69 for a family in a band D house.
As we heard again today, the Government claim that none of the council tax rises have anything whatever to do with them, so in areas in the country that have a Labour council, under a Labour Government, it is entirely logical to blame any rises in council tax on the Conservative party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Exactly.
In his statement on local authority funding, and again today, the Secretary of State tried to claim that council tax rises of 7 per cent. would have occurred if the Conservatives had been re-elected, but many thousands of households face rises of substantially more than 7 per cent. If councils spend at cap, every London borough will increase its council tax by more than the Secretary of State's figure of 7 per cent.—and so would 18 metropolitan authorities, 32 new unitary authorities and more than 200 shire authorities. In total, almost 300 councils could increase their council tax by more than the figure that the Secretary of State has given.
Where such increases occur, who does the Secretary of State think should shoulder the blame?
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: Not for the time being.
Only councils' efforts to improve efficiency—or decisions to cut services—will prevent increases of this magnitude. People throughout the country will have to pay significantly more council tax, but will get worse services. That is precisely the point that was made in last

1265
year's debate by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. That is the result of the current Government's policies.
Anyone who believes that the new Government are good news for our essential services should read what Home Office Ministers have to say on the subject. Defending his policy, the Home Secretary said:
"The police are the only local authority service to have had an increase greater than inflation in each of the last four years."
Under the Conservative Government.
In yesterday's debate, the Minister of State, Home Office made the position clear when he said:
"The effect of the formula and capping principles to be applied by … the Deputy Prime Minister … means that two police authorities—Surrey and Lincolnshire—will be disappointed by the settlement. To be blunt, they are disappointed by it and have said so.
The chief constables of those forces came to see me with representatives from the police authorities to express their concerns over the Government's funding proposals for 1998–99. I listened to them carefully, but my view remains that the special funding that they were given in 1997–98 cannot continue.
Tough choices are sometimes necessary for the greater good. The Government stand by their tough decisions in respect of Lincolnshire and Surrey."—[Official Report, 4 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 1070.]
Mr. Prescott indicated assent.
Sir Norman Fowler: I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister assents to that. I wonder whether the public in Lincolnshire and Surrey will be so cheerful about the prospect of police cuts.
Mr. John Hayes: Despite the fact that the police in Lincolnshire have less manpower than the national average, the net result of the change is that the number of policemen on the beat in Lincolnshire will be cut at the same time as the council tax rises. That is the reality of the settlement for the people of Lincolnshire. It is deeply unpopular, not only with the police but with the public.
Sir Norman Fowler: That is precisely the point. This has nothing to do with any decisions taken by the last Conservative Government. The police in Lincolnshire—
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Norman Fowler: Let me finish the point and then I might give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is right. The number of police officers will fall and the council tax will rise. If the Secretary of State for Health were here, he would condemn outright such a policy.
Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of the rise in council tax. Will he reflect on the last Budget plans of the previous Government and then acknowledge that they implied a 7 per cent. rise, which he has just complained about?
Sir Norman Fowler: I have dealt precisely with that argument. The point that the hon. Gentleman misses is on the redistribution and distribution of the SSA. In
1266
opposition, Labour's entire approach—we have heard a bit of it this afternoon—revolved around their dislike of Conservative councils such as Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, Bromley and, of course, Westminster. What irritated Labour Members most of all was the sight of Conservative councils proving year after year that good, efficient local councils could keep council taxes down. The result was that the Labour party vowed to change the distribution formula, which is precisely what the Government have done. That is their responsibility—it can be nobody else's.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: No, I shall not.
No one but the Government can be blamed for those changes. They started by asking Westminster to cope with a 12 per cent. cut in SSA provision per head in one year. Worse still, in targeting Westminster, the Government have hit the rest of London too. In all, seven London councils, including Camden, Islington, and Hammersmith and Fulham, are having their per capita SSAs either cut or held constant in cash terms. This year, London borough councils have fared worse than county councils and unitary councils, and far worse than metropolitan councils with which they have most in common. In 1998–99, more than 80 authorities are having their SSA provision cut in cash terms.
That, however, is not the end of the story. As a direct result of the Government's changes in the funding formula, Bromley will lose £640,000 from its SSA, Croydon will lose £1 million and Lambeth will lose £1.7 million. Furthermore, London is not alone in being hit by the changes to the formula. In response to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Government listed eight sets of changes made to SSA methodology for 1998–99, not one of which helps shire England. Indeed, they seem designed precisely to shift money away from the shires.
The Government are rewarding councils that built up huge debts in the 1980s and penalising other, more prudent, ones. Changes to social services funding, including services for the elderly, have also affected the shires, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said. Overall, Oxfordshire loses £8 million from its SSA as a result of the Government's changes, while Kent loses £7 million, Wiltshire loses more than £4 million, Dorset loses £3 million, and East Sussex loses more than £2 million. Many of those cuts are hidden by the overall increase in education budgets, but they are nevertheless real cuts that not only affect councils this year but will affect them in years to come. As a direct result of the Government's changes in methodology, the shires lose nearly £100 million from their SSAs, and £55 million is taken from London.
If some authorities lose out, others must gain. Sedgefield is an outstanding case in point because it has done better than almost every other council in the land. It has a massive 13 per cent. increase in SSA and it does not even deal with education. Thus, the principal local authority in the Prime Minister's constituency provides an excellent illustration of precisely how the changes in methodology have worked. Sedgefield's 13 per cent. increase is more than double that for any London borough

1267
or new unitary authority. It is more than double the percentage increase for Birmingham or Coventry, three times that for Liverpool or the Wirral, and seven times that for Manchester.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: No, I shall not.
Had Brent received the same percentage increase in SSA as Sedgefield, its provision would have gone up by £24 million. Doubtless Labour will once again pose as a friend of London in the May elections, but it is the deeds, not the words, that count. In changing the funding formula, the Government have discriminated against London.
As the Deputy Prime Minister made clear, this is just the first year of changes. We are now told that further reviews are to take place. Seeing how many reviews can take place at the same time is becoming the sign of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' success. In a revealing reply on Tuesday at Question Time, the Minister of Transport claimed credit for the fact that this was the first Government for 20 years who had produced a White Paper on transport. They have not actually provided it, but that is what he claimed—not action, legislation or investment, but a White Paper.
The same is true of local government, only the Minister for Local Government and Housing does not seem to be quite as bullish about her paper exercise as the Minister of Transport. According to the Local Government Chronicle, she has written a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister about the issue. The mind boggles at the prospect of one Minister in a Department writing to another in the same Department, but that seems to be how they communicate in that massive Department. I know from personal experience that the Deputy Prime Minister is extremely fortunate to receive a letter from the Minister for Local Government and Housing; I wrote to her on 20 November and am still waiting for her reply.
The warning to the Deputy Prime Minister is stark. The hon. Lady wrote:
"We have to recognise"
that our plans
"may be presented as conflicting with expectations created by the announcement of the review, coverage in the local government press and the approach we have taken so far.
There is a danger that if we do not seek views on the range of options we have discussed with the LGA and others, our new partnership approach to local government, which we have proclaimed loudly to considerable acclaim from our own backbenchers and local government, would quickly break down."
The letter reveals the hon. Lady's concern about policy, because she says:
"We need to be particularly careful in how we present the issues in the consultation papers … We should avoid boxing ourselves in too soon'.
Mr. Woolas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: No, I shall not.
It is worrying when the Government talk about reform and change, because that is another way of saying that there will be new taxes for the public and for business.
1268
The Labour party is not the only party to talk about that. In the debate last week on London Underground, the spokesman for the Liberal party—I am sorry, the Liberal Democrat party—
Mr. Andrew Stunell: That is the first thing the right hon. Gentleman has got right this afternoon.
Sir Norman Fowler: I shall get this right, too. In that debate, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) offered three concrete proposals on taxation. First, he suggested a charge on non-residential car parking spaces in London which would raise £150 million a year. Secondly, he wanted a congestion tax, which would raise £795 million a year in London. Thirdly, he wanted a temporary increase in business rates for London, which would raise £150 million a year. In that short debate, the Liberal Democrats committed themselves to £1 billion extra taxation for London. What concerns me is that that is precisely the same way that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to go. He is putting his hand up.
Mr. Prescott: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would want to do the Minister for Local Government and Housing an injustice. The letter to which he referred was sent to my hon. Friend, and was passed on three days later to the Home Office because it was about fire alarms. He is as confused about these letters as he is about his analysis.
Sir Norman Fowler: I am delighted, because that is the first information I have had about the letter since 20 November. What has happened to it? It was about local authority fire alarms. I do not care which part of the Government is in chaos: all I say is that one part is in absolute chaos and it is about time they got their act together. They obviously have the gravest difficulty sending letters. If they cannot do that, God help us when it comes to running the country.
More relevant than the Liberal Democrats—and almost everything is more relevant than the Liberal Democrats—are the Government's plans. In opposition, Labour talked about returning responsibility for business rates to local authorities. In government, its line has changed, but not to the benefit of business. National rates are to be retained, but there is now the prospect of councils having the power to levy a supplementary rate.
Another proposal that the Government are examining is for local authorities rather than the Department of Social Security to meet any extra bill for council tax benefit. That is an important change and it will be the council tax payer who will pay more.
In her winding-up speech, the Minister should tell the House precisely what she is proposing. What is her position on business rates? What is her position on council tax benefit? Are the Government considering increasing the number of council tax bands, or have they abandoned that proposal?
This afternoon, the Government's agenda for local government is becoming all too clear. It involves loading new costs on to councils and forcing the council tax payer to foot the bill. It involves rigging the system to hit London and the shires. That is not what people voted for last May and we should not vote for it this evening.

1269
The Government talk about holding local referendums. We do not need periodic referendums in local government: we need consistent local government providing the best value for the council tax payer. That is what the Conservative party wants and stands for and it is the platform on which we shall fight the local government elections in the coming 18 months. Above all, it is why we reject the Government's proposals.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call any Back Bencher, I remind hon. Members that they are restricted to 10 minutes.
6.4 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: In the past 33 minutes, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made an entertaining speech, but it did not advance the cause of local government. Nevertheless, he entertained his right hon. and hon. Friends. That may be the first time that that has happened since the election last May. I was bemused by his peroration. He used the term "consistent local government". Consistency was the last thing that local government faced while the Tories were in power from 1979 to 1997. Year in, year out, local authorities were faced with turmoil. I look forward to relative peace and tranquillity—if that is possible with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—for local authorities in the next four or five years.
My right hon. Friend said that tough choices must be made, and I agree. Representatives from my local authority in Leicester have been to see his ministerial colleagues: they are part of the special pleading brigade. The outcome of those discussions is that tough decisions were made, but they were to the disadvantage of Leicester. I want to make a case on behalf of my local authority.
I realise that the Government have faced some difficult choices. I cannot help but think that the commitment to maintain the previous Government's spending limits has imposed restraints, but those are the parameters within which we are working. I welcome the additional resources that the Government have made available, especially to education.
I welcome the commitment to a fundamental review of local government finance, which is long overdue. I hope that it will bear fruit in the not-too-distant future. I hope also that when the review is finalised, the outcome for Leicester will be more equitable than the present settlement.
I made a similar speech 12 months ago under the previous Government, so the House will know that the revenue settlements for Leicester over the past few years have been bad for the city. Before 1997–98, when Leicester was a district council, it fared badly as a consequence of funding formula changes introduced by the previous Government. As a result of those methodology changes, Leicester received £6.9 million in standard spending assessment reduction grant. That was the highest figure outside London.
In 1997–98, which was the first year that Leicester was a unitary authority, it fared little better. There were further losses in SSA, again because of methodology changes, with only a 1 per cent. permitted increase in the cap. Budget cuts to the tune of £17 million had to be made,
1270
but that was perversely accompanied by a 13 per cent. reduction in council tax. Despite the arguments that we put to the previous Government, they were not prepared to allow us to balance cuts with increases in council tax. As I said, last year, budget cuts to the tune of £17 million had to be made—and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State knows, Leicester's woe continues into 1998–99. It is true that Leicester's SSA has been increased by a small amount, but the increase is smaller than that allowed to similar authorities, and the entire SSA reduction grant has disappeared. As a consequence of that and other changes, council tax in Leicester will increase by 26 per cent., and budgets will have to be cut by £2 million.
Let me briefly explain to my hon. Friend the Minister what that will mean in terms of service provision on the ground. It will lead to the closure of, probably, two training centres, and may well lead to the closure of a hostel for elderly Asians. It will also lead to the closure of an advice centre. Charges for meals on wheels will increase for 1,800 people, and 400 people using day centres will have to pay a new charge of £1 a day.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. The full horror of the cuts will materialise only when individual committees set their budgets in the coming months. The final picture could well be more horrendous than the one that I have presented.
Notwithstanding what was said by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, I concede that, in many ways, Leicester's problems arise from decisions made by the previous Government. As I have said, methodology changes in the SSA have had an impact on Leicester over the past four or five years. Nevertheless, I hope that, even at this late stage—I know that only another three hours and 50 minutes remain before the final decision is made—the Government will take steps to alleviate Leicester's problems. [Interruption.] Did I get the time wrong? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I do not want my arithmetic to be as bad as that of the Opposition.
Leicester's problems could be alleviated in a number of ways. One way would be to provide a slightly more generous cap for unitary authorities, covering the whole class of such authorities. But, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows from detailed studies of the figures, that would lead to only a slight increase in overall national expenditure—indeed, in terms of overall national expenditure, an insignificant increase. My hon. Friend could also introduce more protection for authorities that had been receiving SSA reduction grant that then disappeared overnight—the damping to which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred. There is no doubt that the loss of the £3.6 million that Leicester received last year will have a major impact on the level of council tax in the coming financial year.
My hon. Friend could—here I refer specifically and directly to Leicester—make a technical adjustment to the cap to reflect the fact that the council has lost out because of the introduction and subsequent abolition of nursery vouchers.
Let me make two final suggestions that the Government should consider in their review of local government finance. First, education data changes can have a profound impact on the budget. The Government should consider introducing a clamping mechanism—I am sorry; I meant a damping mechanism. [Laughter.]. Perhaps my right hon.

1271
Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a similar slip. The Government should consider a damping mechanism for below-average changes in pupil numbers.
Secondly, the new system should recognise more fully the needs of deprived urban areas. If a system akin to the SSA is retained, more weighting should be given to indicators of need and deprivation.
6.14 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: "Education, education, education" was the Labour rhetoric before the election. In Norfolk, hoping for a Labour Government, the ruling Labour party—aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrats—had, during the previous four years when it was in power, done a number of things. It had run down the reserves, abandoning the prudence of the preceding Conservative administration on the assumption that it would receive a good deal more when Labour came to power. Furthermore, before the election it had written to every school, urging those in charge to write to their Member of Parliament pointing out what a poor result there was for education in Norfolk. Again, there was a clear hint, or implication, that the council hoped that more money would come from Labour.
The people of Norfolk can now forget the rhetoric; what they are seeing, and getting, is the Labour reality. According to the 3 February edition of our local newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press, this was
"one of these most catastrophic rounds of cuts in memory".
That was after a deputation consisting of Norfolk Labour Members—Conservative Members were excluded—and members of the ruling Labour council went to the Minister for Local Government and Housing pleading for more. They were rewarded—perhaps rebuffed is a better word—with a further cut of £400,000, £268,000 of which related to education. The Eastern Daily Press described that as
"a final insult piling on more misery".
In view of the shortness of time, I shall concentrate on the county council, although my South Norfolk district council has also had a lousy settlement. That is not very good from its point of view, given that it was chosen as one of the best-value "pilots" with no resources to help it.
For the county council, all this means real cuts of between £12 million and £15 million, along with a council tax rise of up to 17 per cent. I was amused to hear Labour Members talk of expecting a rise of 7 per cent. if the Conservatives were in power: we now face an increase 10 percentage points above that. That is not what we are saying; the Labour party in Norfolk says that that will be the consequence.
The people of Norfolk are now paying a heavy price for the running down of balances to pay for the higher expenditure of their Labour council in the hope of more jam tomorrow from a Labour Government. What we have is less; it might be described as a thin crust. The combination of a Labour council and a Labour Government is proving pretty lethal.
What are the likely implications? One likely implication—again, I quote what the Labour county council in Norfolk is saying—is that many teachers will go. That is why Labour's rhetoric about "education,
1272
education, education" sounds so hollow. Norfolk schools are being given a much worse deal than the one that they criticised last year. Moreover, the idea that more resources are being given is phoney: it is a myth. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) pointed out, the money was drawn from the reserves. Last year, the Conservative Government increased local authorities' education resources in exactly the same way. It was announced a little earlier this time, but there has been no change in the method. I think that, in terms of education, Norfolk will be worse off. I shall say more about the impact on social services shortly, but if there has to be some virement from the education budget to the social services budget to cope with the catastrophic position of the social services departments, education will suffer more.
There is also likely to be a considerable reduction in the number of front-line social services staff, and in free transport to schools, which is so important in rural areas. Day care centres for the elderly and residential homes are likely to close. Fewer older people will be taken into care this year than last, and there are substantial implications for roads and highways.
How has all that come about? It is one of the consequences of the switch of resources from rural to urban areas that was mentioned by my right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. In SSA terms, the shire counties have had a poorer deal than metropolitan and urban areas—apart from London—yet the cost of providing services in rural areas can be substantial. I refer the Minister for Local Government and Housing to the recent study for the Rural Development Commission by Rita Hall and to one that she is doing for Norfolk. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to that study because it shows that in some cases the cost of providing services in rural areas is as high as in urban areas.
The switch from rural to urban areas is the first reason for the bad settlement for Norfolk. The second reason is that, of the shire counties, Norfolk has the second lowest SSA increase, at 1.5 per cent., which is a reduction in real terms. Among a number of reasons for that, the most important is that, as the Minister will know, we have suffered a £5 million reduction in the social services budget. However, Norfolk has a higher than average proportion of elderly people, especially those over the age of 85, and that is rising.
All the implications for social services that I have described, including the blockage of hospital beds that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, result from the reduction in cash. That is the result of changing the formula on attendance allowance by putting considerable weighting on it in the formula for the distribution of the social services budget. So far, there is no strong evidence that that is one of the ways to achieve a more accurate distribution of the social services budget, and the change is the subject of dispute.
One of the consequences of the change is that it will encourage authorities that have so far not put many resources into encouraging a bigger take-up of attendance allowance to do that. That will increase overall public expenditure. My additional concern is that that is related to take-up rather than to need, and I am not sure that it is a fair way to allocate resources to need. I understand that there is to be no damping of that this year, which means that there will be an immediate £5 million reduction as a result of one small change in the formula. I noted what

1273
the Deputy Prime Minister said about looking at damping. Can he confirm that there will be no damping of that for Norfolk this year?
The Government's proposals are not the best way to target better the social services budget. They are not fairer and I ask the Minister to examine the matter again. Whatever she says, it is plain that there are serious implications for Norfolk that may have a spill-over effect on education. The situation is unlikely to be better next year.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke about pension funds. The Government have said that they will look at that next year, but that tax will have a considerable effect on local authorities. if they meet it in full, they will require several hundred million pounds next year and I do not think that, on top of a normal revenue support grant settlement, they will provide enough resources to meet the whole effect of the pension fund tax. Serious problems will arise next year as a result of the introduction of the pension fund tax. No matter how it is timed, it will have a serious effect on local authorities.
The damage to Norfolk has been done for this year. The Government have said that there will be no closed minds when they look at changes to the formula next year. I have two pleas. First, I ask the Minister to look again at the issue of attendance allowance to determine whether the change in the formula is fair, especially in view of the weighting that is attached. Secondly, I ask her to take rural issues fully into account when considering changes to the formula and the area cost adjustment. From studies that I have seen, I am not convinced that rural areas are being fairly treated this year and I do not think that the switch in the SSA from rural to urban is justified.
There is no doubt that the hints to the people of Norfolk about what the local government settlement would be like under a Labour Government have proved to be totally false. We face one of the worst settlements that we have had for a long time.
6.24 pm
Ms Jean Corston: I was fortunate to be called in the debate on local government finance this time last year, and said that at that time in Bristol the mood verged on despair, not just in local government but in business and in the voluntary sector. That was because of the prospects for Bristol as a result of the then Government's financial settlement for that year and previous years. Bristol had less Government financial assistance per head than any comparable city. It was the lowest spender per head of all the big urban authorities, but was in the anomalous position of having to levy the third highest council tax in England.
I said in last year's debate that the standard spending assessment and the area cost adjustment were manifestly unfair and that after the general election there would be no Tory Members in Bristol. That was greeted with derision and hoots of laughter by Conservative Members. It is nice to have the last laugh because all the Bristol seats are now held by Labour Members who are co-operating as a team to represent the interests and needs of the constituents in our marvellous city.
I now refer to this year's settlement. Bristol city council met on 13 January and passed the following resolution:
"Council welcomes the improvements in Bristol's financial circumstances brought about by Labour government decisions. In particular, we welcome the substantial additional money for
1274
education and housing services and a local government financial settlement which requires spending and service reductions of approximately half those which could have been expected under the previous government.
However, Council continues to express great concern that the existing local government financial regime manifestly fails to recognise Bristol's needs, and results in the imposition of low spending on council services, low government grant and unfairly high council tax."
It is plain that the election of a Labour Government has been good for Bristol.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Corston: I have just 10 minutes in which to make my speech. Perhaps the hon. Lady could make her own speech.
It is plain that Bristol remains disadvantaged by the area cost adjustment. That is because, although it is bracketed with the rural south-west, it has M4 corridor costs. In terms of education, the budget increase of 4.7 per cent. this year as a result of extra Government funding is the best news that we have had for years. It will improve teachers' morale and raise their concept of professionalism. It will help governors who have complained to me about the way in which they have had to operate under the previous Government's disguised education market, and it will go a long way towards reducing under-achievement.
Structural problems remain, especially in the context of the SSA and its future. I understand that the future determinant will be need. The image that is conjured up by the mention of Bristol is of a dynamic financial centre with high-skill industries such as British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. Clifton suspension bridge is another of the features that remind people of Bristol. But Bristol follows the familiar pattern of wealth and poverty cheek by jowl, each virtually ignorant of the other and separated by dual carriageways and main roads.
I hope that my ministerial colleagues will pay special attention to research that will soon be published by Bristol university's statistical monitoring unit. One of the authors of the unit's report, Professor Peter Townsend, is my husband. He has an international reputation as a social scientist, but that has no bearing on my role as a Member of Parliament. I mention that for the record in case anyone should think that I have tried to disguise his part in the authorship of that report.
The report is the first to look at need beyond regions and districts—an examination of Bristol in conjunction with a deprivation map might not reveal any helpful information. The research report contains an analysis of all 10,500 electoral wards in England, Wales and Scotland, and it provides for the first time a deprivation map of this country's wards.
Eight different measures were used to show how Britain's wards compare with one another in terms of deprivation and conditions: the Townsend z-score, which is the most widely used index, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' index of local conditions, which is the current "official" index, the social deprivation index, a weighted index using indicators drawn from the national "Breadline Britain in the 1990s" survey, the Carstairs (Scotland) index, the new Jarman index, the Bradford index and the Oxford index.

1275
Results were also compared with the ranking of wards according to outcome indicators, that is, standardised mortality rates, standardised illness ratios and average earnings—so the report is pretty comprehensive.
Bristol has 34 wards. The new report shows that 10 of them—about 30 per cent.—are in the top 20 per cent. of Britain's most deprived wards. They are the wards of Lawrence Hill, Filwood, Ashley, Whitchurch Park, Southmead, Knowle, Kingsweston, Cabot, Lockleaze and Bishopsworth. Some of those wards are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), who is present in the Chamber. The ward at the top of the list, Lawrence Hill—which is in my constituency—is the 242nd most deprived ward in England, Scotland and Wales.
In other deprivation indices, Lawrence Hill's position is worse: it ranks 35th, 75th, 100th and 140th. It is true that URBAN funding will be spent in the ward to improve employment prospects, but those figures—which show an extent of deprivation that has never been hitherto acknowledged, and patterns of deprivation that we have never appreciated before—should go a long way in persuading the Government to have an SSA regime that genuinely reflects a concept of need. I urge the Government to ensure that the report, which draws together much evidence and other available information, will be used in the reformulation of the SSA.
Bristol does not want any undue favours. Bristolians are proud people and do not expect to go round with a begging bowl. Like most people, they value their public services. Bristol city council is popular, as is the Labour party's commitment to local democracy, to the political legitimacy of local government and to the position of local councillors as elected representatives, with the same status as us, but Bristol's population wants fairness and a recognition of the extent to which the Conservative party, over 18 years, damaged our city, in ways that some people considered to be unbelievably spiteful.
That is why a seat that was previously held by a Conservative Chief Secretary to the Treasury, no less, now has a Labour Member of Parliament with a majority of over 1,000. The people of Bristol have spoken. They are pleased with the mid-term report. They recognise that these problems cannot be solved overnight and look forward to a local government regime that is fair and seen to be fair.
6.32 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: As part of my preparation for today's debate, I read some of the local government settlement debates in the House, and I have listened to the exchanges so far between the Government and Conservative Front-Bench teams. It sounds as though they have exchanged not only offices and Benches, but scripts. Labour is learning the language of fantasy figures and the Conservative party is beginning to relearn the reality of what happens when Governments impose the sort of settlement that this Government are imposing.
"This settlement does not take the pressure off councils' budgets and local government's ability to deliver services."
Those are not my words, but those of the Labour-controlled Local Government Association in response to this settlement. It is right. This settlement does not mark
1276
the beginning of a new relationship between local and central Government. Rather, it is another milestone in the long and dreary succession of damaging settlements that have so undermined local services. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, how could it be otherwise when a Tory Government conceived the spending plans that underpin the settlement?
Even the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has admitted that the settlement is tough and that a price will have to be paid, so for many people in local government the settlement represents business as usual: more cuts, more hard choices about what to sacrifice and what to save and, to add insult to injury, a council tax rise well above inflation.
Like Labour, Liberal Democrats were highly critical of the previous Government for failing to make allowance for inflation, pay increases and the cost of providing extra services for the growing number of older people and children at school. Therefore, we might have expected this year's settlement to be different, but it is not. Indeed, the Local Government Association's own figures show that local government will be £800 million short of what is needed just to tread water in the coming year.
For many councils, the choice will be between not growth and the level of the council tax increase, but how deeply to cut services and the level of the council tax increase. This is about not real growth, but reshuffling the pack and moving money around. One county council was quoted by the Local Government Association in its recent report:
"Our expenditure will rise by 3.09 per cent., our council tax will go up by 10.4 per cent., yet we will still be cutting services drastically."
This year, for example, Somerset county council is allowed to spend an additional £10.6 million, but only £600,000 of that will come from extra revenue support grant and business rates, so the rest will come from council tax. Is that what new Labour mean by redistribution? To protect services, councils will be forced to tax and to spend up to their capping limits and still people will pay more and get less for it.
The Government have made much of the extra money that they will spend on education. All council leaders have had a very friendly letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment warning them not to spend the money anywhere else.
Mr. Nigel Jones: I also have had one of these very polite letters from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment asking me to ensure that the £11.2 million of additional funding goes into schools in Gloucestershire, but I look at the figures and find an increase of only £4 million in the revenue support grant. I am happy to suggest to my colleagues on Gloucestershire county council that they put that £11.2 million extra into education, but that means that social services will be desperate for funds and that the fire and rescue service and all the other services will suffer from cuts as well.
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such fantasy figures are trotted out every year to try to persuade people that much additional Government money is going in, but local authorities, which are already often spending more than SSA for education and social services, have to

1277
face the fact that they will have to make cuts to accommodate the Government's bizarre view of what is necessary to keep services at a standard level.
Because of the small print in last July's Budget and the cost pressures on local education services, the extra money for education will not be enough to enable schools just to stand still and to continue to do what they are doing. For example, there is a requirement for an extra £137 million to meet the cost of an additional 55,000 children coming into schools this year. The Chancellor took full account of the extra revenues generated by changing the inflation assumptions in the Budget, but he failed to compensate public services for the cost of the extra inflation, so, in the coming year, under this settlement, even after the extra money for education, local authorities will be £48 million worse off in real terms.
As one inner London local authority put it:
"We are fully committed to using all the additional schools" SSA increase to increase educational achievement … but … we are going to have to make large additional cuts in other services or have a very large increase in council tax."
In England as a whole, there is a £562.9 million gap between the Government's rhetoric on education spending and the budget realities of individual councils. Gloucestershire county council, which has been mentioned a couple of times, has a gap of £8.8 million. For many councils, delivering the Government's promises on class sizes and school standards will mean that, for every extra £1 that goes into schools, £1 will have to come out of another local service. Perhaps that is what Labour means by redistribution.
That leads me on to social services. Everyone knows that community care is underfunded and that, increasingly, councils are in the business of rationing care rather than meeting need. Again, the settlement does little to relieve the pressure. With social services departments spending on average 9.5 per cent. above their SSA in the current year, I sometimes wonder what would happen if councils spent down to their SSA.
For many local authorities, demand-led services are putting severe stresses on staff and budgets. Already, many have had to tighten their eligibility criteria and raise charges for care services. On the Local Government Association's own figures, seven out of 10 authorities will have to tighten their eligibility criteria further, and six out of 10 will have to raise charges still higher.
Only yesterday, at the Local Government Association's health and social affairs committee, it became clear that social services will bear the brunt of many of the cuts that will have to be made as a consequence of the cuts. Newcastle is set to cut £500,000, which will exacerbate bed blocking there. Hartlepool is about to make a 5 per cent. cut in social services. I understand that Gateshead will be cutting £800,000, and so on. Under this settlement, it will be granny and granddad who will pay for their grandchildren's education through inadequate care and higher home help charges.
Much has been made of the Government's extra £835 million for education—one-off money from the Government's reserves. As we have already demonstrated, that money effectively compensates local services for the extra inflation in the small print of the July Budget. There is no money to pay for smaller classes—another early pledge delivered late. To make a difference, Liberal Democrats have made it clear that we
1278
remain committed to the idea of an extra £2 billion being invested this year and every year. That is extra money above inflation.
Mr. David Watts: Another penny on income tax—it is spent already.
Mr. Burstow: The same penny being applied to the same purpose yet again. [Interruption.] Labour Members may not like the fact that the Liberal Democrats are clear about their commitment to invest in education, but that is the reality.
Our plans would mean that the average primary school with 250 pupils would receive an extra £16,000, and a typical secondary school with 1,000 pupils would get an extra £110,000 this coming year.
Work by the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that the Government have as much as £3 billion which they could spend in the coming year and still meet their golden rule for borrowing. It is therefore clear that it is dogma rather than debt which is stopping the Government putting money into public services in the coming year. The public will not understand if the Government allow that money to become part of their election war chest rather than using it to give local councils the fair deal that they so desperately need.
In the longer run, Liberal Democrats welcome the Government's commitment to overhaul local government finance. We want a system that ensures greater accountability, raises taxes that are based on the ability to pay and guarantees greater freedom of action for local councils. It is good news that this is the last year of crude capping, but what will Labour's subtle capping be like? Will it be a case of new Labour, new capping? Capping distorts local priorities and undermines local accountability.
In reforming local government finance, the Government must accept that greater financial independence is only one pillar. With it must come greater freedom of action allied to stronger democratic accountability. Liberal Democrats want to see a shift of tax raising from national to local government, with more of what local councils spend raised through local income tax and local business tax. A buoyant and independent source of revenue would do much to rejuvenate local government. It would strengthen local accountability. The funding of local government must be seen in the context of its powers and accountability.
Is the future of local government to be a mere administrative unit of the Government or will it be about being autonomous decision makers? In conclusion—[Interruption.] I am conscious of the time and of hon. Members pointing at their watches, but as a Front-Bench spokesperson I want to ensure that the Liberal Democrats' position is clear.
This question is a crucial test for the Labour Government. It goes right to the heart of the Government's commitment to real reform. In short, does the Labour party really trust local government? The Government's rhetoric has raised expectations in local government, but there are still far too many control freaks in the Government who believe that Westminster knows best and that Whitehall can lay down national blueprints for everything.
The Government must do far more to convince their colleagues in local government that they will adopt a radical agenda of reform so that they restore trust between

1279
local and central Government. This year, we shall begin to see whether the Government will honour the promises that they made to their colleagues in local government in the run-up to the general election and whether they are willing to trust to local solutions rather than impose national blueprints.
This year's settlement is another kick in the teeth for the innovative local government that many local councils of all parties offer throughout Britain. The cut in local authority budgets inherited from the previous Government, the hidden costs of the July Budget on local authority pension funds and the inflation fiddle mean that, for local government, it is business as usual—another year of cuts and hardship. That is hardly the fair deal that we were told was on offer. It is not the way to start a constructive partnership with local government. The settlement is another turn of the screw that the Conservative party used for years. It will lead to further false economies and damage local communities.
That is why, despite the fact that, for the first time in 18 years, Conservative Members will vote against the local government settlement, we shall hold our nose and go through the same Lobby to ensure that we stay true to our principles.
6.45 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: I begin by thanking the Minister for Local Government and Housing for talking to me and Nottinghamshire county council about the tough choices that the county council faces. I commend her for what she has so far achieved in nine months. Local government finance is complex and difficult. It will take time to unwind it and bring forward major changes. However, there are things in the settlement of which we can be proud.
I do not minimise the publication of "The plain English guide to local government financial settlements". It is important for accountability and democracy that people know who is responsible and who pays for the services. At the moment, local government blames national Government and national Government blame the local councils. We must do better than that. The publication of that document will move us away from the situation where it can be said only that responsibility for the settlement can be fudged.
I draw the attention of the House to annexe II of last year's draft local government finance report, which defines the council tax base for revenue support grant purposes. The formula in question is:
"[(R-(S+T+U+V+W)) + (0.75xV) + (0.5xW)] x X/Y"
We must do better than that, and we are determined to do better than that to ensure that people know where responsibility lies and how local government is financed.
The significant thing about the settlement is the extra money for education—£835 million extra for education, of which £12.2 million comes to Nottinghamshire. Even allowing for the teachers phased pay settlement, that allows for 2 per cent. real growth for Nottinghamshire schools. Governors, teachers, parents and pupils welcome that as an important first step on the way forward for major change under the Government.
Thirdly, it is right that there has been a real attempt to move resources to areas of need. I can see that happening, but I am not convinced that it has happened entirely. I am
1280
concerned about what has happened to shire counties, particularly coalfield shire counties such as Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and those in the north-east which my hon. Friend the Minister knows so well. It is disappointing that Nottinghamshire's SSA has been reduced by £8 million. At the same time, the Government task force aiming at the regeneration of coalfield areas is spending time in the area offering a better solution. Both matters are dealt with by the same Department. We can and must do better than that, and we can do so by the next settlement.
Taken together, Nottinghamshire's problems have led to real difficulties. Passporting into schools, an SSA reduction and a 3 per cent. cap on growth mean that non-education services are threatened. I shall focus on only one service—Nottinghamshire's library service. Until today, there were plans to close nine libraries. Across the library service, hours are being cut by 11 per cent., which comes on top of erosion of the book fund over recent years amounting to tens of thousands of pounds. Nottinghamshire is not alone in having to make library cuts, which are proposed also in the library services of Oxfordshire, Derbyshire, Shropshire and elsewhere. If we are serious about raising reading standards and achievement, we have to support our library service.
I pay great tribute to those in Nottinghamshire who have campaigned against library closures, and especially to the tremendous efforts of the Nottingham Evening Post in its "save our library" campaign. I commend its success. Only this morning, the county council listened to local voices and to local need, and at its budget meeting made it clear that an extra £77,000 will be made available to keep open those nine libraries. I praise the county council for making a tough decision—although it has yet to find that £77,000, which will mean service cuts elsewhere.
What might be done to help areas such as Nottinghamshire? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport recently met a delegation from Nottinghamshire to discuss the Robin Hood railway line. The county council is one of only three in the country that supports a passenger line, paying £1 million annually out of council tax to support that line. If the council were a passenger transport executive, it would have some prospect of recouping that money. My right hon. Friend said that he will consider the matter sympathetically, and I hope that he will do so.
I hope that we shall examine also the strange SSA for education of under-fives. There have been changes in methodology in determining that SSA, and grant will be based on the number of four-year-olds in nursery classes. In gross terms, Nottinghamshire provides more nursery places than any other county. However, some of those youngsters are three-year-olds and will therefore not be included in the equation. If we aspire—we do—to including more three-year-olds and four-year-olds in nursery education, we should be rewarding, not punishing, councils such as Nottinghamshire.
We should take action also to deal with bigger issues. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said in this debate, we have to re-examine the area cost adjustment. For Nottinghamshire, the adjustment acts like Robin Hood, but in reverse—taking money away from deprived areas and applying it to the affluent south. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take action to change that. The previous Government examined the

1281
matter, but they were weak, listening too much to the voice of local government and asking for consensus. I tell my hon. Friend that she will never find consensus, but will have to drive through change.
Ultimately, local government finance needs radical reform. I am delighted that universal crude capping will go, and that this is its final year. More important, we must broaden local authorities' tax base. It is ludicrous for 75 per cent. of local council finance to consist of external support. Local authorities must be masters in their own kingdom and have the opportunity to broaden their financial support, so that they can develop local solutions to local needs.
Most important, we have to form a new relationship between central Government and local government and develop a partnership of equals. The sign of a good partnership is that two partners still talk to one another even if there are substantial differences. If we reform local government finance and give councils greater responsibility and autonomy, we shall be able also to expect things from them. We must be assured that, in partnership with others, they will work as champions for change, moving and being in touch with the needs of local voters. We have to ensure that we have empowering councils that, for the first time, have the opportunity to effect the real change that they need and to which their inhabitants aspire.
6.54 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: The honour paid to Nottinghamshire local government in the new year's honours was matched by the speech of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). I represent the rich merchants of London who, in the middle ages, were regularly mulcted as they passed through his constituency. In the context of this settlement, nothing seems much to have changed in my own area.
It will probably not surprise the House to hear that I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the City of Westminster is widely regarded as the local authority which is most adversely affected by this revenue support grant settlement. That arises primarily out of two conditions: the first relating to the treatment of visitors and commuters, and the second to changes to the damping mechanism. I do not think that there will be much dissent from the view that Westminster is primarily and exceptionally affected by the application of the population density factor—obviously in relation to visitors and commuters. If anyone doubts that, I can bore for England with statistics on the subject.
The Deputy Prime Minister had a cheerful soundbite about the Ritz hotel that he used in his statement of 2 December, both in his initial remarks and in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I was not surprised that he used it again today. He knew—for he is not one of those Ministers against whom the charge is laid that they do not read their papers—that Westminster city council had withdrawn that particular argument some time ago.
Westminster still argued that the treatment was a proxy for the density factor as relating to visitors and commuters. Westminster was one of a number of central London local authorities that commissioned the KPMG report to examine the actual costs that central London
1282
authorities incur in the context of visitors and commuters. That chimed admirably with the Minister's own requirement that any changes to standard spending assessments must be based on sound research.
The Minister for Local Government and Housing, who is temporarily absent from the Chamber, will herself be aware that the KPMG study was done in conjunction with researchers at Bristol university—to whom the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) has charmingly paid tribute—who have standing in their field. By comparison, the report of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities—on which the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions relied heavily—was desk bound, and its evidence was selective and anecdotal.
The Treasury Solicitor commented on the DETR' s comparison of the two reports, saying that it had examined the statistical methodology and the evidence on both sides, weighed that competing evidence and concluded that Westminster had not made its case. A bystander might remark that, in line with the Minister's own criterion, it was for SIGOMA rather than Westminster to make out its case. Westminster's case was that the system adopted since 1991 should be maintained. It was therefore for SIGOMA to make out its case that the statistical methodology and evidence relied upon in all previous years was incorrect. The KPMG study, regardless, came to the unequivocal conclusion that there is an interaction between visitors and commuters and density.
The practical consequences of the Deputy Prime Minister's preference for SIGOMA' s views is that Westminster will receive £18 million to deal with those expenditure items, whereas KPMG assesses the actual costs of non-residents at £33 million.
Mr. Peter Bradley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brooke: No, I shall not give way, partly because of time and partly because—if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me saying so—he did not mention in advance, on 21 January, that he planned to mention my name in the debate. May I give him one piece of advice, which was given to me by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when I was first elected to the House? He asked, "Have you come from a council?" I acknowledged that I had been a councillor. He said, "Well, forget about being a councillor; concentrate on being a Member of Parliament, particularly if you come from a different part of the country." I commend that advice to the hon. Gentleman and I respect the hon. Member for Bolsover for it.
I shall be astonished if Westminster residents and electors are not deeply resentful of the transfer to residents, who are largely irrelevant to the expenditure, of the cost of visitors and commuters. I acknowledge, however, that they will be affected if the immense cost of street cleansing, environmental health, consumer protection, licensing, trading standards and waste disposal that non-residents impose cause those services to deteriorate, to the detriment of residents as well as tourism, the business community and inward investment.
The Government must ask themselves whether it is sensible to hobble the golden goose which London represents on a national basis, generating £2 billion of tax

1283
revenue which is then deployed outside London. If services deteriorate, the golden goose—which is a free-range goose—may go off its feeding and thus its laying. Even if we treated SIGOMA on its chosen criteria—under which libraries and museums were cases where the characteristics of clients were more relevant than the characteristics of the area—a fairly obvious rebuttal would be prostitutes' cards which the city council has to clear.
If the Government seriously believe that prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes, which are singularly prevalent in Westminster, are essentially addressed to local residents, they are attributing to my constituents, who are more elderly than the national average, capacities of energy, stamina and sexual proclivity which the Department believes are not remotely matched in other parts of the country. Currently, 4 million cards annually, or 11,000 a day, have to be collected—and not unviolently.
To his great credit, my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw introduced the licensing of sex shops in 1981, when there were already 164 sex establishments in Soho, and they were seeping outwards. His measure represented a generally effective darn. The Department's attitude to prostitutes' cards should be similarly discouraging instead of weakening the defences.
Westminster, however, is adult in more ways than that. It recognises—even if it thinks it is a wrong judgment—that the Department preferred SIGOMA's views to its own. Its mature response was to commission further, more detailed research on the actual costs that visitors and commuters engender and it has so advised the Department and the Local Government Association.
I shall now deal with damping—the smoothing out of reductions in SSAs—where the Government have chosen to cut the protection available by 50 per cent. at the level of reduction that applies to Westminster and the City of London. That represents a double jeopardy for residents of Westminster, which is sustaining an overall reduction, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, of £26 million or 12 per cent. of its budgetary requirement, but it applies to other councils, too, causing the Association of London Government to voice concern at a dangerous precedent for the future.
I mention the wider London effect of the change in damping because it had a significant effect on the changes to the Metropolitan Police precept, which was debated in the Chamber yesterday. I could not participate in the debate as I was chairing a Select Committee upstairs, but I watched the screen and was surprised that no London Labour Member voiced concern at the effect of the damping changes on what London council tax payers will have to pay.
If I had more time to speak, I would refer to the specific cost approach over the area cost adjustment and to asylum seekers. However, in the context of costs, Professor Elliott's study, of which the Minister will be aware, specifically determined that labour costs are differentially higher in Camden and parts of Southwark and Lambeth as well as the two Cities, so they, too, will be losers. It is a bipartisan issue.
Labour Members cheered the Deputy Prime Minister's soundbites about the Ritz on 2 December as they interpreted them as being anti-Westminster. So far,
1284
however, the Government are profoundly anti-London. It seems not to be chance that Ministers representing London constituencies are at the base of the ministerial pyramid and not at the apex. London is genuinely threatened and hon. Members on both sides of the House should make common cause with the Evening Standard to defend London's interests.
An erstwhile resident in one of my Cities said in the 18th century:
"They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands."
A 17th century resident in the other said:
"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
The Government have come—or gone—for Westminster in the settlement, but they will come—and go—for the rest of London when the elections and the referendum on 7 May are out of the way, and I hope that the whole of London will be watching.
7.4 pm
Mr. Jeff Ennis: I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for his speech in December on the provision of settlement when he openly recognised the problems faced by "beleaguered Barnsley". All my constituents appreciate that, after 18 years of non-recognition by the previous Government, Barnsley's grant funding problems are at last being addressed.
Barnsley has undeniable social and economic problems as a direct consequence of the demise of the coal mining industry. The local gross domestic product is currently estimated as 65 per cent. of the UK average—well within the conditions for objective 1 status—and anticipated growth over the next four years is the fourth lowest of any metropolitan district in great Britain. In addition, 35 per cent. of households have at least one person with a long-term disability. That is the highest proportion in any metropolitan district. Under previous Governments, SSA settlements failed to recognise those factors, famously classing Barnsley as less deprived than Kingston- upon-Thames. The 1998–99 settlement is a welcome first step in addressing the issues.
New social and economic indicators more closely reflect reality and have improved SSAs for coalfield and other industrial areas such as Barnsley. However, other elements within SSAs do not reflect need adequately and still need to be addressed. Let me draw attention to two specific examples. The first is children's social services, where Barnsley's SSA per child is 22 per cent. of that for the average inner London authority, but the proportion of children on the child protection register is higher than in 60 per cent. of inner London boroughs. The second relates to the additional educational needs index. Only 29 per cent. of Barnsley pupils achieve five GCSEs at grades A to C, but inner London schools receive more than £1 million more per 800-pupil secondary school than schools in Barnsley. That cannot be justified. Why do so many London secondary schools—many of which have better overall records of academic achievement than Barnsley schools—need up to 30 more teachers to deliver the national curriculum than a comparable school in Barnsley?
Barnsley has always been recognised as a prudent and comparatively low spending authority. However, since capping was introduced in 1990–91, there have been cuts

1285
of more than £50 million—or approximately 30 per cent. of the council's current net budget. As a consequence, many services are below national standards or cannot be provided. Barnsley has always responded well to initiatives such as challenge funding and best value and, prior to the Government being elected, it was introducing its own partnership strategy to improve educational attainment.
Economic regeneration has been high on the agenda—with some success—but the rapid closure of the coal industry has left the area needing to run to stand still. It has been estimated that Barnsley needs to create an additional 19,000 new jobs in the next few years just to reach the average unemployment rate for the UK—a mammoth task indeed.
Despite the welcome improvements, the local authority faces further cuts of £8 million in the next financial year. Barnsley intends to passport the increase in its education SSA through to schools. However, £8 million of cuts to other services will result in cuts of up to 20 per cent. in other departmental budgets. That will impact on key project priorities such as regeneration.
This year's settlement is an improvement on previous years. However, the legacy of underfunding and the demise of the coal industry mean that the improvement is only a good first step. As I have said before, under any formula-funded mechanism there will be winners and losers. It is crucial that the gap between them is closed. It cannot be right that some local authorities receive over 75 per cent. more grant per head of population than similar authorities to deliver the same level of service. There must be a dampening mechanism to reduce that yawning gap. Barnsley still faces considerable difficulties in financing its services. I hope that the Government will continue to listen and address those funding problems.
7.10 pm
Mr. David Curry: Given that the world was supposed to have changed dramatically on 1 May, the settlement has a curiously familiar feel. In its shape and most of its content, it could have come from the previous Government and I could have delivered it. Had I done so, Labour Members would have worked themselves into paroxysms of rage at the injustices inflicted on local government.
There is one important difference. The previous Government judged the council tax increases pretty cannily so that they remained below the pain threshold at 6 or 7 per cent. By raising the cap, but failing to provide the funding to go with that higher cap, the Government will push council taxes well above the pain threshold, with a 10 per cent. increase—three times the rate of inflation.
North Yorkshire will spend at cap and passport through all the education money to schools. Let us be clear that the money is to go to schools, not to education more widely. That will mean a cash freeze for all other services. The money going to schools will cause deep distress and problems in the social services departments of all local authorities. Even when the special grant for community care is set aside, there will be higher charges, a fierce application of the eligibility criteria for health, less frequent services and fees for private providers of residential care rising by well below inflation, if at all. That is all dependent on the local government workers' settlement. We have no idea what employees will get.
1286
The precept for North Yorkshire, which was recommended yesterday, will go up by 13.4 per cent at band D—a £64 increase. The district precept for Scarborough will rise by 18 per cent. and that for Selby by a similar figure. Even if the figure for Harrogate falls slightly, because its funding has increased while its budget remains at cap, North Yorkshire council tax payers will be walloped.
North Yorkshire's education settlement has increased by £13.59 million on a comparable basis, but that must be set against the unavoidable increases. A significant amount of that—£6 million—will immediately be eaten up by pay increases for teachers and others. Our pupil numbers have risen by 2.2 per cent. against a national average of 0.7 per cent. That is another £3.2 million of unavoidable increase. There will inevitably be a knock-on effect for additional special needs and transport requirements. The burdens imposed by new legislation include the standards fund, which involves a higher local authority contribution, the second phase of the seat belts legislation and the last phase of the House of Lords equal pay adjustment.
That adds up to £15.7 million, leaving North Yorkshire with a funding gap of £2 million. North Yorkshire is not a profligate local authority. It dishes out 92 per cent. of its funding directly to schools. The rest goes on transport—the area has a widely scattered population—special needs and maintenance. It has desperately sought money to avoid cuts, but schools face a standstill budget. That is in a local authority that has had a relatively good settlement. It is like "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich". The book describes a good day in his life and look how awful it is. This is quite a good settlement and it will still pinch very hard.
Who will pay? The rest of the education service will pay. Over the past four years—my Government must take some responsibility for this—other education budgets have been cut by 26 per cent., the discretionary grant has shrivelled to practically nothing, and charges have been introduced for music, outdoor education and a range of activities.
I should like to make some more general remarks about the settlement. The first is on the violence of the insistence that the money must go to schools. Old people's homes and care services are nowhere near as photogenic as young children in a classroom. We did some passporting. The Government must ask how long it will continue. There is supposed to be a principle of non-hypothecation. The Deputy Prime Minister gave some broad hints that the Government fancied a more formal mechanism to direct the way in which local authorities spend their money. We have to decide whether to give local authorities more freedom—I favour that approach and tried to deliver it as a Minister, but failed—or to continue with ever more hypothecation or formal direction. The Government appear to favour the latter option.
The Government have done some quiet modulation of the budget to push money towards the northern metropolitan boroughs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, that is not surprising, given that the constituencies of the Ministers involved are in Hull, Sheffield, Durham, Oldham and Wallasey. They have wangled that by taking more account of economic factors

1287
in the indices for the elderly, residential care and social services. They have given a sop to London in the way in which debt is accounted for.
The net result is a shift from inner London to the metropolitan authorities and outer London. The Deputy Prime Minister claimed to be giving the money where the need was greatest. Removing money from inner London is a curious way to achieve that. One cheerful consequence is the result for Camden, which I cannot bear not to mention.
I have always thought that if the Government do not remove capping in year one, they will not do it. I now think that they will not do it. The Treasury wants to keep capping. We shall have not crude capping, but sophisticated capping—the people's cap. It is like the torturer using more refined instruments of torture rather than simply hitting people on the head in the old-fashioned way. We have the old nudge and wink—little devices with the Audit Commission and referendums. All that glorious diversionary manoeuvring is designed to avoid the abolition of capping, which is what the Labour party led its people to believe would happen before the election.
The area cost adjustment is the equivalent of the search for the north-west passage. John Prescott is not John Cabot. The main discovery about the north-west passage was that it did not exist. The Government will discover that the magic formula for area cost adjustment does not exist either. Loyal, decent, intelligent civil servants have been searching for that philosopher's stone for years. They have not found it because it is not there. The Government will have to take a straight political decision, transferring the distortions from one formula to another, or abandon the search—unless they are prepared to spend millions of pounds searching for new data.
The Government have made great play of developing brown-field sites, not green-field sites. Will they contemplate directing SSA towards the urban areas in their review to compensate for some of the additional costs of developing contaminated brown-field sites? Do they intend to be consistent in their approach, using local authority funding as one means of fulfilling their planning objectives? I shall be interested to find out.
The Government have used sweet words about local government. The truth is that they suspect and mistrust local authorities, because they are a nest of old Labour. They want to divert our attention with mayors, cabinets and referendums, but really they want to duff up local government because that will go down well in the Daily Mail. There will be no new dawn for local authorities from the Labour party. They all thought that blessed it was that day to be alive, but they will soon regret that. Time will eventually show that on 2 May things only started to get worse.
7.19 pm
Mr. David Watts: I am very pleased to be called in the debate. I regard it as one of the most important in the year. The decisions taken tonight will have a dramatic effect on every man, woman and child in Britain. They will determine what sort of education and social services each of our local authorities can provide.
1288
There are no easy answers to some of the problems that have been raised. That is because the Government inherited a mess. They inherited a system that had been corrupted by 18 years of Tory misrule. It has not just happened that the system has become so complicated. The previous Government made it so. I shall demonstrate some fiddles in the system later.
I shall talk first about St. Helens. I am very pleased to be the first St. Helens Member of Parliament for 13 years who has not got to go back to his local authority to find it faced with dramatic cuts in services and dramatic increases in council tax. I should like to put on the record my thanks to the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities, which has done tremendous work in trying to highlight some of the differences between one local authority grant and another. I am sure that it will continue to do such work over the next 12 months.
If there is one reason why we have today's problems, it is that the Tory party's sleaze has been pushed into local government. Such sleaze is no longer just among Back Benchers taking brown envelopes.
I am pleased with this year's settlement because it meets a number of the criteria. The changes are fair. We must recognise that the Government have had very little time to make changes—less than a year. Under previous Administrations, we were promised reviews and changes, but not one occurred. I am especially pleased to see changes to standard spending assessments for elderly people and the under-fives, as well as to the visitors element, which I shall come to in a minute. If I were asked to assess the Labour Government's performance this year, I would give them nine out of 10. I hope that they get 10 out of 10 next year.
The Opposition seem to be trying to reinvent themselves. I remember the previous Government as the Government of the poll tax, the council tax and council cuts. They cut £400 million from standard spending assessments over 10 years. They cut the police budget; they cut the fire service budget. Those are the Tories whom I remember from my 18 years in local government. They are now trying to tell us that the Conservative party is the party of local government, of fairness. They believe that the Conservative party is the party of low council tax. That was not my experience as a council leader. My local authority had its staffing cut by 11 per cent. It also faced cuts of almost £13 million in just two years. At the same time, it had the highest council tax increase in the north-west. There we were with the highest north-west council tax, cuts in services and cuts in staffing.
This year's settlement goes some way to addressing some of the problems, but to find the real reason why we face them I shall talk about Westminster council. Westminster is the same size as St. Helens, and has the same population of about 180,000. In 1994–95, St. Helens had capital receipts of £3 million, and Westminster of £81 million. St. Helens had usable capital of £1 million, while Westminster had £34 million. Revenue balances in St. Helens were £19 million, but in Westminster they were £68 million. Council tax in St. Helens—this is an interesting figure—was £651, whereas it was £247 in Westminster. That is because Westminster used its visitors grant not to pay for services for visitors but to cut council tax. That was the fiddle; that was why the council tax was so low. The SSA for St. Helens was £151 per

1289
person; in Westminster, it was a staggering £571 per person. That is staggering considering the sizes of the areas and the difference in council tax.
I have mentioned the fiddle on the visitors grant in Westminster. Figures can vary, but someone told me that the estimate could be as high as £40 million. I have never known an overnight visitor need education, social services or all the other services provided by local authorities, but I do know—this is another fiddle, which I hope the Minister will take into account—that visitors often drive into Westminster, where they park their cars. I am told that that generates £27 million—
Mr. Peter Bradley: Profit.
Mr. Watts: Profit, I am told. If that is so, when the assessments are set, we should take into account Westminster's ability to generate such large amounts of money from visitors for whom, in the past, it has been given a large grant. Far from being a drain on the council, visitors generate such a profit.
I do not expect the Government to be able to change the whole of local government finance in two minutes. That will not happen, but they have done the right thing. They have picked out a couple of areas where the settlement is unfair and where a great deal of work has taken place over a long period, and have made changes this year. I do not believe that a solution to the area cost adjustment cannot be found. I believe that previously there was an unwillingness to find it. I hope that my Government will address that. I also hope that we can do something about the SSA for children. York university has done an awful lot of work in that area, statistics are available and changes can be made.
We hear of large council tax increases in some areas and of cuts in other areas. Given the system and the fiddles that we inherited from the previous Government, that is bound to happen. For poor Barnsley to be able to provide decent services from its allocation and not increase the budget, money must come from somewhere else.
We are looking for a fair system. We are not looking for one that spends more money. We are not asking for unfair treatment. We are asking for fairness based on fact. Nothing in the SSAs used by the previous Government over the past 18 years was based on fact. The Tories considered every possible way of cramming every Tory authority with the maximum amount of money. They tried to take away money from poor Barnsley and other local authorities, and at the same time tried to demonstrate that Westminster was more efficient than St. Helens. I must tell the House that that is not so. The district auditor said that St. Helens is at the forefront of efficiency.
I want Opposition Members to tell us what they will do about Lady Porter. It is absolutely scandalous that they gave her so much money, supported her for so long and allowed such corruption. It is a disgrace that they criticise a Labour Government for trying to put right 18 years of disgraceful sleaze.
7.27 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: For the past 17 years, the Labour party has criticised Conservative Governments for unfairness and insufficient spending on local services. It now seems that the spending plans set by us were given by God Almighty. One of the constant
1290
refrains that we hear from Government Front Benchers is that they have inherited the Conservative Government's spending plans. The Government have not inherited them; they have willingly adopted them. There was nothing sacrosanct about the spending plans; they were not set in statute. The Government could change them if they wished. That must be borne in mind in the debate on local government settlements.
For at least 10 years, the Labour party built up expectations that everything would be put right when it was elected, and said that the area cost adjustment was a big con: it would all go to the shire counties and everyone would be happy. I looked at the effects of area cost adjustment on the areas of respected members of the previous Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor; my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the former Secretary of State for the Environment; my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who understands local government finance better than most of us: their areas all received nothing from the area cost adjustment.
From my knowledge of the Treasury, I know that if there was any way in which it could have got around the area cost adjustment to take money from local government spending, it would not want that money spread across the rest of the country; it would cut the area cost adjustment. Why have the Government not changed the area cost adjustment, as they promised? Labour candidates built up that expectation throughout the country.
I was interested by the response of the Deputy Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). He said that Tory intransigence had discriminated against Derbyshire for a number of years. If he feels that—and with the authority that the right hon. Gentleman has—I would not expect the people of Derbyshire to have to wait very long for that to be put right.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about local government finance, and I congratulate the Government on producing their plain English guide to local government. It is rather a pity that the guide does not mention the area cost adjustment—something which is controversial to some people. Their explanation of local government finance is, perhaps, selective; I wonder why. The Government have to move one step beyond that guide and ensure that we get proper information on how local authorities spend their money, because there are great variations across the country.
For instance, Department for Education and Employment figures show that Derbyshire holds back £135 more per pupil than the best delegator of local education budgets, which is Dudley borough council. Dudley, perhaps, is not a good example with which to compare Derbyshire, but let us look at Staffordshire. If Derbyshire delegated as much as Staffordshire direct to our schools, an extra £58 per child per year would be available. That could be targeted at primary schools in Derbyshire, which face a difficult budget this year.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: No, I will not give way. I only have 10 minutes, and the hon. Gentleman may have a chance

1291
later to make his point. One of the problems with the 10-minutes rule is that one cannot give way as much as one might like.
We must address how the money that gets to local education authorities is monitored. From 1986 to 1995, Derbyshire subsidised school meals to the tune of £150 million. Over the same period, Staffordshire—a neighbouring authority of a similar size—subsidised school meals to the tune of £64 million. Some £90 million more over 10 years was spent by Derbyshire on subsiding school meals. If a county council decides to spend money subsidising school meals rather than on books or teachers, that is its decision.
I was surprised to hear the Deputy Prime Minister's words, but I was encouraged. It means that, next year, Derbyshire will reach Jerusalem; we will get all the money. There will be no problems as far as the local government settlement is concerned. As the Deputy Prime Minister, no less, has told us that Derbyshire has been unfavourably treated, the people of Derbyshire can look forward to county hall flowing with the milk and honey which, perhaps, the whole country expected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The hon. Gentleman was not listening.
Mr. McLoughlin: I was listening very carefully—I wrote down what the Deputy Prime Minister said. It is true that it was a departure from his scripted speech, and he may not want to admit that he said it.
I wish to refer to capping. Doing away with capping and allowing local authorities to decide what they spend has its attractions. It has attractions for me—until I think back to what local authorities were like before we had capping. When I first stood for West Derbyshire, at a by-election in 1986, the county council had put up the rates by 26 per cent. in one year. That was the kind of increase that we saw across the country before we had the more rigorous system of capping. I do not want us to return to such increases, which hit those who were least able to afford them particularly hard. Although single people get a reduction of 25 per cent. under the new system of the council tax, they have faced huge increases in previous years.
Doing away with capping has superficial attractions—of course it does—but we must acknowledge that local authorities would go back to the spendthrift days of the 1970s and 1980s. That is not what the Government want, and I certainly do not want it. We need a more transparent system in terms of the way in which local government finance is distributed from central Government because—in spite of the Government's plain guide—it is still difficult to understand.
I would welcome a definitive answer from the Minister who is to reply about when the area cost adjustment review will be completed. Are the people of Derbyshire to get all the money to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred next year, the year after or the year after that? It is time for people to know where the local money is coming from. We all wait with interest for the answer.
7.37 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: The context in which this debate is taking place is important in terms of the legacy of the former Conservative Government. For 18 long and hard years, the Conservative Government denigrated local government and did all they could to destroy it. They passed more than 200 Acts of Parliament which removed powers from the locality, and either centralised them or moved them to unaccountable quangos.
As far as my constituency is concerned, the Tory Government were far more interested in trying to punish the city of Liverpool than in assisting it in trying to meet its needs. Liverpool is an objective 1 area; that means it is among the poorest areas in Europe. The new index of deprivation that is about to be published shows that Liverpool has the highest urban need in the country; it has the highest level of deprivation.
Unemployment in my constituency is the second highest in the country, and health is the sixth worst. Liverpool has a massive housing problem, and the major loss of population over the past 20 years has created huge difficulties, leaving a large percentage of economically inactive people: the permanently sick, the disabled and the unemployed. Perhaps above all, it is clear, from the fact that 70 per cent. of our domestic properties are in band A—nearly three times the national average—that Liverpool's economic crisis is acute.
In local government settlements in the past 18 years, the Conservative Government failed to address the area's social and economic needs or to recognise the significance of 70 per cent. of domestic properties being in band A. The Conservatives' failure to recognise the scale of deprivation and the inadequacy of the local financial tax base meant that, in practice, the city's needs could not be met, because the local authority was not given the means to meet them, while at the same time local tax bills rose.
It is important to bear in mind the legacy of the past 18 years, but we should also consider what new commitment the Labour Government have brought to the country in general and to Liverpool in particular, in their relatively few months in power. The release of capital receipts has allowed £900 million to be spent nationally, and Liverpool is already benefiting from about £9 million of new capital spending for housing. At least 5,000 properties will benefit as we try to do something about the terrible backlog of housing need and dilapidation.
My constituency is already benefiting from the new deal for schools, with its capital allocations. St. Michael's in the Hamlet school and Pleasant street school will benefit significantly from much-needed new building. More than £4 million of new money has been made available for education, to help to improve standards.
Initiatives have been instituted in Liverpool to try to address more effectively the social and economic needs. The city has already been awarded employment zone status; the health and local authorities are working together on a proposal for a health action zone; and there are plans to apply for an education action zone.
In my constituency, and in Liverpool as a whole, many people who are working hard together to try to address the needs are delighted by the fact that, after 18 long, forlorn years, the new Government have already started to provide the resources needed to put things right.

1293
Most people recognise that what has been wrong for 18 years cannot be put right in about eight months; but it is possible to make a start. Making a start in an area of such deprivation as Liverpool, which has been treated so badly for 18 years, is extremely difficult; but let us consider what has been done.
The Government propose a significant increase in standard spending assessment for Liverpool: about 4.5 per cent. in real terms. Capping has been softened, to allow £22 million of additional spending: more than twice as much as was anticipated.
The pledge to support education and provide additional hard cash in grant is being delivered: £835 million nationally and £13 million for Liverpool will be passported through and spent in schools. The city is engaged in a £20 million new school building programme: the first programme of any significance for decades. That will start to reverse the long years of decline. The Government are starting to address the real needs of areas such as Liverpool. The relatively small but deeply significant improvements will be delivered by a council tax increase that, I understand, will be less than 6 per cent.
We all recognise that the decades of inaction and the punitive approach by the previous Government cannot be put right in one Budget, but I am encouraged that a start has been made: a start in house improvements; in regeneration that will lead to employment; in a reassessment of standards in education and school buildings; and in reconsidering the SSA and the way in which the area's economic and social needs can be met.
I note my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comment that crude capping will not be continued, and I warmly welcome the Government's commitment to best value, rather than compulsory competitive tendering. I welcome the discussions on financing that are under way with the Local Government Association so that we can ensure that, as we meet the acute and long-standing needs of areas such as Liverpool, other areas will not suffer unduly.
Local government is a vital part of our democracy. It was attacked mercilessly throughout the country in the past 18 years. The previous Government thought that vibrant local democracy presented a threat. They did not want fairness or equity, preferring inequality and the punishment of cities such as Liverpool for having social needs.
Local government is a provider of services: a lifeline for local people. It is an enabler, and can work with the private and voluntary sectors to provide services and to regenerate an area. It can provide community leadership: at its best, local government speaks up for the citizen and for the city and represents people to central Government, to the quangos and to the European Community.
I am pleased with the steps that the Government have already taken to revitalise and reinvigorate the whole of our democracy. I look forward to the time when local government is restored to its proper place at the centre of our democracy, as the true voice of local people.
7.47 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: I am intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) coming up with statements about local democracy, when the Secretary of State has just suggested
1294
moving towards hypothecation. He wants to remove capping but to ring-fence each of the budgets. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has already made the point about capping. The hon. Lady should think carefully about the fact that democracy will be removed, especially in budgets, and that ring fencing will mean that capping is still effectively in place, but at a lower level.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) mentioned similarities between our term of office and the current situation, and I endorse many of his points, if not all. He did not mention the subject, touched on by the Secretary of State, of councillors who complain to Ministers about not having been given enough money.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and I saw a similar number—perhaps, slightly fewer—in our last session of meeting councillors. Many came to us with genuine points and many needed changes, which we recognised. Having done that job for several years, I also recognised that for some of the councils it was a ritual. I will not mention names, but one council used to send 15 people down from the north-west. They always arranged for an appointment first thing in the morning, so that they could come down the night before, first class on the train, have dinner and a night at a hotel, breakfast, a little shopping after the appointment and go home again, first class on the train. One member of the delegation of 12 or 15 would speak and it would cost the local authority in the region of £3,000. Some of the other local authorities—fortunately very few of them—used the same procedure and said the same things year on year, sometimes even forgetting to change the figures.
In the House, of course, the standard cry was to hit Westminster. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) dealt adequately with that. As he and other hon. Members pointed out, in hitting Westminster this year the Government have also hit a number of other local authorities, particularly in inner London, but also, I suspect, elsewhere.
Since I have little time but to touch on one point, my biggest complaint is about the change in the way in which capital is assessed—from notional towards actual. The net effect is to support many of the spendthrift authorities that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire mentioned—the authorities that were squeezed by capping. They were the authorities that played games, always seeking to borrow more with little attempt to pay their debts. Until they were prevented from doing so, they attempted to move revenue expenditure into capital and with the recent small change in the legislation, they may well be able to do so again.
The small change on capital is a fiddle. It is a means of moving money away from the shires, many areas in and around London and some of the inner London authorities to the big metropolitan, Labour-controlled authorities, many although not all of which are particularly incompetent authorities up north. I shall pick on one authority in particular. It is on the eastern border of the M25 and it is Labour-controlled and has been for many years. It consistently spends 60 per cent. above standard spending assessment, or more. If we compare its figures with those of the rest of the Audit Commission family, its incompetence shines out. Year after year, it has overspent. One small example is that its staffing level

1295
per 1,000 of population has consistently been twice that of the family average. What happens to that authority with the small change? It will get a 4.8 per cent.—nearly 5 per cent.—improvement in SSA. If that is not rewarding incompetence, I do not know what is.
Moving a little further round the M25 to Surrey, we come to my own Mole Valley council. It is Liberal dominated and is not run as well as it should be, although it may well be later. Its SSA has been cut by 3 per cent. in cash terms and it will have to carry the county council, which has also been clobbered with an 11 or 12 per cent. increase in the precept. The Surrey police precept will go up by 48 per cent. because of a summary cut in the transitional grant. The behaviour—and the subterfuge—is utterly politically irresponsible.
There is no reasonable explanation. When Surrey Members asked the Minister of State for one, we were given one answer, "It was in the manifesto," which seems to be the answer to everything. This procedure is hitting rural areas again and again. We have debated green-belt and brown-belt sites and we have seen some of the changes, but one mean little change is worth mentioning. The previous Government set in train a procedure whereby county councils in rural areas could ease the burden for village shops. To ease that burden and to help local authorities absorb the cost, grants were made available, but payments were allowed to be put outside cap. This Government have brought them back within cap and yet they will tell us that they are friends of the countryside.
7.54 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I must point out to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that Derbyshire county council spends £21 per pupil on central administration, not £135 as he stated. Derbyshire is the third meanest shire in terms of provision for local education authority administration. The £21 is agreed with schools and it goes into school transport, child welfare and aspects of special needs, for example. Since the hon. Gentleman came here after that by-election, he has sought to do down Derbyshire county council at every opportunity and he has been successful, in that the Conservative Government picked up on those items and operated the formula in such a way that Derbyshire was one of the marked areas that they went for.
Mr. McLoughlin rose—
Mr. Barnes: I will not give way as the hon. Gentleman did not give way during his contribution.
Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that when a Member names another Member he gives way to that person? I did not name any of the hon. Members who asked me to give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is for hon. Members to decide whether to give way.
Mr. Barnes: I hope that I will get injury time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall begin my analysis. The
1296
previous Government fiddled and fixed local government financial settlements, especially after the introduction of the poll tax. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 is still in operation. The only part that has changed is that concerning the poll tax, due to the council tax provisions.
Two main devices have been used to manipulate the formula. The area cost adjustment was first used in education areas and then extended, with a large amount top-sliced for the south-east of England. The weighting could be altered so that that top slicing became reasonable instead of excessive, as it is at the moment.
Districts have mainly been affected because of the enhanced population figures. Although those have been slightly adjusted for Westminster, they have not been adjusted for the entire country. It is not the real population of an area that is taken into account, but the population that is there during the daytime. which allows for commuters, people travelling to work and so forth. Areas such as Westminster and Epsom and seaside resorts have received considerable extra sums of money and still receive extra money given the operation of the present formula. Areas such as north-east Derbyshire, where 18 per cent. of the population commute daily to other authorities, lose money.
Labour has a manifesto commitment to end those fiddles and to introduce a fair funding formula, which will require considerably more resources in areas of need. How far are we moving towards that objective? Initially, we waited because the previous settlement operated from April 1997, a month before we were elected. So, many of us told our constituents that they would have to wait until a later settlement, when there would begin to be adjustments.
The total standard spend has now increased by 3.8 per cent., partly due to the extra £835 million for schools from the July Budget. Otherwise, we have stuck to the two-year commitment to act on Tory spending limits. Therefore, resources for the needy areas can only come from relatively affluent areas as there is nothing more in the pot—apart from that odd bit for education, which is beginning to be available. That cannot happen in one fell swoop because it would undo commitments which areas of relative affluence have entered into. Hence, damping arrangements operate for those areas.
If the changes in methodology for determining SSAs lead to grants and expenditure entitlements being moved from Westminster to Barnsley or from East Dorset to Easington, that will be practical rough justice. What about mixed areas, where areas of serious social need and areas of relative affluence are within the same local government boundary? Are not such areas given extra money with one hand only for it to be taken away with the other? Further, if the Tories deprived such areas of resources in the past, they remain deprived of resources under the new arrangements. Areas so affected cannot see their way out of the crisis. Derbyshire is such an authority. Before the SSA system, it had the smallest class sizes of any shire county; now it has among the largest. It has high class sizes across the board, in both relatively affluent and poorer areas. Schools are dropping to bits. Children are in overcrowded schools that present teaching and safety problems.
The cumulative cuts in SSA in Derbyshire are tremendous, the worst of any shire. Essex has received the average cumulative increase since SSA was introduced in

1297
1989–90. East Sussex has had increases 30 per cent. higher than has Essex and is top of the league table. Derbyshire is bottom, with 37 per cent. less than the average increase that Essex received. The county above Derbyshire is Warwickshire, which is 10 per cent. better off in terms of deprivation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, it is like being bottom of a ladder with two or three rungs missing. The situation in Derbyshire is horrendous because of the formula produced by the previous Government, which has not yet been tackled by our Government. We are now into a long-term review. Some of the factors that I have mentioned will have to be taken into account.
I am worried about next year's settlement. If it is based on the same sort of arrangements, with adjustments only here and there, Derbyshire will be caught in the same position again. We will still be stuck with Tory spending limits, which is another problem that we need to face up to. Instead, we require resources for the needy that are not internal transfers from one bit of an authority to another. We want some recompense for the cumulative years of deprivation that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire was at the forefront of creating and was able to grin at.
I wish briefly to turn to North East Derbyshire district council. That, and Easington where I originate from, are similar areas, and I have lived in them for about 30 years. They have former collieries surrounded by rural areas and new housing. In Easington, there is the new town of Peterlee. The only difference is that places such as Dronfield have wider areas of relative affluence than places such as Peterlee.
Under the new SSA arrangements, Easington gets an 18 per cent. increase in its SSA and is top of 238 district councils. North East Derbyshire gets only 0.7 per cent., which is below the inflationary increase, and stands 138th out of 238. Worse still, on SSA per head, North East Derbyshire gets £74, Easington £105 and Hastings, which is at the top, £127. We are in 221st place out of 238, Easington is 19th and Hastings is top. North East Derbyshire suffers the same problem as Derbyshire. It has a mixed population, with areas of relative affluence and areas of deprivation. The areas of deprivation have funds taken away to some extent by the formula because of how it operates for the areas of affluence.
North East Derbyshire is also hit by the enhanced population figures that I mentioned: 18 per cent. of its people work in or travel to other areas. As a 0.25 per cent. consideration is made for that in working out the calculations, we lose 4.25 per cent. of the grant that we would otherwise have received. Some 95 per cent. of its grant comes from the enhanced population category because it gets so little from other categories. Areas such as Easington and Hastings benefit from that provision. In terms of need, North East Derbyshire is probably the worst-funded district in the worst-funded county in England. That cannot go on for another year.
8.5 pm
Mr. James Cran: I have sat through the debate from the beginning and I am bound to say that I have not heard such a load of old tosh from Labour Members for a long time. It is clear that they have all raced to the Whips Office, picked up the brief provided by the Government or the Labour research department and, parrot fashion in the main, read it out as the Government would have wished.
1298
It is clear why Labour Members have not chosen to quote from the letter that all hon. Members received today from Sir Jeremy Beecham, the chairman of the Local Government Association. I used to know him in Newcastle when he was leader of the Labour-controlled Newcastle city council. He could hardly be said to be a captive of the Opposition. He might be considered relatively impartial—someone who would tell his Government what things were really like rather than seeing them through rose-tinted spectacles as Labour Members choose to.
I venture to suggest that the LGA is a Labour-dominated organisation, but its briefing states:
"The LGA is disappointed that the Government has not done more to take the pressure off councils' budgets in response to representations from the LGA and individual authorities."
It follows that the Government have not listened to representations made, if I may say with a certain partisanship, by their own side. That is in contradistinction to all the stuff that we have had to listen to.
Sir Jeremy says:
"this is a tough settlement"—
the word "tough" is in bold black letters so that no one can ignore it—
"for most authorities and some will face a combination of real cuts in services with large increases in council tax".
That is the reality.
Mr. Woolas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to quote selectively from the letter, which at the top clearly says that
"the LGA welcomes the extra resources"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The way in which the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) chooses to make his speech is entirely a matter for hi
Mr. Cran: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's response shows the irritation of Labour Members. I shall not be distracted from going further into the document to quote another sentence that I know will irritate them even more. It says:
"the LGA is looking for a fair deal"—
again in bold black letters—
"for local government from the Comprehensive Spending Review".
Again, it follows that it does not have that. We all look forward to the future when the Government may start to listen even to the very people who support them.
I do not intend to go into the details of the settlement for my authority, but I merely note that East Yorkshire council will have to make cuts of about £9 million—at least according to the latest figures it has given me—or equivalent to 3.8 per cent. of its budget. I am merely waiting for all the people who were deluded into voting for the wrong party at the general election—I remember that Labour said that it would make a difference—to realise that, according to the statement, and in contradistinction to what we have heard from Labour Members, little difference has been made because the Government are not listening to the very people who supported them. I shall leave it to my constituents to judge that behaviour for themselves, as inevitably they will.

1299
I am concerned about the education SSA for East Yorkshire, because it represents the biggest problem for my constituency and the authority. The Minister may be aware that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), had a meeting with delegates from my authority on 12 January. I should point out that that delegation did not consist of a load of biased Conservatives, but of Labour representatives, Conservative representatives and Liberal ones. They all agree that we have a problem with the education SSA.
I am a fair-minded individual, which has been demonstrated by everything that I have said up until now, and I shall have to agree with the Minister if she says that the East Riding's education SSA has been increased by 6.6 per cent. I am perfectly happy to admit that. Because of various problems in the education sector in East Yorkshire, however, spending levels will be about 7.3 per cent. higher. That poses a problem.
My authority has chosen to spend on education because, as I recall, at the election, the then Labour Opposition kept on talking about "education, education, education." They called for more spending on education, and that is exactly what my authority has done. It will look to the Government to offer their solutions to the educational problems of East Yorkshire. It will not be satisfied by Ministers simply saying to us all that all the problems stem from 18 years of Conservative rule and are nothing to do with them. Labour is now in government. It can now take decisions and, of course, it should do so.
The biggest problem in East Yorkshire is simply that of class sizes. In 1997, East Yorkshire was 7.3 per cent. above the national average for classes of more than 30 pupils and 4 per cent. above the national averages for classes above 36 pupils. One can quickly appreciate that East Yorkshire has nearly three times as many classes of more than 36 pupils as the national average. It would be perfectly legitimate for my constituents to ask the Government what they are prepared to do about that. It is not a question of asking the Conservative party what we were prepared to do when in government; rather, people are entitled to know what the Labour Government are now prepared to do. Class sizes will go up in 1998 and 1999 if there is no change to the education SSA.
My authority might compare itself with surrounding local authorities. The main one is Hull, where the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister is located. In 1995–96, Hull and East Yorkshire were part of Humberside county council, and virtually the same money was spent on each authority. My authority now tells me that the East Riding SSA has declined by £7.7 million in real terms whereas in the same period, including under the new Labour Government, Hull's SSA for education has increased by £7 million. 1 and, more important, my constituents would like the Minister to explain the £14 million difference between those SSAs which has become apparent in the past two years. Because of the differences, Hull is able to spend an extra £207 per pupil at primary level and an extra £301 at secondary level. That is all possible despite the fact that Hull is spending at its SSA level whereas the East Riding is spending 4 per cent. above it. If anyone can offer me an explanation for that, I should like to hear it, although, once again, it is not me who needs it but my constituents.
1300
There are two reasons why my authority's SSA is kiltered in the wrong direction. One is a demographic problem. We have had a substantial growth in the number of pupils in our schools because of housing development and because education provision in East Yorkshire is better than it is in Hull. The parents of Hull want their children to be educated in the East Riding and they are prepared to move to ensure that that happens. That is causing problems with class sizes but, according to the SSA regime, it takes five terms for such problems to be taken into account. That should not be allowed to happen.
The second reason my authority's SSA is kiltered in the wrong direction is that the sparsity costs in a rural area such as East Yorkshire are not recognised. We want to know what the Government intend to do about that.
8.15 pm
Mr. Phil Woolas: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, having listened carefully to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I welcome today's statement, as I did that made on 2 December, because I believe that it is fair, flexible and responsible. It is particularly important to appreciate that it represents a first step. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), I should like to consider the context in which the statement has been given.
A legacy of bias undoubtedly exists against the areas that are most needy. No hon. Member truthfully believes that there was a fair allocation of resources across the country during the 18 years of the Conservative Government. It is important to appreciate that the regime governing local government finance, which rests on capping and capital receipts, was established after the poll tax was withdrawn. It comes rich from Conservative Members to criticise today's settlement when all of us who were involved in local government at the time of the poll tax saw the utter crisis into which that sector was plunged by that fiscal measure, which was introduced despite many objections.
It is also true that a consensus now exists in favour of reform. I believe that every hon. Member agrees that local government finance is too complicated to understand. I certainly find it so and I imagine that it is too complicated for many constituents.
It is important that the review of local government finance also addresses the unintended consequences for local authority budget heads of one budget head being changed. I shall give three examples from my constituency. First, the changes to rate relief on schools has had a direct, albeit unintended, impact on the council's schools budget. Possible changes in landfill tax, which could be brought in by the Government at the Budget, would have huge consequences for the local authority's ability to plan. The third example relates to the demolition of the St. Mary's flats in Oldham—a terribly dilapidated block—which I am to witness tomorrow. As a result of its demolition, the number of children in the area who feed into the Beaver county primary school will be reduced. Because of the financing regulations, that school, other things being equal, will therefore receive less money from the authority. I hope that the review will address such relationships.
The lack of clarity and understanding of local government finance and the complicated relationships between budgets also cause a lack of confidence among

1301
the electorate in local authorities' ability to deliver their policies. That is often reflected in the low turnout at local government elections. I am delighted that Ministers are addressing that important point as part of the modernisation of local government.
What separates Labour Members from Opposition Members is the belief in partnership. I have been astonished by many of the remarks of Opposition Members, particularly their criticisms of our policy on capping. I shall quote from a speech made last October on that issue at the Conservative party conference:
"Too often in the past local government has been seen as the poor relation of Conservative politics. Too often in the past we have not given our councillors the backing they deserve … And no more treating Conservative councillors as second-class citizens"—
protected species, I should have thought, rather than second-class citizens.
"That is why I am announcing today the establishment of a new policy group to examine every aspect of Conservative policy on local government … Where previous ideas were wrong, they won't be rewritten—they will be scrapped.
We will look at each and every aspect of the running of local government. Not just structure and funding but also at the services where local government is responsible. And yes, we will look again at whether or not we should support the capping of every local authority."
Among the great newspaper headlines at last October's Conservative party conference, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) apologised to Conservative councillors in the assembly hall and pledged to change Conservative policy, yet what we heard tonight was no more than a repeat of the same attacks on local authorities. I am proud that the Government are addressing partnership and not attacking local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has set out to put right the balance. It will be a partnership with all local authorities, of whatever political persuasion.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has returned; he has been creating confusion and not a little mischief because early-day motion 735 attacks our colleagues on Liverpool council. If hon. Members want to see real political mischief, I draw their attention to a letter from the leader of the Liberal group on the LGA, Councillor David Williams, who has circulated to chief executives a letter, on LGA headed notepaper, posing as an LGA research project, when it is in fact a piece of party political propaganda on which the hon. Gentleman's figures are based—so no lessons there.
My question on the Order Paper today will not, I fear, add to the campaign for plain English that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is promoting. I shall paraphrase. It asks the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) what, if he truly believes all local government services should be paid for from local tax, the council tax or its equivalent would be. I await the answer with great interest, but I suspect that it would be more than £4,000. The Liberal Democrats' policies are confused and are not helping the debate.
The statement is welcomed by my borough council. There is an increase in the education budget of more than 5 per cent. in real terms. The benefits are already being seen. There is the release of capital receipts—nearly £1 million. Again, the benefits are already being seen.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) asked when the review of area cost adjustments, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy
1302
Prime Minister announced in his statement in December, would be complete. I urge a look at the real level of unemployment, not least to comply with the welcome announcement this week that, in future, the Government will publish real, not bogus, unemployment figures. That would benefit my borough immeasurably.
We also have to bear in mind the impact of the national minimum wage, which will attack poverty in some of our most deprived areas. We need clarity, as councils need to plan. The capping regime is coming to an end. There is consensus on that from the Liberal Democrats. Their manifesto says that it needs to be done gradually. It is on page 14 if they want to check it.
Non-domestic rating is coming to an end, which is welcome. Opposition Members who have criticised the practices of councils in hiking up business rates should remember that my borough council works with the chamber of commerce, the training and enterprise council and other agencies to attract inward investment to our area for desperately needed jobs. Councillors would be the last people to make business rates prohibitively high. They need that control to help create jobs.
The statement is a beginning. It is a step in the right direction and it should be welcomed by all hon. Members. It is no good Opposition Members criticising it because their boroughs have the least increase, which is what one hon. Member said. Of course there will be winners and losers. [Interruption.] He said the least increase. It is in Hansard. Opposition Members can read it tomorrow if they like.
The point of the settlement is that, after such bias, after such destruction by the poll tax, the Deputy Prime Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
8.25 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), if only because of the apparent tensions that he exhibited on the Lib-Lab pact. He managed after 10 minutes to whip himself into a frenzy of excitement and enthusiasm and described the revenue support grant as a step in the right direction. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), I expected a bit more. We expected a new Jerusalem in local government finance, not a step in the right direction. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, there is an element of déjàvu about this debate.
I am delighted to be able to raise concerns on behalf of my constituents. East Sussex county council has been keen to make representations to the Minister. I understand that she has already seen representatives of the metropolitan districts, but has arranged, belatedly, to see representatives from county councils only after the debate. I hope that she will carry with her to that meeting some of my comments.
The situation with Eastbourne borough council is relatively good—an increase of 1.8 per cent., enabling an increase in the budget of £277,000. If the council spends up to capping level, which is always a difficult decision to make, it will have an additional £218,000 to spend. The problem is the effect of the settlement on East Sussex county council. In a nutshell, the combined income from

1303
rate support grant and business rates will rise by £2.1 million to our total capping increase of £11 million, and the difference will fall on the council tax payer. The budget limit proposed by the Government is £324.8 million, leaving a net difference of £4.9 million to be found from savings—a painful process in which the current Conservative administration is engaged. Thanks to the squandering approach of the former Liberal Democrat administration, the council no longer has reserves and balances that can be put towards the shortfall.
The SSA increase of £9.2 million for education will be fully passported through to education, but a reduction of £2.8 million will be made because of the non-availability next year of funding from balances.
The county council has corresponded with the Minister about debt charges. There are debt charges of £0.9 million on the current school building programme, which is an active matter in my part of the world, which were not included in the capping limit for next year but will be charged to education unless the Government agree to the council's request for a higher capping limit. The chief executive has written to the Minister. I am sure that there has been some discussion between officials. The benefits from the SSA for education have been entirely negated by the charges. No allowance has been made in the spending limit for debt charges on new school buildings, and the county council proposes an alternative approach.
All other services in East Sussex are being asked to make 3.5 per cent. savings, which are likely to fall most heavily on social services, transport and the environment. The target for social services alone is £2.7 million, which is a serious prospect when one considers the massive overspend under the previous Liberal Democrat administration, who squandered up to £4 million a year by insisting on keeping their own nursing homes open rather than sending clients to the private sector. They must face that question sooner or later, whoever runs the county council.
Transport and the environment face possible cuts of £800,000 following a cut of £5 million in road maintenance in the past year alone. Sadly, as with many other county councils that we have heard about this evening, it is clear that one of the driving philosophies behind this year's settlement is the redistribution of grant from rural counties to metropolitan districts. It is plain as a pikestaff and I should be amazed if the Minister attempted to deny that in her winding-up speech. East Sussex was to have rises of between 9 and 10 per cent; the ultimate figure is likely to be a council tax of £574—an increase of 8.7 per cent. That is a staggering increase for my constituents to bear.
The chief executive of East Sussex county council summarised matters in a letter to me by saying that Government support for the coming year
"has risen by only £2 million while we"—
the county council—
"are being urged to increase spending on Education by £9 million as part of an overall increase of £11 million in the capping limit."
1304
Will the Minister confirm—she has no choice but to do so—that the Government's policy is to switch resources from county councils to metropolitan districts? Does she not appreciate that counties such as East Sussex have substantial pockets of deprivation?
Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waterson: No, I shall not.
New Labour may dominate the towns and cities, but it knows and cares nothing about country areas. As we have seen on a range of issues, Labour Members simply do not appreciate that in places such as East Sussex, which from their narrow perspective sound lush, rich and awash with milk and honey, there are areas of deprivation and substantial need. Does the Minister appreciate the special needs of counties such as East Sussex, particularly in terms of transport in rural areas, which has been hit badly? Road maintenance has been cut, there has been a lack of investment and, on top of all that, we must suffer the impact of the Government's recent decision to shelve projects such as the Polegate bypass and improvements to the A27 between Lewes and Polegate. Those are all extra burdens in addition to those already placed on the British people by the Government in a few short months.
I mentioned the subtle shift in how the RSG has been calculated and the fact that we are witnessing a serious transfer from income tax to council tax. That confirms, if confirmation were needed, that this is, across the board, a tax-raising Government.
8.33 pm
Mr. Derek Twigg: I would go a step further than my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas). I think that this is a good settlement and I shall explain my reasons later. Let me point out at the start that I accept that fewer tourists come to Halton than to Westminster, but we have a national chemical industries museum and quite a lot of people come to see that. I am intrigued by the bleating that we have heard from Opposition Members about authorities such as Westminster, which still receive a higher SSA per head than Liverpool. I wonder what Opposition Members call real poverty, because people in Halton take a different view of it.
The settlement is a step in the right direction, and the Government have taken a sensible line. They have understood the position that they have had to take, kept to their manifesto promises and set the scene for the future. They have made certain important changes in the area cost adjustment and have promised to look at the matter further. Great strides have therefore been made this year in local government finance, in stark contrast to the 18 years of Tory government, when change after change simply led to confusion and cuts throughout local government, and no one knew what was happening from one year to the next. There was no stability, and people could not plan ahead.
The new settlement makes planning possible, and there will be more stability because local councils can now plan their services. I particularly welcome the extra money for education, children's social services and community services. That is an important example of how extra resources can be used for the benefit of the community.

1305
The settlement was awaited with anticipation in Halton, because in April it becomes a new unitary authority and takes over education and social services. Our excellent settlement allows us to get the unitary authority off to a good start in funding its services. Interestingly, that has been quite a battle, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing on spotting the fact that, over many years, Halton and Warrington council tax payers have been subsidising those in the rest of Cheshire.
People in Halton have been saying that for some time. As a result, the county council and its friends, including the Chester Chronicle, which is not widely read in Widnes and Runcorn, have now mounted a campaign against the settlement. Whether they have a case is another matter, but they claim that the rest of Cheshire has not been subsidised by the likes of Halton and Warrington.
Three clear independent views have been expressed to the contrary. A report by the Department of the Environment in 1994 said that Halton was losing some £5 million. If the period since 1974 is taken into account, Halton has lost some £100 million over that period, give or take the adjustments that have taken place in the allocation of grants. That is an immense sum to have been lost by one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, which has the fourth highest unemployment in the north-west and 23 per cent. of all the unemployment within Cheshire.
The Government now recognise what has been happening, but the county council still says that it is not true. Not only do we have reports by the Department of the Environment and by someone hailed as the foremost expert in local government finance, but we now have clear evidence submitted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The county council must therefore understand the facts. That money will allow Halton to invest in services, and we shall invest some £2.5 million in education. Given that we have one of the worst problems with literacy and numeracy in the country, and many classes of more than 30 pupils, not to mention the poverty and deprivation in the area, that money is particularly important. It is warmly welcomed by the people of Halton, especially teachers and parents.
The settlement is an excellent start. It gives Halton the chance to build an excellent unitary authority. Other hon. Members have mentioned council tax rises; Halton has not raised its council tax for five years—indeed, it has reduced it—and probably has the lowest council tax in Cheshire. It has also managed to maintain its front-line services and achieve some growth through innovation and inventive ideas. The county council should take heed of the fact that the central services provided by Halton borough council are very lean, and the new unitary authority will have lean central services. Perhaps the county council does not have that, but Halton will be in a position to reduce council tax again this year. That Labour authority in a Labour heartland is able to reduce its council tax, maintain its services and invest in new services. That takes some doing, and not many councils have such a good record.
Mr. Brian White: Does my hon. Friend accept that some of the earlier unitary
1306
authorities have not been as fortunate as Halton, and have lost out because of the previous Government's disaggregation rules?
Mr. Twigg: Yes, that is a fair point. I am not aware of the position in Milton Keynes, but the Labour Government have seen what needs to be done to support new unitary authorities in the transitionary period, and I welcome that.
At last, a partnership will be established with local government. There is a future for local government: people will be consulted and will be encouraged to participate. I should like to thank the Minister for what she has done for Halton.
Mr. Mike Hall: I also represent the area, and I congratulate Halton borough council on its achievements. Unitary status will enable services to be brought closer to the people. I look forward to many years of excellent delivery of local government services in Halton.
Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend was instrumental in the campaign to ensure that Halton became a unitary authority. He deserves much praise for his hard work.
The future is brighter for Halton. Investment in services will help the borough of Halton, my constituency and the Weaver Vale constituency to develop their cultural, social and economic life.
8.41 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am privileged to be able to participate in this local government revenue support grant debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg).
The plain fact of the revenue support grant settlement is that it will channel money out of the rural areas and central London into urban areas. This year, Gloucestershire will provide less domiciliary care and less psychiatric care, libraries will close and the roads, already with one of the lowest indices of any shire county, will be even worse maintained.
Richard Butt, the chief executive of the Rural Development Commission, explained how difficult and more expensive it is to maintain services in rural areas. He said in a press release:
"Earlier research for the Commission showed that the current system for allocating resources to local authorities and others operated to the disadvantage of rural areas. This present study shows clearly that less money means less service and that people living in rural England are losing out. There is now a body of evidence to support the case that funding for local government does not properly recognise the needs of rural areas nor the additional costs involved in meeting them. Rural communities have relatively poor access to important public services."
Contrary to the popular myth, not all of Gloucestershire is a rural idyll. Parts of Gloucester and Cheltenham are as rough as most inner-city areas. We lose out on the SSA distribution system. The city of Gloucester and the town of Cheltenham are substantial conurbations only six miles apart, so we lose out on the urbanisation factor. They have significant populations, so we also lose out on the sparsity factor. Heads the Government win, tails Gloucestershire loses.

1307
Gloucestershire county council is relatively well run compared with many, despite the fact that its room for manoeuvre is constantly being reduced. Its reserves have been run down since 1996 from £6.9 million to £3.5 million today. That cannot go on.
Ms Tess Kingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No, I will not give way, because I have only 10 minutes.
Those reserves can be used only once, and the Government cannot run them down indefinitely in their settlement. Flexibility is further limited by the fact that the amount of revenue spending that can be capitalised is also limited.
A further factor in Gloucestershire that must be emphasised is that the ruling Liberal Democrat group insists on running up the council's debt. At £259 per head, it now has the fifth highest debt per head of population of any shire county. The Liberal Democrats argue that the Government have allowed it. If they go on running up the debt, our children and our children's children will have to repay it.
I want to refer to national factors and the method of distribution. Mention has been made of the area cost adjustment, but in Gloucestershire it is a particularly sore point. We have a 30-mile common boundary with Oxfordshire. Last year, Oxfordshire received £12.9 million in area cost adjustment, and this year it will receive an estimated £15 million, whereas Gloucestershire receives nothing. There is no rationale for that. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but it is the people of Gloucestershire who suffer because of that unfairness. Gloucestershire incurs almost the same costs as Oxfordshire and any other out-of-London borough. It has to pay its teachers and local government workers the same amount, and its maintenance and insurance costs are virtually the same. Why should the children of Gloucestershire be near the bottom of the league of expenditure on primary and secondary schools simply because it does not receive an area cost adjustment? It is unfair.
The Government have taxed every pensioner who has a private or occupational pension scheme. That applies to all local government groups. My local authority has done an actuarial calculation. To make up the shortfall, it will require £2 million this year and another £2 million next year. That is the equivalent of an extra £10 each year on every council tax bill in Gloucestershire. The council is not allowed to make provision for that this year, so the amount will have to be doubled next year, and that will continue to have an effect year on year.
The Government came in on a proud boast that they would run a sound economy. What has happened? The local government settlement was based on a GDP deflation factor of 2 per cent., which was set by the previous Chancellor, who had an excellent economic management record. The GDP deflation factor this year is 2.75 per cent., and the difference will have to be found by each local authority. Gloucestershire will lose £9.1 million from its budget. As my right hon. Friend the
1308
Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, we have not yet been given the settlement for local government workers. That may push the figure higher.
The problem with the abolition of capping is that in an authority such as Norwich, which I know well, far fewer than half the council tax payers pay the full amount: they benefit from the council tax reduction scheme. Capping should be abolished, and every authority should be allowed to spend what it wants. The problem is that not everyone pays the full amount of council tax. I suggest that the council tax reduction should be related to council spending if it exceeds the level of inflation. That would put some fairness into the system, and would provide accountability for every council tax payer, whether or not they received a council tax reduction.
The Government's declared policy is to return the non-domestic rate—the uniform business rate—to local authority control. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister referred to this issue, so I do not see why I should not do so. Hon. Members from Derbyshire have spoken in the debate. We all remember the ravages of the Bookbinder regime. Businesses were driven out of Derbyshire, and it became an ever-decreasing circle. Businesses were driven out, the tax base was reduced, and the authority had to raise even more money from the unfortunate businesses that were left. Let me issue a strong plea to the Minister: do not return non-domestic rates to local authority control. That would merely lead to a lack of representation for businesses, and to unaccountability in regard to how money is spent.
Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No. I have made it clear that I will not give way; we have only 10 minutes in which to speak.
In an earlier debate, the Deputy Prime Minister said that his Government had been elected
"on a pledge to remove the unfairness that has dogged the standard spending assessments since they were first introduced."—[Official Report, 2 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 159.]
I want to hold the right hon. Gentleman to that. I want a fair level of service for every person in the country, and fairness for every local authority. If that does not happen, the voters will have their say in next year's local government elections—and I have no doubt that more Conservative councillors will be elected then.
8.50 pm
Judy Mallaber: It has been an extraordinary experience to listen to the speeches of Conservative Members. May I ask the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown): if Gloucestershire really is at the bottom of the league tables, which I have not looked at, who put it there? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could also explain how that awful Derbyshire county council managed to attract Toyota to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), where 170 of my constituents work.
As I have said, it is extraordinary to listen to Conservative Members. It seems to be a case of schizophrenia. Those who, as Ministers, nearly destroyed local government, are now pretending to be the friends of local government. They need to do that, of course, because the only way in which they can rebuild their

1309
destroyed political base is by attempting to restore their credibility in local government. They will have a difficult job, after all they have done to all our councils over the years.
However, I hear another familiar attack—the denigration and doing down of individual authorities that became so familiar to us in Derbyshire for so many years thanks to Conservative Members there. That partly led to the loss of two Treasury Ministers at the election, including my predecessor, and to the loss of three other Members of Parliament. If we wish to talk about any Conservative Members in Derbyshire, we must name them. Only one remains: my neighbour, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).
Before I deal with matters relating specifically to Derbyshire, let me say that the damage caused by the anti-democratic dogma of the last Government and their vindictiveness against local government will take a long time to put right. Anyone who knows anything about local government finance will be aware that it cannot be dealt with overnight. A party in opposition does not have the necessary resources with which to do the detailed work that must be done to ensure that it does not make yet more mistakes.
Much has been done. I welcome both the consultation documents on local government finance that are being produced and the document on democratic renewal. That document is about giving local government a proper place. It is not just about finance; it is about our relationship with our local electorates and with people in those areas. I am delighted at the emphasis on education, and I am pleased that we have started to iron out some of the unfairness and anomalies in local government finance. As I said, that cannot be done overnight.
Ministers are aware of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) explained some of the oddities that have led to the changes that have already been made having a neutral effect on Derbyshire, and Ministers are aware of the difficulty. It has meant that the settlement has not yet managed to deal with the historic problems that have resulted from years of vindictiveness and rigging of the system by the Tory Government. That has been encouraged by the perpetual undermining of our county council and of local government in our county by past Conservative Members, which has not helped us.
It is important that we work in partnership in our areas, and our Government will be looking for that partnership at all levels to benefit local people and children in our schools, and to regenerate areas and their economies. It will take time to deal with problems that were created in the past. Unfortunately, the settlement has not yet managed to deal with the historic difficulties that were set out very clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire.
If we had the same SSA per primary school pupil as the county council average, we should have an extra £4.3 million. If we had the same SSA per secondary school pupil, we should have an extra £4.1 million. That would go some way towards dealing with our present deficit. I could give many other examples. As has been said, we did have the best class sizes, but we now have some of the worst. We had the best record on home help hours, but we now have one of the worst records, because of what has happened historically.
1310
The truth about Derbyshire county council is not what has been portrayed by Derbyshire Tory Members over the years. Leaders of the council have been among the foremost in trying to be active and supportive on the new Government initiatives. They are keen to implement the standards agenda in schools, and to implement best value and quality. We are not going around shroud-waving about what the current settlement will do for us, because that is not the right way to proceed. We want to see how the settlement can change to have a positive effect in the future, and we are keen to take the initiative to implement the Government's agenda. I hope that Ministers will recognise that that is at the top of the agenda of Derbyshire's county council leadership. However, we have problems with the passporting of education money, and with the fact that changes that have already been made have not yet enabled us to deal with historic unfairness in the county.
There are problems that the Minister could consider. We have talked about a number of the problems relating to the coming year. Several hon. Members have mentioned the area cost adjustment. I know that a review is taking place, and I know that difficult decisions will have to be made, as always happens when the redistribution of a particular level of resources is involved.
I hope that the Minister agrees that the local government finance review should ensure that the vagaries of SSAs do not have quite such a dramatic effect on budgets. One or two changes can have a dramatic effect on budgets and the taxes that then need to be imposed.
As for this year, I hope that, when she makes decisions on designation and capping levels, the Minister will look at some of our particular problems in Derbyshire. She will know that the county council is considering whether it will be able to live within the budget as currently set, and there are a number of decisions to be made in that regard. It is not just a question of this year's settlement; we are talking about the cumulative effect of many years of Tory administration.
We have no reserves. Would that we could share the £3.5 million reserves that we heard about from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton—Brown)! We should be happy to share them with him, but we have nothing like that amount. Perhaps the Minister will agree that, after nine years of successive and significant budget cuts, the abruptness and scale of any further cuts required by Derbyshire will prove extremely difficult for the county council in the coming year. I hope that the Minister will take account of that and that she will also examine some of the structural issues. I shall refer to three that she might like to consider.
First, the county council had cuts of more than £200 million in its budget during the 1990s and no other council has been left with such a legacy of voluntary redundancy and early retirement costs. Some 4,500 staff were affected. Contrary to what Conservative Members have said, council staffing is 20 per cent. below the county council average and the 4,500 job losses mean that the council has to pay £4.2 million into the pension fund before it starts to pay for services. I hope that the Minister will take account of that specific problem.
Secondly, perhaps the Minister could look at the structural issues that arise as a result of Derby city leaving the county to make sure that that has been properly dealt with.

1311
Thirdly, perhaps the Minister will consider economic restructuring in the area. I am not being emotive because a calm assessment is needed, but Derbyshire has many problems resulting from economic restructuring. It lost its coalfields and suffered from the resulting devastation, especially in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for North-East Derbyshire. Longer-standing problems arise in my constituency. Perhaps an examination of those issues will explain why Derbyshire has ended up with such difficulties. I hope that the Minister will take account of those historical and structural difficulties in taking her decisions this year.
Mr. Levitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Derbyshire problem can be summed up by saying that, of the £14 million additional money that is available this year, £13 million is to be passported to education and £1 million is to be levied to the fire authority? That leaves nothing for anything else, which means that there will be cuts in all services.
Judy Mallaber: My hon. Friend's analysis is correct. My county council is considering the position.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady's time is up. She was perhaps a little too generous for her own good in allowing an intervention.
9 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: We have heard so much about Derbyshire that I am beginning to wonder whether this is the local government finance debate for that county and that perhaps we shall debate another county tomorrow. Some hon. Members have attacked the Liberal Democrats, but that is not surprising because we control more councils, have more councillors and are responsible for spending more public money than the official Opposition. We have heard a great deal about the complexities of local government and about some of the difficulties that are faced each year by central Government in determining the local government settlement.
I congratulate the Government on their plain English guide to the settlement, but that is where the congratulations end because it is not so much a new deal as an old meal. We have been here 18 times before debating the previous Government's annual settlement. The fundamental question of how to levy fair taxes to pay for essential services such as education has been dodged. Like the previous Government, this Labour Government have shifted the burden of tax to the hard-pressed council tax payer, the users of services and those who pay for them.
All Governments are crafty over local government finance, and some Governments are craftier than others. We welcome extra money for schools, but less money for services such as school transport, discretionary student grants, libraries and museums leaves our local education authorities with a deficit. We must also take account of cuts in the funding of non-statutory services such as traffic calming, parks and recreation, tourism promotion,
1312
economic development, grants to voluntary organisations, closed circuit television and community safety. The list is long.
Charges for car parking, home helps and domiciliary care and council house rents are all likely to rise and be an extra burden on residents to whom those extra taxes have been transferred by a Labour Government who are carrying out Conservative spending plans. The Secretary of State said that concerns about other services were legitimate. They certainly are, but how would he or the Minister for Local Government and Housing advise a council that had to choose between spending on school books or library books; between the upkeep of school buildings or the repair of public buildings; and between looking after children in school or transporting students to and from school.
The settlement is not fair: it is dishonest. Crude capping remains, with the promise of "a kinder kind" of capping in future, whatever that means. The burden of taxation is being placed firmly on the shoulders of the council tax payer because the Government do not trust local democracy and do not believe in fair taxes, such as 1p on income tax, in case that frightens their wealthiest backers. At the local elections, they will pay the price that was paid by the previous Government. If the Secretary of State cannot trust Labour councillors, who control most the local authorities, I urge him at least to trust the people. They will pay a fair tax for a better service. However, he should not expect them to pay an unfair tax for poorer services and think that the public will blame their local council, when it is the Government who are behind every cut, every increased charge and every service reduction.
9.4 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: I welcome with particular enthusiasm the settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has announced because it meets the key demand of the Newham Needs campaign, which attracted enormous support in the east London borough over a long period. That key demand was that the SSA's capital financing element should equate to reality and not to fiction.
In 1990–91, the previous Government announced that the SSA's capital financing element would be based not on each authority's actual debt, but on its notional debt. That was an entirely new approach. It rested on a notional debt figure that assumed that, during the 1980s, debt had been repaid at a standard rate and that a set proportion of capital receipts had been applied to paying debt.
In Newham and in many other authorities, neither of those assumptions was valid. During the 1980s, the council had continued to invest in the borough's needs—in schools and in housing—and had continued, where possible, to apply its capital receipts to those purposes. We believed in investing. In passing, may I say what a welcome and important change it is that this Government are now allowing local authorities to apply housing capital receipts to their area's needs on a far broader and better basis.
In Newham, we did what we could to continue our level of investment. We did not—I underline this—indulge in creative accounting or in anything else that Conservative Members could describe as profligate or reckless. All our borrowing was wholly straightforward and legitimate and

1313
within the approved capital allocations that the Government of the day had issued. It was entirely transparent and above board. At that time, there was nothing to suggest that local authorities would be penalised for behaving in that way.
The new system was introduced in 1990 and an explicit penalty was incorporated retrospectively for councils that had invested not more than they were allowed to, but more than the notional formula that was devised in 1990 assumed. Newham discovered that, although the actual debt that it was servicing was more than £200 million, the notional figure was just over £100 million.
The difference in, for example, 1993 meant that the capital financing SSA was more than £10 million less than the capital financing charges that the council had to pay. Like most London authorities at any rate, and many more now, Newham was capped at SSA, so that £10 million difference could be found only by holding other spending—on education and social services in particular—below the SSA level. Then Ministers criticised Newham for spending less than SSA on education.
I accept that a Government could choose to penalise a local authority for what they regarded as excessive capital spending, but that is what the capital controls system is for. For the 1990 scheme to introduce an additional penalty retrospectively to punish local authorities that spent more in the 1980s than the standard level that the Government set only in 1990, was clearly unfair, yet that was how the system worked from 1990, until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reintroduced fairness with his announcement for next year.
The previous system was unjust and unfair. It cannot be right to punish deviation in the 1980s, using a standard that was not invented until 1990, but that is what the previous Government did. Year after year, we made that simple point to successive Conservative Environment Ministers.
Earlier, I read the 1993 submission from the Newham Needs campaign to the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). The delegation was led by my predecessor, the late Ron Leighton, who was chairman of the campaign and who was supported by the two other Newham Members. I was there as leader of Newham council. Representatives of the council trade unions, the voluntary sector and Newham Youth Forum, and the editor of the Newham Recorder, Tom Duncan, were also part of the delegation. We were courteously received by the right hon. Gentleman, but, sadly, our pleas fell on deaf ears. That was also our experience when we put the same points to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford).
Mr. David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the fairness of the formula, one of the most significant changes this year is the way in which the Government have listened to representations from local authorities? After 18 years of local authorities' pleas falling on deaf ears, it is a refreshing change for a local authority such as mine in Bury to have the Minister listen carefully and respond to our points.
Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend's experience chimes with mine.
1314
The Newham Needs campaign was immensely popular. Newham had conferences involving hundreds of local residents and a road show touring the borough. Volunteers formed a Newham Needs choir, and two specially written Newham Needs songs were composed, one by a local clergyman and the other by the assistant director of the Theatre Royal, Stratford, in their own time. That was a hugely popular campaign because the formula applied by the previous Government was so obviously unfair. However, nothing happened to right the wrong until the Labour Government were elected. People in Newham will not forget that lesson—for a fair deal one must elect a Labour Government.
In attacking the change to which I have referred, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said that it was a handout to profligate councils. That is simply not true. From a Conservative point of view, however, that would be a fair charge if the punishment resulted from Government policy at the time when the spending was incurred, but it did not. The penalty was dreamt up only after the spending had been made—years afterwards for a large part of it.
In any case, Newham council is in no sense a profligate authority. Since 1995, the authority has reviewed all its services to achieve savings of £25 million while protecting front-line services and, in so doing, releasing funds for investment in schools and information technology for further improvements in effectiveness.
In the past two years alone, the council has won the information technology department of the year award and achieved ISO 9002 accreditations for a wide range of its services. Last year, the council was commended by the National Home Improvement Council as the authority that had done most to encourage home improvement in the private sector. It won the Cabinet Office award for the best local publication of the Audit Commission's performance indicator, and it also received a charter mark for its revenue services. This year, it is on a short list of five for the council of the year award.
That is a superb record of achievement. Newham council is a determined, imaginative, creative organisation, tackling a tough job effectively, with impressive results. That is what local authorities are capable of, given the opportunity. Thank goodness we have left behind the confrontation, hostility and unfairness of the Tory years.
This was a good settlement. I pay tribute to the energy and determination of the Newham Needs campaign and to all those who contributed to its struggle for fairness. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for demonstrating that in a democracy wrong can be put right and, after years of cynicism and gerrymandering, for placing fairness once again at the heart of Government.
9.14 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: My constituents will take a rather different lesson about the merits of a Labour vote from those of the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), whose vigorous speech I enjoyed but did not find particularly convincing.
This is a debate on two levels. There is the national dimension, and that is simple—a concealed tax rise to pay for reduced services, and a shift in resources from London and the shires to places such as, of all places, Sedgefield.

1315
I am glad that the people of Sedgefield have more than reflected glory to show for having the Prime Minister for their Member of Parliament, but I am deeply sorry that my constituents are having to pay for that privilege for those in Sedgefield.
There is a view in London that Worcestershire is just a leafy shire, but it has at least its fair share of rural poverty and urban deprivation. I am not sure that the previous Government always understood that, and this Government do not understand it at all.
I must record my admiration for the officers of the new Worcestershire county council, and for the many teachers who do a great job in our schools. However, thanks to this settlement, they will have to face an impossible year—Worcestershire county council's first year after its split from Herefordshire. It is true that Worcestershire has had years of tight and uncomfortable settlements. I and other Conservative Members, who did not always agree with the old Hereford and Worcester county council, have made our reservations clear—particularly our reservations about the area cost adjustment, about which we have heard a great deal in this debate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, the area cost adjustment was not even mentioned in "A Plain English Guide to the Local Government Finance Settlement". It is no wonder; if the area cost adjustment were explained clearly, its total illegitimacy would be exposed. The area cost adjustment allows Oxfordshire, which is only about 10 miles from my border, an extra £15 million—which amounts to £1.5 million per mile. I do not understand why.
The standard spending assessment formula consistently discriminates against Worcestershire. There is absolutely no fairness in the settlement, only further discrimination. Linking the SSA to capping limits—which is what we are dealing with in Worcestershire—means that the SSA is the capping limit. [Interruption.] Labour Members shout, but that system is not democratic and allows absolutely no headroom or flexibility.
Although I welcome the review that the Deputy Prime Minister announced at the beginning of the debate, I am not holding my breath. He said that it is currently a crude system, and he promises something more elegant in the future. One may associate many fine words and noble qualities with the Deputy Prime Minister, but elegance is not among them. I somehow suspect that the new system will not be that different from the old one.
The only Hereford and Worcester county council ran down its balances expecting some glorious cornucopia from the new Labour Government—but now the chickens have come home to roost. The new Worcestershire county council has no reserves to speak of, and a disgraceful settlement from the Government. Council tax in Worcestershire will rise by 9.1 per cent., and we will have worse services for the extra money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)—who wished to speak in this debate, but, sadly, because of time pressure, has not been able to—has specifically asked that I should associate her with my comments on our county's education settlement. Worcestershire's education SSA increase is well below the national average and is the smallest of all county councils' SSAs. It does not even cover pupil numbers and
1316
inflation. Next year, there will be education cuts in Worcestershire. The expectations raised by the Prime Minister, and by the various Labour Members who campaigned—successfully—for seats in Worcestershire, have been dashed by the settlement. Worcestershire's settlement makes a mockery of the boast "education, education, education". Even the Labour council leader, in a letter to the Minister, said that there is a "strong sense of injustice". I would call it a strong sense of betrayal.
Compared to other counties, we have had very low increases in other SSAs, especially for our fire service. Because the formula is inadequate, we are already spending 25 per cent. above the SSA to maintain a bare minimum service. Moreover, we have the lowest per capita fire service spend of all the shires.
The settlement's overall effect will be huge cuts. There will be cuts of about £1 million in education, and massive cuts—of about 10 per cent.—across the board in other services. Last week, the Worcester Evening News quoted Worcester's education director as saying that most schools should "survive the cuts", which is hardly an encouraging thought. He went on, however, to say that a
"significant minority will face a year that is likely to produce the need for some painful adjustments, including teaching staff reductions and increases in class size."
That is quite the opposite of what Labour was promising. Thanks to the settlement, Worcestershire is facing the prospect of class size increases.
Cuts will have to be made not only in education and social services—where huge cuts will have to be made—but in other important spheres, such as the roads budget. The Liberal Democrat vice-chairman of the relevant county council committee said:
"The road infrastructure across the county is fast reaching crisis point. It is a bit like a domestic situation where you put off repairs to your house for a while but after a few years it starts to hit the inner woodwork and costs multiply."
That is the situation that we are facing in budget after budget.
Councillors are being forced into policy options that they do not support. I personally do not have a problem with the concept of privatisation, but "Prescott's privatisation" in the county is imminent. All the old people's homes in the county are to be sold off to meet this year's dreadful budget. Tomorrow, I am going to visit Westmead, an old people's home in Droitwich Spa, to discuss with the residents and staff their concerns about the sell-off forced on Worcestershire county council, against its will, by the settlement and the Government.
There have been sensible proposals for change. There was a delegation to the Minister, but, strangely, Conservative Members representing the county were not invited. However, I associate myself with the views that the delegation expressed. It managed to get only a few hundred thousand pounds more from rebalancing the split between Herefordshire and Worcestershire and a reduction in the education SSA. It made no progress on capping. The headroom above the SSA is 0.03 per cent. or about £90,000—roughly the salary of the Deputy Prime Minister. The county council average is 3.7 per cent. Why could the Government not give Worcestershire 1 or 2 per cent. and let the county council justify the extra expenditure to its voters at the next local elections?

1317
Carol Warren, the Labour leader of the council, wrote to the Minister for Local Government and Housing on 19 December last year:
"The elderly, the frail and most vulnerable in our community will struggle to understand why after four years of spending cuts … we continue under a new Government, to withdraw services, raise charges that are already the highest in the country or curtail funding to the voluntary sector. Relationships with the NHS will suffer as hospital discharge arrangements become even more strained."
Is the settlement as flexible as the Deputy Prime Minister boasted? Not at all—there has been no flexibility whatsoever for Worcestershire. Is it fairer? If robbing Worcestershire schools and slashing services for the vulnerable is fair, then it is fair. Is it better? Not even the inventive mind of the Minister without Portfolio could present it to my constituents as better. It fails all the Deputy Prime Minister's tests. I hope that Labour Members representing Worcestershire, who were not even present in the Chamber for today's debate, will have the courage to join me in voting against the settlement.
9.21 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: Listening to the debate has been rather like watching a tired episode of "Star Trek". It is as if one were visiting a twin planet where the people spoke the precise opposite of what their identical figures elsewhere were saying.
We have heard Opposition speeches about class sizes and the terrible impact that they can have on a child's education. One would hardly believe that, in government, they declared class sizes to be quite irrelevant to whether education could be delivered. We have heard Opposition speeches condemning capping or demanding that it should be more liberal. One would hardly believe that, in government, they ruthlessly applied capping throughout the past few years. We have heard speeches saying that the area cost adjustment is a criminal regime for distributing money between local authorities, yet it has was in place throughout the last few years of the Conservative Government.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Todd: No. I have very little time.
The revenue support grant settlement contains a number of features that I welcome unhesitatingly. Some of the blatant fixing that marred the previous arrangements has been ended, and that is most welcome. The extra money for education that reaches even my county of Derbyshire is tremendously welcome. We wish that we could use it fully and more effectively.
Nevertheless, the settlement brings a prospect of further substantial cuts to my county. In the past nine years, £228 million has been cut from the county council services—far more than for any other county authority. From 1989–90 to the current year, the cap has been raised by 30 per cent. East Sussex has been referred to as a particular example of iniquity, yet it received an increase of 62 per cent. over that period—the highest increase in the country. If Derbyshire had merely the average increase, it would get an extra £90 million, but we are not asking for that. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, we merely caught up with the next lowest increase, we would get an
1318
extra £20 million, but we are not asking for that either. We merely want enough to implement the Government's policies. We want to carry through the commitment to passporting the education money. That would require an extra £14 million. The door is open for further discussion. That is great.
I cannot describe Derbyshire's services as a bleeding stump. I have spent too long talking to the people who deliver them and have developed too much respect for what they have done to say that. Our key stage 2 results, announced a few days ago, were excellent. They represented a fantastic achievement by educators in our county. A small rural primary school in my constituency was particularly praised in the chief inspector's report published a couple of days ago. There is tremendous innovation and commitment to achieve, against a wall of desperation in our resources shortfall.
Bureaucracy has been cut to the bone. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) made a tricky speech in which he pulled out some statistics, claiming to prove that the county council distributed less money to schools than other authorities. That is true for the examples that he chose, but it is an administrative issue which depends on which services are funded centrally and which are funded locally in individual schools. It says nothing about the amount of spending on education or any hidden administration costs. It is just a question whether school transport and special needs are delegated or kept at the centre. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire has shown, Derbyshire has an excellent record on cutting bureaucracy.
I have no desire to take money from other local authorities. I understand the difficulties faced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his ministerial team in deciding how to parcel out the limited resources available. However, I should like the Minister who is to reply to explain why Derbyshire should have a standard spending assessment per head of £605 when Hertfordshire has £681 and Kent has £684. I am sure that there are excellent reasons. I am not saying anything against those two counties. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), who is sitting next to me, would speak up eloquently for Hertfordshire. However, I want to know why a primary school child in Derbyshire should receive £200 less in SSA recognition than a Hertfordshire child. I do not believe that the gap is justifiable.
There are ideas on how we can make the situation better. In the long term, we need to examine how we assist elderly residents. I am strongly committed to Derbyshire's policy of seeking to fund people to stay in their homes, supporting them with carers. That is the not the cheapest policy, but it is the best. It should be recognised in a financial settlement, rather than using the standard residential home calculations that are used elsewhere.
I would also like a review of the area cost adjustment. There has been near unanimity on that tonight.
Representing a rural seat, I believe that sparsity is a key factor in the delivery of services. It is more expensive to deliver services in a rural area. It is critical that we retain our small village schools, which are often the heart of our communities. There is no way round the cost of that commitment. I have many schools in my constituency with 40, 50 or 60 pupils. They do an excellent job of

1319
educating young people, but they cost disproportionately more than larger conglomerations of schools. That must be recognised.
I hope that the Minister will also take note of some short-term elements. Reference has already been made to reorganisation costs. The impact of the loss of the city of Derby has been underestimated and should be reviewed. We also need a review of the early retirement costs from the accumulated cuts. We carry a huge extra cost from what has happened in the past nine years. Those are reasonable steps.
This is not a satisfactory settlement for Derbyshire. Other hon. Members have said how marvellous their settlements are. I cannot pretend that I feel that way. I have made my representations, as have my colleagues and the county council. No progress has been made—at least as yet. I am delighted that the Government are still prepared to listen to us and talk to us. On that basis, and with further elements of discussion about the cap still to come, I shall certainly be supporting the Government.
9.29 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: The Secretary of State opened the debate by claiming that the settlement was
"better, fairer and more flexible".
The truth that has emerged in the debate paints a different picture. The settlement is inadequate, unfair, perverse and fraudulent.
The settlement is inadequate because, through their actions since 1 May, the Government have directly placed huge new burdens on councils. They have totally failed to provide councils with resources to cover those new burdens. The settlement is unfair because the Government have taken cash away from parts of the country, such as inner London and most rural shires, and given it to other councils, many in the north, mostly metropolitan, but notably Sedgefield. Sedgefield's standard spending assessment has increased by more than the SSAs of all but two of the more than 400 councils.
The settlement is perverse because the Government's changes to the way in which cash is distributed among councils have deliberately rewarded incompetence and extravagance, and penalised good management and thrift. The settlement is fraudulent because the Government's claim that it provides £800 million extra for schools is simply not true. The Secretary of State repeated that myth in his opening speech, but it has been exposed by speaker after speaker—not only on the Conservative Benches.
The inadequacy and unfairness of the settlement was powerfully demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). He eloquently described the consequences for the people of Norfolk of what he called the "lethal combination" of a Labour-controlled council and a Labour Government.
When the Minister replies, will she confirm that consideration will be given to the plight of counties such as Norfolk, which are mainly rural? Will she admit that the consequences of a cash cut in the social services SSA in Norfolk, and in many other places, are extremely painful—and not just for the social services departments and their service users? The squeezing of the social
1320
services SSA will mean that many authorities, including Norfolk, will have to dip into their education SSAs to prevent unacceptable cuts in social services.
Mr. Hayes: I apologise for re-emphasising this point. Will my hon. Friend also ask the Minister to reverse here and now the £2.5 million cut in Lincolnshire's police service? The cuts are not just in social services. A Home Office Minister has admitted that the cut in Lincolnshire police service has nothing to do with inefficiency.
Mr. Yeo: The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend's question. Will she also reverse the cash cuts in the SSAs of Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, Surrey and Wiltshire police services?
Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: No, I am sorry. [Interruption.] If there is time, I will in a moment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) entertainingly exposed the very flimsy basis for the Government's attack on the funding of Westminster city council—in whose area I am happy to have had a home for more than 10 years. Its combination of good services and low council tax has long been a model of good practice—a model which has constantly attracted the envy and jealousy of incompetent Labour councils and Labour Members. So determined were the Government to take away money from Westminster that other inner London boroughs—even those controlled by the Labour party—have been dragged down as well.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—who has much expertise in these matters—eloquently warned of the enormous increases in council tax that the settlement inevitably will lead to. He thoughtfully explored the consequences for services—even within education—that arise directly from the settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) argued persuasively for the retention of some kind of capping, and recalled quite correctly the very high price paid by tax payers in the past for allowing certain Labour councillors the unrestricted freedom to set their own tax levels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) also has much experience of these matters. He exposed some of the anomalies in the system and the way in which the Government have, frankly, perpetrated a fiddle this year in relation to the treatment of capital funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) drew attention to the views of the Local Government Association—a body controlled by Labour councillors—which has underlined how the settlement will inevitably lead to higher tax and poorer services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was right to identify the switch of resources away from rural areas as one of the key aspects of the settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton—Brown) spoke with passion and conviction about the way in which his constituents and the people of Gloucestershire have been adversely affected by the settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), in a spirited

1321
contribution—and like many others—criticised the operation of the area cost adjustment and pleaded convincingly for his constituents.
Mr. Lansley: On the matter of the area cost adjustment, is my hon. Friend aware that, days before the last general election, the Prime Minister pledged in Cambridge that the Elliott review would be implemented in time for the coming financial year of 1998–99—a pledge he has now broken?
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to yet another broken promise from the Government.
Mr. Levitt: I am sure that hon. Members were very touched by the hon. Gentleman's description of the problems in Norfolk. As a Derbyshire Member, I can identify with the difficult decisions that had to be made. Derbyshire suffered £214 million of cuts in its budget under the previous Government. Will he join with me in asking for the same for Derbyshire as he would wish for Norfolk, and will he apologise on behalf of the previous Government for the damage they did to services in Derbyshire?
Mr. Yeo: Any apology to be issued about Derbyshire would be on account of the disgraceful record of the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council, which was a byword for extravagance and incompetence for which an abject apology is immediately required.
Mr. Prescott: They discriminated against Derbyshire.
Mr. Yeo: The Deputy Prime Minister suggests from a sedentary position that the previous Government discriminated against Derbyshire. If there had been any discrimination—which there certainly was not—it would perhaps have been justified, because giving money to the Labour councillors who ran Derbyshire county council would have been a gross irresponsibility on the part of any Secretary of State.
Labour Members described the consequences of the settlement in a variety of ways. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) had the courage to admit that the woe would continue into 1998–99. He might like to know that if Leicester had been treated the same as Sedgefield, the SSA increase would not have been under £5 million, but over £34 million. The hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) all criticised the distribution formula. Others—like the hon. Members for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts)—seemed to me to be still fighting the last war; perhaps because they have so little confidence in their prospects for the next one.
I was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will be joining us in the Lobby. He recognised that even though many councils will be forced by the settlement to cut their services, they will also have to introduce substantially higher levels of council tax. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) went further and called the settlement dishonest.
The day of reckoning is truly approaching, when councils or, more particularly, service users and council tax payers, will have to face the consequences of the huge
1322
£1 billion burden that the Government have placed on councils throughout the country. By far the biggest part of that burden is the Chancellor's new pensions tax. It is grossly irresponsible for Ministers to go on burying their heads in the sand about the problem.
It is not realistic for the Government to say that they can wait until the actuarial valuations are completed later this year. Almost two out of every three council pension funds did not have enough money to meet their liabilities when the funds were last actuarially valued in 1995. Their income has been cut by £300 million a year, so the situation is clearly worse.
In a circular issued on 2 October, the Local Government Association said:
"It would clearly be prudent to make advance provision, say by way of an agreed voluntary uplift in contribution rates."
That is a sensible view. If no provision for the liability is made in 1998–99, by the following year the total loss of income in pension funds since the Chancellor's pensions tax was introduced last July will be more than £800 million, which is equivalent to an extra £50 on band D council tax for every council tax payer in the country.
Will the Minister confirm without reservation that the revenue support grant next year will be increased to cover the shortfall in full? If not, does she expect councils to prepare by starting to cut services in 1998–99? How many teachers and home helps does she expect to be sacked to swell the Chancellor's coffers? Will she confirm that the annual cost of his pensions tax to councils is £300 million, and that if council tax does not increase, 12,000 teachers will have to be sacked to meet the shortfall?
A few councils escape the consequences of those burdens. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said, many Ministers in the Department have constituencies that do rather well out of the changes to this year's distribution formula.
The council that did most especially well is Sedgefield. The voters who go to the polls on 7 May in London may be interested to know that if the London boroughs were treated in the same way as Sedgefield, Bexley would receive an extra £13 million on its SSA; Croydon, £24 million; Enfield, £19 million; Hillingdon, £21 million; Ealing, £21 million; and Redbridge, £14 million.
What is worse, the settlement was not merely about exploiting the system to take cash away from London and many rural shires: the Government have taken cash away from those councils that manage their affairs efficiently and carefully. Changes to the distribution formula and the treatment of debt have penalised the thrifty. That is in line with the Chancellor's attacks on personal savers; his tax on pension funds; and his retrospective tax on savers, through the limit on TESSAs and PEPs.
In this revenue support grant settlement, the Secretary of State has gone even further: he has rewarded the extravagant and incompetent Labour councils that allowed their debts to pile up. That is an astonishing approach which sends a clear signal to every council in the country: do not bother to pay back debts or to manage money carefully, because Big Brother will come along and bail councils out.
Mr. Prescott: They build houses, you twit.
Mr. Yeo: We know that they will build houses: they will build them on the green belt in Newcastle, when the

1323
hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) says that there are 4,000 empty houses in Newcastle alone; on the green belt in Stevenage, where 14 Labour county councillors sneaked through the decision after changing the standing orders with the help of their coalition partners in the Liberal party; and all over West Sussex.
The Minister of State will have heard what the so-called extra cash for schools means in one council or another. Let me tell her what it means in Suffolk. A letter from the heads of the 345 schools in Suffolk spelt it out. They were led by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to expect that Suffolk would receive more than £12 million in extra cash for education funding, but the actual amount turned out to be under £11 million. Because of the budgetary pressures affecting Labour and Liberal-controlled Suffolk county council, the true figure is £8 million, according to the heads. The consequence is a reduction of 1 per cent. in real terms in Suffolk school budgets. As one councillor put it:
"David Blunkett's letter to schools led them to expect something which local authorities were in no position to deliver."
The debate has shown four things about the settlement. First, it has proved that the Government's claim that the revenue support grant settlement was based on the previous Government's figures is little more than a fraud. Secondly, it has exposed the Government's systematic switch of cash away from councils in London and the rural shires to Labour's urban strongholds in the north, such as Sedgefield. Thirdly, it has revealed how the Government are rewarding those Labour councils that have mismanaged their finances. Fourthly, it has uncovered how, despite the Government's boasting about the priority that they attach to education, the only way in which most councils can get more cash into schools is by cutting other services or increasing the council tax.
This is a settlement which will cost taxpayers dear and hit service users hard. It is a disgraceful settlement, which the House should reject.
9.45 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The debate on the local government settlement has shown how strongly most hon. Members want effective local government, which is able to deliver services that local people want at a price that they can afford. The Government share that view and it is fully reflected in the settlement that the Deputy Prime Minister laid before the House on 2 February.
Tonight, we have heard much from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, from the Conservatives, we have largely heard pent-up frustration at 18 years of their own failure and their failing policy on local government. They complained about area cost adjustments, but who introduced them? Which system are we working on? They introduced council tax capping, about which they were also complaining and they introduced the standard spending assessment. No wonder they are angry at their council tax legacy.
The difference is clear. We opposed the Tory introductions and the Conservatives supported them. We are beginning to change the formula and we will continue to do so. We will reform it and they will oppose everything.
1324
Many hon. Members have made representations about their areas, which is what a local Member of Parliament has a responsibility to do. Several hon. Members representing Derbyshire have made it clear that their authorities were targeted. Indeed, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman virtually confirmed that. They were targeted and they have suffered. We have moved. They have not suffered as much as some places in the change, but we know that they have a huge legacy to make up.
I recognise that many local councils share the Government's ambitious agenda to modernise Britain. They share our priorities for higher education standards and our commitment to best value in public services. They are sharing in the effort to get young people off welfare and into work as part of the new deal. In short, they share our belief that we can make Britain better.
Dr. Evan Harris: I have sat and listened throughout this debate. As the hon. Lady will know, the Liberal Democrats—the second party of local government—will be voting against this flawed settlement. What the third party of local government, the Conservatives, choose to do, in terms of voting against their own plans and capping, is a matter for them and their crocodile tears.
Will the hon. Lady justify how she can ask Oxfordshire county council to ask the most vulnerable people in social services to pay for her education prioritisation when Oxfordshire is one of 116 out of 150 councils that did not have the funding to match the increase in the education SSA?
Ms Armstrong: Every authority got the money directly from the Government because we paid it through the revenue support grant. Every democratically elected authority got that. There is one that is not democratically elected and it did not. Local government spends £80 billion a year, a quarter all public expenditure. The Government were elected on a manifesto of not increasing Government spending targets in our first two years in office. Inevitably, because of the scale and importance of council spending, the settlement is tight for many local councils.
Unlike my Conservative predecessors, I am not going to insult the intelligence of hon. Members or of local councillors by saying that everything is fine and that funding is adequate to meet all the ambitions and plans of every local authority. That is plainly not true, as has been stated often tonight. Local councils, like the Government, will have to set their priorities and allocate available resources carefully to meet them. As we have been doing in the comprehensive spending review, I expect every council to review the efficiency and effectiveness of its spending and, in consultation with residents, set priorities and performance targets.
Let me turn to education, which most hon. Members who spoke raised. We have made a start on honouring our pledges: £1 billion more than the Conservatives planned and an extra £835 million of new money for schools. Unlike under the Conservatives, every democratically elected council will get more money for education next year and the freedom to spend it.
In the context of a tight settlement, the Government's priorities have also included social services. The settlement provides £350 million extra for community

1325
care, and a further £70 million for children's social services, the first substantial increase for three years. It also includes £21 million more for adult services and £73 million ring-fenced for mental health services.
As well as making extra resources available, the settlement is fair to all councils and is not fixed in the interests of one or two. We are committed to a fair distribution of Government grant and we have moved quickly in that direction. In addition, the Government will not discriminate against councils that used capital receipts for local investment in the 1980s. I reject what was said by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the hon. Members for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) and for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). The resulting standard spending assessment formulas are not motivated by politics but by fairness. They are the product of much discussion with local government and are applied equally to all authorities regardless of political control.
A number of rural issues were raised. [Interruption.] Conservative Members know nothing about geography. If they did, they would know that North-West Durham covers a substantial part of the north Pennines. If there is anywhere more rural in this country, I would like to see it. For the first time in four years, we have provided an increase for the services delivered by shire districts. We have treated all local authorities, rural or urban, on a fair and consistent basis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Armstrong: The formula therefore includes elements that allow for the needs of rural areas, such as sparsity. Urban areas have larger populations and so will generally get more grant, but I have made it clear to every authority that has raised the matter that we will consider other factors this year. I have invited them—I invite Conservative Members who raised the matter to talk to their authorities—to put sparsity on the agenda for this year's discussions.
I have looked at the Rural Development Commission report written by Rita Hale. I found it interesting, although it contained nothing new. We would be quite happy to use it to inform our decisions for next year. I invite local government representatives to put it on the agenda for this year's discussions.
As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said when he opened the debate, we believe in more local discretion and less central control. Next week, we will publish the first in a series of consultation papers on modernising local government. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to raise many of the issues that they referred to tonight in that long-term review, and I invite them to do so.
Mr. Hayes rose—
Ms Armstrong: No, I will not give way.
A number of hon. Members raised the issue of the area cost adjustment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said that there was unanimity on it—I wish that were true. I accept that there was unanimity in the sense that many people have raised it, but not in the required outcome. We will study the additional research that is being done this year on area cost
1326
adjustment, along with that which has been conducted before, to see whether we can reach a more satisfactory conclusion than that achieved so far.
Many hon. Members will have been astounded to hear the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and the hon. Member for South Suffolk talk about the cost to councils of pension changes. They will have been astounded because they were members of a Conservative Government who allowed a contributions holiday for local government's superannuation funds in order to keep the poll tax down. Councils are still paying the price for that funding fiddle.
We have provided a regime under which local government pension funds can be properly managed and where local authority contributions can be matched with what is needed, following proper actuarial review. It would simply not be sensible administration to allow local authorities to guess what might be needed in advance. We have already promised that we will look at how that will be accounted for in future settlements.
We heard a great deal about higher spending from the Liberals.
Sir Norman Fowler rose—
Ms Armstrong: I will not give way.
In December, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) demanded an extra £800 million for local government Today, that figure has risen to £1 billion. All of it will be paid for by the Liberal's flexible friend, the 1p on income tax. But the Liberal spokesman's figures do not add up. They bleat about the Government sticking to previous spending plans, which is their excuse for voting against the Government tonight. [Interruption.] It is an excuse, because in the costings supplement to the 1997 Liberal Democratic manifesto, it said:
"With the exception of specialised costed items, all Departments will have to work within current spending plans."
It appears that the Liberals do not read their own manifesto.
The local government settlement is another important contribution to the Government's actions to make Britain better. Our education spending will be judged alongside the £1.3 billion extra from the windfall levy, which will be spent on capital investment in schools. Our social services spending will be judged alongside our extra health spending of £300 million this year and £1,200 million next year, together with the £1.3 billion for the hospital building programme, delivered through the private finance initiative.
Our support for local councils' economic development activities complement our £1,400 million welfare-to-work programme. All our efforts are designed to support and assist local councils to provide a better quality of life for their residents. That is supported by £800 million from housing capital receipts.
That is the big picture. It is a settlement which delivers our pledge on education—£835 million of new money for schools. It is fair to all councils, not fixed in the interests of one or two. It reflects the needs of local communities through our revised social and economic needs index.
This is only the start. We know that there is a long way to go to modernise local government after all those years of centralisation. Tonight, we have an opportunity to vote to make that start, to get this country back on the road.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 170.

Division No. 154]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davidson, Ian

Ainger, Nick

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Dawson, Hilton

Alexander, Douglas

Dean, Mrs Janet

Allen, Graham

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Doran, Frank

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Dowd, Jim

Ashton, Joe

Drown, Ms Julia

Atherton, Ms Candy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Atkins, Charlotte

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Austin, John

Edwards, Huw

Barnes, Harry

Efford, Clive

Barron, Kevin

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Battle, John

Ennis, Jeff

Bayley, Hugh

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Beard, Nigel

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Flint, Caroline

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Benton, Joe

Foulkes, George

Bermingham, Gerald

Galloway, George

Best, Harold

Gapes, Mike

Betts, Clive

Gardiner, Barry

Blears, Ms Hazel

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Blizzard, Bob

Gerrard, Neil

Boateng, Paul

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Godman, Norman A

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Godsiff, Roger

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Goggins, Paul

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Grocott, Bruce

Browne, Desmond

Grogan, John

Burden, Richard

Hain, Peter

Burgon, Colin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Byers, Stephen

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hepburn, Stephen

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Heppell, John

Cann, Jamie

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Caplin, Ivor

Hill, Keith

Casale, Roger

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Caton, Martin

Hoey, Kate

Cawsey, Ian

Hoon, Geoffrey

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hope, Phil

Chaytor, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Church, Ms Judith

Hoyle, Lindsay

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hurst, Alan

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hutton, John

Iddon, Dr Brian

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Clelland, David

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Clwyd, Ann

Coaker, Vermon

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Cohen, Harry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Coleman, Iain

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cooper, Yvette

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Corbett, Robin

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Corston, Ms Jean

Kemp, Fraser

Cousins, Jim

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Cranston, Ross

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Kingham, Ms Tess

Darvill, Keith

Lepper, David

1328

Levitt, Tom

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Linton, Martin

Rooker, Jeff

Livingstone, Ken

Rooney, Terry

Lock, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Love, Andrew

Roy, Frank

McAllion, John

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Ryan, Ms Joan

McCabe, Steve

Salter, Martin

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Sawford, Phil

Macdonald, Calum

Sedgemore, Brian

McDonnell, John

Shaw, Jonathan

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sheerman, Barry

McIsaac, Shona

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Shipley, Ms Debra

Mackinlay, Andrew

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McNamara, Kevin

Singh, Marsha

McNulty, Tony

Skinner, Dennis

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWilliam, John

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Snape, Peter

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Spellar, John

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Squire, Ms Rachel

Martlew, Eric

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Maxton, John

Stevenson, George

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Stinchcombe, Paul

Meale, Alan

Stoate, Dr Howard

Michael, Alun

Stott, Roger

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Miller, Andrew

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mitchell, Austin

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Moran, Ms Margaret

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Thomas Gareth R (Harrow W)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Timms, Stephen

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Tipping, Paddy

Mountford, Kali

Todd, Mark

Mudie, George

Touhig, Don

Mudie, George

Trickett, Jon

Norris, Dan

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

O'Hara, Eddie

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Olner, Bill

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pearson, Ian

Ward, Ms Claire

Perham, Ms Linda

Wareing, Robert N

Pickthall, Colin

Watts, David

Pike, Peter L

White, Brian

Plaskitt, James

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Pollard, Kerry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Pond, Chris

Pope, Greg

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Pound, Stephen

Wills, Michael

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Winnick, David

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Primarolo, Dawn

Wise, Audrey

Prosser, Gwyn

Wood, Mike

Purchase, Ken

Woolas, Phil

Rammell, Bill

Worthington, Tony

Raynsford, Nick

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. John McFall and

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Mr. David Jamieson.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Baker, Norman

Allan, Richard

Baldry, Tony

Amess, David

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Arbuthnot, James

Bercow, John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Blunt, Crispin

1329

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Key, Robert

Brake, Tom

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Brand, Dr Peter

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Brazier, Julian

Kirkwood, Archy

Breed, Colin

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lansley, Andrew

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Leigh, Edward

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Letwin, Oliver

Burnett, John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Burns, Simon

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Burstow, Paul

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Loughton, Tim

Cash, William

Luff, Peter

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Chidgey, David

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Chope, Christopher

MacKay, Andrew

Clappison, James

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Madel, Sir David

Collins, Tim

Malins, Humfrey

Colvin, Michael

Maples, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Cotter, Brian

May, Mrs Theresa

Cran, James

Moss, Malcolm

Curry, Rt Hon David

Nicholls, Patrick

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Norman, Archie

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Oaten, Mark

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Öpik, Lembit

Day, Stephen

Ottaway, Richard

Duncan, Alan

Page, Richard

Duncan Smith, Iain

Paice, James

Evans, Nigel

Paterson, Owen

Faber, David

Pickles, Eric

Fabricant, Michael

Prior, David

Fallon, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fearn, Ronnie

Rendel, David

Flight, Howard

Robathan, Andrew

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fox, Dr Liam

Ruffley, David

Fraser, Christopher

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Gale, Roger

St Aubyn, Nick

Garnier, Edward

Sanders, Adrian

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gibb, Nick

Shepherd, Richard

Gill, Christopher

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

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

Gray, James

Soames, Nicholas

Green, Damian

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Greenway, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Spring, Richard

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Stunell, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Swayne, Desmond

Hancock, Mike

Syms, Robert

Harris, Dr Evan

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Harvey, Nick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hayes, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Heald, Oliver

Townend, John

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Tredinnick, David

Horam, John

Trend, Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Tyler, Paul

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Tyrie, Andrew

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Viggers, Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Wardle, Charles

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Webb, Steve

Jenkin, Bernard

Wells, Bowen

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Keetch, Paul

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

1330

Wilkinson, John

Yeo, Tim

Willetts, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Willis, Phil

Mr. Nigel Waterson and

Woodward, Shaun

Mr. John Whittingdale.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 (HC 506), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [3 February], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motions relating to local government finance.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 31) (HC 507), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Ms Armstrong.]
The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 109.

Division No. 155]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Ainger, Nick

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clelland, David

Alexander, Douglas

Clwyd, Ann

Allen, Graham

Coaker, Vermon

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cohen, Harry

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Coleman, Iain

Ashton, Joe

Cooper, Yvette

Atherton, Ms Candy

Corbett, Robin

Atkins, Charlotte

Corbyn, Jeremy

Austin, John

Corston, Ms Jean

Barnes, Harry

Cousins, Jim

Barron, Kevin

Cranston, Ross

Battle, John

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bayley, Hugh

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Beard, Nigel

Darvill, Keith

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Davidson, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Benton, Joe

Dawson, Hilton

Bermingham, Gerald

Dean, Mrs Janet

Best, Harold

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Betts, Clive

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Blears, Ms Hazel

Doran, Frank

Blizzard, Bob

Drown, Ms Julia

Boateng, Paul

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Edwards, Huw

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Efford, Clive

Browne, Desmond

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Burden, Richard

Ennis, Jeff

Burgon, Colin

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Butler, Mrs Christine

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Byers, Stephen

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Flint, Caroline

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foulkes, George

Cann, Jamie

Galloway, George

Caplin, Ivor

Gapes, Mike

Casale, Roger

Gardiner, Barry

Caton, Martin

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Cawsey, Ian

Gerrard, Neil

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Chaytor, David

Godman, Norman A

Church, Ms Judith

Godsiff, Roger

Clapham, Michael

Goggins, Paul

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Grocott, Bruce

Grogan, John

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hain, Peter

1331

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mountford, Kali

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Mudie, George

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Norris, Dan

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hepburn, Stephen

O'Hara, Eddie

Heppell, John

Olner, Bill

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Palmer, Dr Nick

Hill, Keith

Pearson, Ian

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Perham, Ms Linda

Hoey, Kate

Pickthall, Colin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pike, Peter L

Hope, Phil

Plaskitt, James

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pollard, Kerry

Hoyle, Lindsay

Pond, Chris

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pope, Greg

Hurst, Alan

Pound, Stephen

Hutton, John

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Rammell, Bill

Raynsford, Nick

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Rooker, Jeff

Kemp, Fraser

Rooney, Terry

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Roy, Frank

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Kingham, Ms Tess

Ryan, Ms Joan

Lepper, David

Salter, Martin

Levitt, Tom

Sawford, Phil

Linton, Martin

Sedgemore, Brian

Livingstone, Ken

Shaw, Jonathan

Lock, David

Sheerman, Barry

Love, Andrew

Shipley, Ms Debra

McAllion, John

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Singh, Marsha

McCabe, Steve

Skinner, Dennis

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Macdonald, Calum

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McDonnell, John

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McFall, John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McIsaac, Shona

Snape, Peter

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Soley, Clive

Mackinlay, Andrew

Spellar, John

McNamara, Kevin

Squire, Ms Rachel

McNulty, Tony

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

MacShane, Denis

Stevenson, George

Mactaggart, Fiona

Stinchcombe, Paul

McWilliam, John

Stoate, Dr Howard

Mallaber, Judy

Stott, Roger

Marek, Dr John

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Martlew, Eric

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Maxton, John

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Timms, Stephen

Meale, Alan

Tipping, Paddy

Michael, Alun

Todd, Mark

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Touhig, Don

Miller, Andrew

Trickett, Jon

Mitchell, Austin

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Ward, Ms Claire

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Wareing, Robert N

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Watts, David

1332

White, Brian

Wood, Mike

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Woolas, Phil

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Worthington, Tony

Wills, Michael

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Winnick, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Mr. David Jamieson and

Wise, Audrey

Mr. Jim Dowd.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Allan, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Arbuthnot, James

Jenkin, Bernard

Baker, Norman

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Keetch, Paul

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Bercow, John

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Kirkwood, Archy

Blunt, Crispin

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Lansley, Andrew

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Leigh, Edward

Brake, Tom

Letwin, Oliver

Brand, Dr Peter

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Breed, Colin

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Luff, Peter

Burnett, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Burstow, Paul

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Cable, Dr Vincent

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

May, Mrs Theresa

Nicholls, Patrick

Chidgey, David

Oaten, Mark

Chope, Christopher

Öpik, Lembit

Clappison, James

Ottaway, Richard

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Paterson, Owen

Collins, Tim

Pickles, Eric

Colvin, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Cotter, Brian

Rendel, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Robathan, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Ruffley, David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Duncan, Alan

St Aubyn, Nick

Duncan Smith, Iain

Sanders, Adrian

Evans, Nigel

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

Fearn, Ronnie

Soames, Nicholas

Flight, Howard

Spring, Richard

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Stunell, Andrew

Foster, Don (Bath)

Syms, Robert

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Fox, Dr Liam

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Gale, Roger

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Garnier, Edward

Tredinnick, David

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Tyler, Paul

Gibb, Nick

Walter, Robert

Gill, Christopher

Webb, Steve

Greenway, John

Wells, Bowen

Grieve, Dominic

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Wilkinson, John

Hancock, Mike

Willetts, David

Harris, Dr Evan

Willis, Phil

Harvey, Nick

Yeo, Tim

Hayes, John

Heald, Oliver

Tellers for the Noes:

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Mr. Nigel Waterson and

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Mr. John Whittingdale.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1998–99 (HC 508), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.[Ms Armstrong.]
The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 93.

Division No. 156]

[10.23 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Ainger, Nick

Edwards, Huw

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Efford, Clive

Alexander, Douglas

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Allen, Graham

Ennis, Jeff

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Ashton, Joe

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Atherton, Ms Candy

Flint, Caroline

Atkins, Charlotte

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Austin, John

Foulkes, George

Barnes, Harry

Galloway, George

Barron, Kevin

Gapes, Mike

Battle, John

Gardiner, Barry

Bayley, Hugh

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Beard, Nigel

Gerard, Neil

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Godman, Norman A

Benton, Joe

Godsiff, Roger

Bermingham, Gerald

Goggins, Paul

Best, Harold

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Betts, Clive

Grocott, Bruce

Blears, Ms Hazel

Grogan, John

Blizzard, Bob

Hain, Peter

Boateng, Paul

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Browne, Desmond

Hepburn, Stephen

Burden, Richard

Heppell, John

Burgon, Colin

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Butler, Mrs Christine

Hill, Keith

Byers, Stephen

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hoey, Kate

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hope, Phil

Cann, Jamie

Hopkins, Kelvin

Caplin, Ivor

Hoyle, Lindsay

Casale, Roger

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Caton, Martin

Hurst, Alan

Cawsey, Ian

Hutton, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Chaytor, David

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Church, Ms Judith

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clapham, Michael

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Clelland, David

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Clwyd, Ann

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Coaker, Vermon

Kemp, Fraser

Cohen, Harry

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Cooper, Yvette

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Corbett, Robin

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kingham, Ms Tess

Corston, Ms Jean

Lepper, David

Cousins, Jim

Levitt, Tom

Cranston, Ross

Linton, Martin

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Livingstone, Ken

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Lock, David

Darvill, Keith

Love, Andrew

Davidson, Ian

McAllion, John

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

McAvoy, Thomas

Dawson, Hilton

McCabe, Steve

Dean, Mrs Janet

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Macdonald, Calum

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

McDonnell, John

Doran, Frank

McFall, John

Drown, Ms Julia

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McIsaac, Shona

1334

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ryan, Ms Joan

McNamara, Kevin

Salter, Martin

McNulty, Tony

Sawford, Phil

MacShane, Denis

Sedgemore, Brian

Mactaggart, Fiona

Shaw, Jonathan

McWilliam, John

Sheerman, Barry

Mallaber, Judy

Shipley, Ms Debra

Marek, Dr John

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Singh, Marsha

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Maxton, John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Meale, Alan

Snape, Peter

Michael, Alun

Soley, Clive

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Spellar, John

Miller, Andrew

Squire, Ms Rachel

Mitchell, Austin

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stevenson, George

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stinchcombe, Paul

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Stott, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mountford, Kali

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mudie, George

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Norris, Dan

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

O'Hara, Eddie

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Olner, Bill

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Timms, Stephen

Pearson, Ian

Tipping, Paddy

Perham, Ms Linda

Todd, Mark

Pickthall, Colin

Touhig, Don

Pike, Peter L

Trickett, Jon

Plaskitt, James

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Pollard, Kerry

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Pond, Chris

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pope, Greg

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pound, Stephen

Ward, Ms Claire

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Wareing, Robert N

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Watts, David

Primarolo, Dawn

White, Brian

Prosser, Gwyn

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Purchase, Ken

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Rammell, Bill

Wills, Michael

Raynsford, Nick

Winnick, David

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Wise, Audrey

Wood, Mike

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Woolas, Phil

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Worthington, Tony

Rooker, Jeff

Rooney, Terry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mr. David Jamieson and

Roy, Frank

Mr. Jim Dowd.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Burstow, Paul

Allan, Richard

Cable, Dr Vincent

Arbuthnot, James

Cash, William

Baker, Norman

Chidgey, David

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Chope, Christopher

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clappison, James

Bercow, John

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Blunt, Crispin

Collins, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Colvin, Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Cotter, Brian

Brake, Tom

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Brand, Dr Peter

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Breed, Colin

Davis, Rt Hon David (Hattemprice)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Duncan, Alan

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Burnett, John

Evans, Nigel

1335

Fearn, Ronnie

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Flight, Howard

Nicholls, Patrick

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Oaten, Mark

Foster, Don (Bath)

Öpik, Lembit

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Ottaway, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam

Paterson, Owen

Gale, Roger

Pickles, Eric

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Rendel, David

Gibb, Nick

Robathan, Andrew

Gill, Christopher

Ruffley, David

Greenway John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Grieve, Dominic

St Aubyn, Nick

Hancock, Mike

Sanders, Adrian

Harris, Dr Evan

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

Harvey, Nick

Spring, Richard

Hayes, John

Stunell, Andrew

Heald, Oliver

Syms, Robert

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hunter, Andrew

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Tredinnick, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Tyler, Paul

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tyrie, Andrew

Keetch, Paul

Walter, Robert

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Webb, Steve

Kirkwood, Archy

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Wilkinson, John

Lansley, Andrew

Willis, Phil

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Yeo, Tim

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Tellers for the Noes:

Luff, Peter

Mr. Nigel Waterson and

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Mr. John Whittingdale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITIONS

  A3 (Hindhead)
  10.33 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I wish to present a petition signed by 7,000 people collected by individuals and organisations throughout not only my constituency but that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). People from throughout the region have signed the petition to complain about the appalling delays at Hindhead, an area with a landscape of national and international significance, where the road conditions are such that businesses are suffering and safety is being jeopardised and where there is growing impatience. The petition urges the Minister of Transport to accelerate the A3 Hindhead scheme under the review of trunk roads at the earliest opportunity.
  To lie upon the Table.

Old People's Homes (Kent)
10.34 pm
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Mr. David Buss, the branch secretary of Kent Unison. The petition is supported by 26,000 other signatories and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall—Andrews) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), for Gillingham (Mr. Clark), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Dover (Mr. Prosser).
The petition states:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of Mr. David Buss, the Secretary of Kent Unison declares that:
The proposal by Kent county council to privatise the county council's 35 Linked Service Centres (Old People's Homes) will adversely affect the quality of care provided to the elderly people of Kent and is likely to lead to job losses.
The petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Kent county council will be fulfilling its statutory obligations if it proceeds with the sell-off of its Linked Service Centres.
And the petitioner remains etc.
To lie upon the Table.

South Crofty Tin Mine
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
10.35 pm
Ms Candy Atherton: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about the difficulties at South Crofty tin mine. The mine is to close in March, bringing to an end 4,000 years of tin mining in Cornwall. That plain fact disguises the importance of tin in the Cornish identity. Generation after generation has owned or mined tin in Cornwall, and that famous and unsurpassable feast the true Cornish pasty emerged from the depths of tin miners' lunch boxes. Today, it is difficult to find a tin or copper mine anywhere in the world where a Cornish miner cannot be found, and a glance at any world atlas shows Redruths and Cambornes from Australia to South Africa.
Tin and copper brought wealth and prosperity to my constituents' forebears. Not so many years ago, my constituents boasted the richest square mile in the world. Before the Great Reform Bill, Cornwall dispatched 36 Members of Parliament—the largest number of any county in England—whereas, today, we now send five. That shows the power of King Tin—oh, that it were so today. Sadly, we are in the exactly opposite position.
Camborne and Falmouth suffer some of the highest levels of poverty and unemployment, some of the poorest housing, some of the worst health and some of the lowest wages in the United Kingdom. If I had more time, I would go into those problems in greater detail—as I have done in the House in the past and as I shall do again. Today, however, we are talking specifically about South Crofty—which stands, proud, between Redruth and Camborne, adjacent to the Camborne school of mines. With Carn Brea towering above, South Crofty determines the Pool landscape.
It would be fair to say that the tin industry has been in decline for many years. Year after year, mines have closed. Cornwall now has more mine museums than working mines. In the early 1990s, a rescue operation resulted in Cornish men and women buying shares in South Crofty and in the Canada-based Crew Group purchasing and taking control of the mine. I should say that, in some ways, the Crew Group has assisted in our campaign to save the mine. I could wish, however, that many of the proposals that we have come up with during the past few months had been thought about and implemented. Perhaps then we would not be in the position in which we find ourselves today due to the international price of tin and the high rate of sterling.
At the end of July last year, South Crofty announced that it was to close. It is difficult to describe the dismay that greeted the news—not just among miners and their families, but throughout the wider community and the whole of Cornwall. Cornwall without a tin mine would be like Newcastle without coals, Dover without the white cliffs or Edinburgh without Arthur's Seat. Tin mines are Cornwall.
The closure announcement hit hard in a number of ways: economically, culturally, historically and emotionally. Economically, the closure is devastating as it involves the loss of some 280 jobs at the mine and an estimated 1,000 in the wider community. Many of those
1338
280 were highly paid development miners. The announcement comes just months after St. Ivel and English China Clay shed 300 jobs each. The jobs that replaced them are generally lower paid.
Unemployment is stubbornly high in my constituency—far higher than the national average. In December, male unemployment in Redruth and Camborne stood at 16.2 per cent. Dismay cannot begin to describe the reaction to the announcement. There is grief, fear for the future, anger, demonstrations and depression—the list goes on.
The closure was also culturally devastating because of the history of mining in Cornwall. Hon. Members whose only view of Cornwall is from holidays enjoyed or television programmes such as "Wish you were here" may not understand the importance of the closure. They may imagine that we survive on the beauty alone, but nothing could be further from the truth. Our traditional industries are in terminal decline. Fishing, farming, quarrying and even tourism face structural problems as does the whole county of Cornwall. The announcement hit the county like a tornado. It was rocked to its core and I fear that it has been rocked again by today's announcement.
Last July, Ministers—including the my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, whom I immediately sought to meet—felt that further assistance for the mine was inappropriate. Management was saying that the game was up and I directed my energies to bringing new opportunities to west Cornwall. At the request of the trade union, however, I met senior shop stewards at the mine on the Saturday after the Thursday morning closure announcement.
At that stage, I felt that we should not attempt to save the mine as that would offer false hopes, but the miners persuaded me that there were possibilities to be explored and, despite today's news, it was right to pursue that objective. The following Monday, I met the management and the Transport and General Workers Union with their local organiser, Tony Phillips. It would be fair to say that the first hour was tense. At one stage, I feared that no moves could be made to take us forward, but eventually all agreed that a rescue could and should be pursued. In my view, what followed was extraordinary.
The following week, a task force was formed comprising two groups working in parallel—one developing a rescue package for South Crofty and the other working to develop new jobs in west Cornwall. The second group, including the TEC now known as Prosper, local authorities, English Partnerships, the Government office for the south west and many others, continued their search to tackle the unemployment problems.
The result of that work is the west Cornwall employment programme, which proposes 1,000 new jobs and which I very much hope the Government will view with great sympathy. I hope that Ministers will consider fast-tracking the programme as it would enable employers to take on ex-Crofty men with a subsidy. It is also vital that we have major redundancy status.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Lady has described well the problems that face Cornwall and the shock and dismay at the decision. She knows that I do not agree with the decision. Tonight, the key issue is what can be done for those 300-odd families who are losing jobs at the mine, as well as the others in her

1339
constituency and in mine—at the Wheal Jane processing plant—who will lose jobs as a result of the closure. I hope that the Minister understands that and can announce—ideally tonight, or at least in the next few days—the go-ahead for the initiative programme, on which there has been much hard work. It deserves support and it will give hope to those families in this week of such a disastrous announcement for Cornwall.
Ms Atherton: The hon. Gentleman is right. I hope and believe that the Government are more than willing to consider assisting us in every way possible.
In the early stages, those of us who were attempting to save the mine explored various possibilities: we considered wind energy to reduce the £1.5 million electricity cost; we considered a smelter in Cornwall to save our exporting tin only to reimport it from Malaysia; and we launched a medallion, which raised £40,000 in the local community. We decided to explore ways to combat the difference between the ever-declining price of tin and the cost of mining Crofty tin. We decided to examine ways to reduce mining costs and to bring new developments and enterprises to the site. It sounds easy, but in practice it is difficult.
Some early ideas were soon rejected. South Crofty management, led by David Giddings, pursued the options tirelessly. Wind energy was not economical. A smelter came out of the equation in the short term. The work force took a 10 per cent. pay cut, causing great hardship in many households, and more than redoubled their efforts to extract ever more ore from the mine. The unions started working with the management to tackle long-standing and—in their words—archaic methods of working. South Crofty management, supported by the Crew Group, started to look for buyers to forward sell Crofty tin. That was a long, drawn-out business and it was not resolved until the new year. I am running away with the story again.
The Crew Group agreed to continue searching for a route out of the closure. I began battering Ministers with letters and meetings about our case. Many Ministers had their summer holidays disrupted because of our plight. I make no apology for that.
In September, I led a group from Cornwall to meet my hon. Friend the Minister. Interest in the meeting was unrivalled. A small media armada followed us. There was general euphoria when my hon. Friend said that if we came up with a viable package, the Government, like Barkis, would be willing. The key point was viability.
Since September, management and others have been pursuing a range of possibilities. A linchpin was the environmentally friendly energy plan to convert waste oil and household waste into electricity to power an engine. That engine could provide Crofty with free electricity and enable it to sell electricity to the national grid. It would also create precious new jobs. I hope that the proposal will still be considered in spite of today's announcement.
Another proposal now sadly on hold was headed by Geoscience—a company with which many hon. Members will be familiar. It led the hot rocks project that was sadly and short-sightedly stopped by the previous Administration. Geoscience proposed an underground laboratory facility for the international nuclear industry.
1340
I stress that there were and are no plans to store nuclear waste at South Crofty. The geology is unsuitable. However, the industry needs to conduct experiments on how shattered rocks behave. The project is on hold because the Government have yet to decide whether the country will store nuclear waste underground. In another place, a Select Committee is exploring that.
The Geoscience proposal, though, was a key element in short-term funding. If, as seems likely, South Crofty is closed, and later floods, it may cost the Government many millions of pounds to locate such a laboratory elsewhere. Our failure to get the project off the ground has had severe effects on cash flow in the total package.
A deal was struck with a leading metals commodities company, which at least guaranteed a tin price the company would receive for two years, but the deal was for far less than we had all hoped for. The Crew Group has agreed a further £1 million cash injection, and recently we used the money raised from the medallions to re-employ development miners. Since the new year, however, events have taken a downward turn. The loss of Geoscience left a hole in the budget. I cannot describe my dismay that the final package was for more than was originally planned.
I have an image of a dusty office in the Department of Trade and Industry where a jam jar on the shelf is marked "South Crofty". In that jam jar is £4.7 million which, with the rest of the £11.8 million, would have made up the rescue package that we were putting forward. The request to the Government was for £6 million. I recognise that that did not add up to a viable package, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and her right hon. Friends will look at the regional case for Cornwall.
The county, particularly west Cornwall, is crying out for help. Surrounded by water, we cannot look elsewhere for jobs. The people of Cornwall fear that they have been forgotten. I am determined that they will not be forgotten and I shall fight for both traditional and new industries in west Cornwall.
It is clear that many environmental issues have financial implications for the Government. Keeping the mine dry would make environmental and economic sense. If, in a few months' time, sterling has fallen and the price of tin has risen, it will be a tragedy if the mine is dead through flooding. Similarly, if the Government decided to pursue the underground route for storage of nuclear waste, South Crofty would be unusable—at a possible cost of many millions of pounds.
In relation to these and others matters, I shall be seeking urgent meetings with Ministers, particularly those in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We must keep our options open. I cannot stress enough my personal disappointment, along with that of the people of Cornwall, that we have failed in our objective, and that families across my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) will be facing difficult times ahead.
This is a bleak day for the people of Cornwall, but I am determined that we will pick ourselves up and march onward. We will create new jobs, building on our economy. The people of the county are resilient and we will move forward from this with, 1 am sure, the Government's help.
10.52 pm
The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We have just heard a very wonderful and fine speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on her eloquence, passion and commitment. She has led a tremendous campaign. and it would be fair to say that she has earned the admiration of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Let there be absolutely no doubt that the Government share my hon. Friend's concern about the impact that the closure of the South Crofty tin mine will have on the economy of Cornwall, particularly west Cornwall, which already suffers high unemployment. Not only have people lost their jobs, but valuable job opportunities for young people coming on to the job market have been lost.
The Government of course recognise, too, that the closure will mark the end of a long and proud history of tin mining in Cornwall. It stretches back hundreds of years and will therefore have a very special meaning to many people. All of us in the House recognise the great contribution that tin mining has made to the history of our country.
South Crofty has made a significant contribution to both the Cornish and the national economy. It is a tribute to the productivity and ingenuity of the South Crofty work force and management that they have been able to continue production in the face of significant disadvantages to their competitiveness. I know, for example, that, despite the problems of investment at South Crofty, the processing plant is regarded by many as the most efficient in the world. The miners can take some comfort in the fact that that is recognised.
With regard to the financial position of the company, I must say that very early on it was made clear to me that the owners—the Canadian-based Crew Group—had reached a point beyond which they were not prepared to go in terms of further investment in what they saw as a loss-making operation. The £1 million cash injection mentioned is not directly for South Crofty, but for a separate and ring-fenced project to provide power.
When I met a delegation from South Crofty in September last year, I warmly welcomed the tremendous efforts that were being made by the company, its employees and the trade union—as well as the local community and my hon. Friend—to find ways to secure the future of mining operations at South Crofty. I said that my Department would deal as a priority with an application for regional selective assistance. That would be assessed against the normal criteria. Crucially, those include demonstrating the viability of the project.
The company has, since that meeting, worked hard in developing its case for RSA, with help from its local partners, the local community, the Government office for the south west and my Department. No stone has been left unturned. No group could have worked harder. No Member of Parliament could have done more for her constituents. Local people can truly feel proud of the efforts that they have made.
Despite all those efforts to develop the best possible case, it is clear that the fundamental problem of the competitiveness of the mine cannot be overcome. The South Crofty project does not meet the viability criterion. Against that background, I have reluctantly had no choice
1342
but to reject the case. I explored all the other opportunities provided by the legislation, so seriously did and I and my officials take the matter.
As to the possible environmental impact resulting from closure, I can assure the House that the Environment Agency has over the past several months been assessing, with South Crofty, the implications of the ending of commercial operations. The agency, which is answerable to the Minister for the Environment, will take decisions shortly on the most appropriate action to secure protection of the local area.
Mr. Andrew George: On the matter of the assessment for RSA, does the Minister accept that tin mining is different from the production of ball bearings or bed springs and cannot be assessed in quite the same way? Assessing the project under these criteria is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Will she have another look at the matter, in view of the fact that the company has made it clear that that support would keep the company in balance for three years, giving it the chance to look at other options over those three years to help preserve the future of tin mining in Cornwall?
Mrs. Roche: I must contradict the hon. Gentleman, who I hope accepts that I have sought to keep him very much informed of the discussions on this matter. The criteria that we have are exactly the same. The project has been assessed, and every detail has been thoroughly looked at. The company itself does not think that it is viable.
I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and he and I have agreed that we shall keep in close touch and take a personal interest in the situation as it develops, and as the agency discusses the most appropriate action to secure the protection of the local area.
The Government are ready to respond to the closure of South Crofty. The Government office for the south west and all the local agencies will continue to work closely with the local authorities, through the West Cornwall task force, to consider what can be done to alleviate the impact. Additionally, I shall work with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to consider how to assist the task force.
The immediate priority is to help those who will lose their jobs. The Employment Service has already granted the company major redundancy status, which provides immediate access to the full range of Employment Service jobseeking programmes, and we shall ensure that a great deal of effort and commitment is put in. Cornwall is a pathfinder area for the new deal, ahead of the national implementation in April. That is an extremely important programme.
Substantial help is available to Cornwall, in recognition of the extent of its economic problems, through Government and European programmes to encourage suitable employment-creating projects in the area, and through training and support from organisations such as business link and the training and enterprise councils.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are currently considering a bid for £700,000 of funding in single regeneration budget round 4, towards a £6.5 million total cost; that is designed to create additional employment opportunities for those most affected by the decline of

1343
traditional industries. The signs look extremely encouraging for the bid. I have asked officials to keep me fully informed of its progress. We will do all that we possibly can to progress the bid, which has been made by several partners and is being considered extremely seriously.
This is undoubtedly a very sad day for Cornwall, but it is important to look to the future. The county has many advantages and opportunities for modern businesses. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to talk about her commitment to building businesses today and in the future. Cornwall's advantages include a wonderful environment, an excellent and skilled work force and much improved communications.
I am aware that excellent work is being done, for example, by the "Cornwall in pursuit of excellence" initiative, to promote the county as a place where business can compete and win in world markets. Cornwall has successfully attracted inward investment by companies such as USA-owned Harman International, Contico Europe and Pall Corporation, all based in the Redruth and Camborne area.
We need, at this time of great sadness and tragedy, to trumpet the good news as well as to reflect on the past. I wonder, for example, how many hon. Members are aware that Stralfors, the printers in Falmouth, has secured a £6 million-a-year contract to produce all the national lottery pay slips and receipts; that Allen and Heath, of Penryn, exports 90 per cent. of its state-of-the-art audio mixing consoles; that Radiocode Clocks in Helston has
1344
secured major contracts to supply the United States navy with precision time frequency equipment; and that Pendennis Shipyards, of Falmouth, exports up to 80 per cent. of its luxury yachts, including to the middle east, USA and Australia. Cornwall can build on such successes, and we must talk about them, because they involve skilled and resourceful people.
I am confident that there is a determination in the county to overcome the current economic problems. The Government will play their part in helping that to happen.
My hon. Friend was right to talk of the resilience of the people of Cornwall. Her constituents and those of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) have shown their resilience in the past few weeks. Now we need to build on the future, to find out how we can go forward. That is important.
In the campaign that has been waged, we have seen a determined effort by local people working together. I want to build on that local effort, which was led by the local Member of Parliament, to ensure the future of that community. I am confident that there is a determination in the county to overcome the present economic problems. I want to assure the House and Cornwall that the Government will play their part in helping that to happen. We will continue to do all we can. I will continue to take a great interest in the area, as will all my colleagues. Together, we will work and ensure that we build on the best—the strength—of Cornwall, and we will look towards the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Homelessness
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the levels of recorded homelessness over the last 10 years(a) in Hampshire, (b) in Winchester City Council area and (c) nationally. [24550]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The available data on the numbers of households in the years since 1987 that were in priority need, and for which local authorities in England accepted responsibility to provide accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985, are set out in the table.

  Year

  Winchester

  Hampshire

  England

  1987

  169

  not available

  98,890

  1988

  111

  not available

  102,500

  1989

  161

  2,266

  110,380

  1990

  159

  2,639

  128,090

  1991

  142

  3,225

  137,250

  1992

  185

  3,216

  138,740

  1993

  131

  2,874

  127,630

  1994

  118

  2,787

  118.490

  1995

  125

  2,904

  117,490

  1996

  154

  3,021

  113,560

  1 data for 3 quarters only.

  There was a change in recording practice from the second quarter of 1991 which relates to the recording of intentionally homeless households which have been excluded from acceptance figures since then. Estimated figures for England on this revised basis have been produced for the period prior to the change and the answer uses these adjusted figures. Similar estimates have not been made at county or local authority so the figures for Winchester and Hampshire for the years up to 1991 may include some acceptances of intentionally homeless households.

  Minicabs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that minicabs tendering for rail replacement services will be required to provide vehicles with disabled access. [25955]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the event of a disruption to passenger train services, franchise operators are required by the terms of their Franchise Agreement to use all reasonable endeavours to provide or secure the provision of such alternative transport arrangements for their passengers as are reasonably feasible.
  724
  We have no powers under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to introduce accessibility requirements for minicabs. Our priority is to use the powers which are currently provided by the Act to bring forward accessibility regulations for taxis, buses and coaches and rail vehicles. We understand that access to minicabs is of concern to some disability organisations and we will keep the issue under review.

  Paddock Wood to Tonbridge Line
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on punctuality of the delay caused by the recent trespass incident on the Paddock Wood to Tonbridge line by the West Kent Hunt. [26767]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack have advised me that the railway line was blocked for 41 minutes on the 20 January 1998. Three scheduled services were cancelled and there was a total train delay of 603 minutes.

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the report by the British Transport Police on incidents of trespass on the Paddock Wood to Tonbridge railway lines. [26766]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The British Transport Police have not produced a report on incidents of trespass on this line.

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on an incident of trespass by the West Kent Hunt on the railway line between Paddock Wood and Tonbridge; and if he will make a statement. [26769]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have received no representations concerning this incident. Inquiries by the British Transport Police have revealed that only the dogs went onto the track. Huntsmen did not enter the track until they were instructed by rail staff to remove the carcases.

  Aircraft (Mode C Data)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the completion of the NATS research to determine the accuracy of Mode C data when aircraft are in close proximity. [27011]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am advised by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. that they expect to complete this research in April 1998.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the audit of the flow management arrangements for the London Area and Terminal Control Centre to be completed. [27013]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am advised by National Air Traffic Services Ltd., who run the London Area and Terminal Control Centre (LATCC), that the audit of the flow management arrangements for the LATCC by the Safety Regulation Group of the Civil Aviation Authority should be completed by the end of next month.
  725
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate the CAA and National Air Traffic Services have made of the time required to complete work on the air traffic control system to deal with the millennium computer compliance issue; [27010]

  (2) what is the compliance date for the computer system in operation at the Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre to address the millennium computer compliance problem. [26998]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  National Air Traffic Services Limited's plans for Year 2000 compliance commenced in early 1996 and include compliance of its operational systems and service by the end of 1998. This process includes all relevant testing and assurance activities. The operational systems at the Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre are an integral part of these plans.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of occasions that the application of reduced separation on final approach at Heathrow and Gatwick has been used during the last two years. [27014]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer to my answer of 29 July 1997,Official Report, column 212.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by month for each of the last three years the number of CHIRP reports submitted by air traffic controllers. [27009]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The CHIRP Charitable Trust, which manages the UK Confidential Human Factors Incident Report Programme, has supplied the following monthly figures for confidential reports submitted by air traffic controllers for the year 1995 to 1997 inclusive:

  CHIRP Reports by air traffic controllers per month 1995–1997

  Month

  1995 CHIRP Reports

  1996 CHIRP Reports

  1997 CHIRIP Reports

  January

  0

  0

  1

  February

  0

  0

  2

  March

  0

  0

  1

  April

  0

  4

  2

  May

  0

  3

  10

  June

  6

  5

  2

  July

  2

  6

  1

  August

  1

  3

  7

  September

  2

  1

  1

  October

  2

  0

  2

  November

  2

  2

  7

  December

  1

  0

  3

  Total

  16

  24

  39

  Green Belt
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much land was removed from the Green Belt during the period May 1979 to May 1997. [26761]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  726
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for development of the Green Belt were granted on appeal for each year since May 1979. [26763]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following information has been provided by the Planning Inspectorate. The number of appeals allowed since 1991, in which green belt policy was an issue in deciding the appeal, is set out in the table. The information requested is not available prior to April 1991.

  Year

  Number of appeals allowed

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  627

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  518

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  458

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  378

  1 April 1995–31 March 1996

  337

  1 April 1996–31 March 1997

  361

  1 April 1997–30 January 1998

  327

  Total

  3,006

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [27040]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: The Department has a target of 15 working days from receipt to answer letters from hon. Members. In 1997, the number of replies to reach this target has been 59 per cent., while the average reply time was 20 working days. Once a letter is typed, it is signed as soon as possible, usually overnight the same day, and despatched the following day.

  Rolling Stock Companies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to ensure that ROSCOs invest adequate amounts in improving the quality of rolling stock on the United Kingdom's railways; [27100]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that ROSCOs do not over-charge rail operators; [27101]

  (3) what plans he has to ensure that the public subsidy to the railways is devoted to improving services, with particular reference to the quality of the rolling stock. [27102]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 January that he had asked the Rail Regulator to conduct an urgent and wide-ranging inquiry into the operation of the rolling stock market. The Regulator has been asked specifically to examine the scope for the rolling stock companies to abuse their market power either through excessive pricing, through inadequate investment in new or refurbished rolling stock or more generally through their response to the requirements of train operators to secure improvements in performance. The Regulator has been
  727
  asked to report by the middle of April. The Government will then consider, in the light of the Regulator's recommendations, whether further action should be taken.

  Minerals Extraction Tax
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the benefits of a minerals extraction tax. [27390]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Taxation is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The economic and social benefits of extracting minerals have to be set against the costs, in terms of noise, dust, traffic and impacts on amenity, landscape and habitats. My Department is currently conducting research into these costs and benefits to inform the Chancellor's consideration of whether to proceed in principle to develop a minerals extraction tax.

  Mobile Home Dwellers
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if mobile home dwellers are eligible for assistance under sections 76 to 78 of the Housing Grants and Regeneration Act 1996. [27344]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Sections 77 and 78 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 set out the criteria under which mobile home owners may be eligible for home repair assistance.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will undertake a review of the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, governing the eligibility of ethnic groups living in caravans on local authority sites for home repair assistance under sections 76 to 78; and if he will make a statement. [27347]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Grants under Part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, including Home Repair Assistance, do not and should not depend on the ethnic grouping of the applicant. They are housing grants and eligibility depends on the type and age of the dwelling and the applicant's interest in the property. My Department is currently reviewing the criteria for eligibility for Home Repair Assistance in so far as they relate to the site on which a mobile home is situated.

  Drink Driving
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will establish a successor to the Blennerhassett review on drinking and driving with the remit to consider effects on society as well as road safety considerations. [27353]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 4 February 1998]: The publication earlier this week of the consultation document on drinking and driving will provide a full opportunity for those in all areas of society to comment on the proposed package of measures to reduce the level of drinking and driving. The establishment of a further review could hold up new initiatives at a time when we are anxious to move forward. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library of the House.
  728
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the scientific evidence which indicates that reducing the limit for drivers from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams will have a significant effect on road safety. [27352]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 4 February 1998]: The effect of a reduction in the legal limit from 80 to 50 milligram per 100 millilitres has been the subject of much detailed research. There is reference to a number of the scientific papers containing details of that research in the consultation paper on drinking and driving which was published earlier this week. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and I am sending one directly to my hon. Friend.

  Periodicals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26657]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimate of my Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines from 1995–96 is of the order of:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  622.1k

  1996–97

  606.4k

  1997–98 to 31 January 1998

  532.24k

  1997–98 Full year estimate

  619.1k

  Some of the information requested is not held centrally and gathering it would involve disproportionate cost. Titles include daily and regional newspapers, weekly magazines and trade and technical journals. To list each title would involve disproportionate cost.

  Market Research
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what expenditure has been incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies(a) in 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each; and if he will make a statement. [26653]

  Angela Eagle
  Since 1996, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport and latterly the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has commissioned over 100 market research exercises with a value of over £4,000,000. These range from evaluation of attitudes to cycling initiatives, traffic management schemes, eco-labelling schemes, the housing market, environmental issues etc., to customer satisfaction surveys and evaluating of publicity. Details of these projects along with expenditure, have been placed in the House Library.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the cost of(a) Ministerial cars and drivers and (b) the Department's bill for taxis in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year. [27801]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated costs for the use of Ministerial cars and drivers is as follows:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 to date

  1997–98 full year

  DOE

  361,317

  348,466

  —

  —

  DOT

  247,292

  190,544

  —

  —

  DETR

  —

  —

  424,285

  509,000

  Total

  608,609

  539,010

  424,285

  509,000

  The figures for 1997–98 includes expenditure incurred by the former Departments of the Environment and Transport prior to merger.

  As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 26 January 1998, Official Report, column 15, this Department has reduced the number of Ministerial cars and drivers to 9. The previous Government had 10 cars prior to the General Election.

  The information requested on the Departmental use of taxis cannot be separately identified.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on external consultants in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year; and if he will also estimate the cost savings resulting from the employment of such consultants for each of the above years. [26654]

  Angela Eagle
  Estimated expenditure on external consultants1 since 1995–96 is as follows:

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 to date

  1997–98 full year estimated

  DETR

  70.52

  17.52

  9.48

  13.41

  Agencies

  4.48

  5.48

  2.51

  3.38

  NDPBs

  24.23

  30.52

  24.54

  34.59

  1The definition of external consultants is that used for the 1994 Efficiency Scrutiny on the use of external consultants.

  It is not possible to estimate the annual cost savings resulting from this expenditure, the vast majority of which was for specific programme deliverables.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by grade the number of officials in his Department at grade 730
  3 or above who have (a) taken early retirement, (b) taken official leave, (c) been dismissed, (d) changed jobs within the Department, (e) moved to another Department and (f) been offered and rejected an alternative position (i) within the Department and (ii) in another Department since 1 May. [27462]

  Angela Eagle
  Since 1 May 1997(a) two senior civil servants have retired before pensionable age, (b) no central record is kept of official leave taken, (c) no senior officers have been dismissed, (d) 14 senior staff have changed jobs within the Department largely as a result of the merger of the Departments of the Environment and of Transport which took place in June 1997, (e) 1 senior officer has moved to another Department (f) no senior officers have formally been offered and rejected posts in either this Department or any other Department.

  SAVE II Agencies
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the agencies established in 1997 in the United Kingdom under the SAVE II programme; and if he will make a statement on the objectives of these agencies. [27531]

  Angela Eagle
  I understand that the European Commission propose, under the 1997 round of their SAVE II energy efficiency programme, to support energy agencies in the London Borough of Southwark, and in Milton Keynes. The Commission describes the aim of this element of the SAVE II Programme as to"help local authorities to formulate their energy strategy and to support them in providing all consumers, particularly the general public, with information and assistance".

  Byways
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conclusions he has drawn from the consultation exercise on managing vehicles on byways conducted by his Department. [28561]

  Mr. Meacher
  Motor vehicles on byways can cause considerable localised damage. There may be a need for better management of byways at local level. We therefore:acknowledge that there may be a case for changes to the road traffic regulation powers of highway authorities. We intend to consider whether the scope of the circumstances for making traffic regulation orders should be widened to include nature and landscape conservation. We also intend to look at the scope for streamlining the procedures surrounding traffic regulation orders;
  are publishing today a practical guide to managing vehicles on byways Making the Best of Byways. Copies are being distributed to highway authorities and others with an interest; and
  wish to encourage the promotion of codes of conduct for members of vehicle groups.

  However, we have found no compelling evidence of widespread problems being caused by recreational use of motor vehicles on byways and have concluded that there is no case for a general ban.

  Cotswold Way
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the Cotswold Way. [28562]
  731
  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today approved without modifications the Countryside Commission's proposals for a Cotswold Way National Trail. The Trail will be a long distance walking route between Bath and Chipping Campden, mainly within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, following broadly the route of the existing Cotswold Way path.

  Establishment of this new National Trail will safeguard the Cotswold Way for future generations. It will increase the enjoyment of users through better safety and overall facilities, and introduce new recreational opportunities for many people of varying abilities. It will bring economic benefits to businesses in the area and provide increased protection for wildlife and historic sites. The decision took account of the strong local support for the Commission's proposals and local people will be involved in the planning and development of the route.

  Work-related Deaths and Accidents
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many employees aged under 16 years were(a) killed and (b) injured at work in each year since 1990. [27121]

  Angela Eagle
  The following is the information

  Numbers reported to the health and safety enforcing authorities are:

  Year

  Fatal

  Non-Fatal

  Total

  1990–91

  —

  58.00

  58.00

  1991–92

  —

  30.00

  30.00

  1992–93

  1.00

  35.00

  36.00

  1993–94

  1.00

  33.00

  34.00

  1994–95

  1.00

  35.00

  36.00

  1995–96

  —

  37.00

  37.00

  1996–97P

  1.00

  38.00

  39.00

  1997–98P

  1.00

  46.00

  47.00

  Total

  5.00

  312.00

  317.00

  PProvisional

  Notes:

  1. Non-fatal includes major and over 3 day injuries as defined by the Reporting of Injuries. Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations.

  2. 1996–97, injury figures, excluding fatalities cannot be directly compared with those of previous years which were reported under different legislation.

  3. 1997–98 data covers the period 1 April 1997 to 31 December 1997 and has not been validated.

CABINET OFFICE

  EU Meetings
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio under what arrangements(a) he and (b) his office report to other Ministers on meetings he holds with their EU counterparts; and if he will list those meetings arranged at the instigation of his office. [27893]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Such meetings are generally reported by letter or FCO telegram. They are generally arranged as part of a wider programme of calls, and not instigated by my office.

  Club of Three Meetings
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 1998,Official Report, column 331, on Club of Three meetings which of his Ministerial responsibilities led to his presence at the meeting; and from which Department attending civil servants came. [27889]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I attended the meeting as Minister responsible for the strategic implementation of Government policy and its effective presentation. I was accompanied by HM Ambassador, Bonn.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Deregulation Task Force
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will increase small business representation on the Deregulation Task Force. [25699]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Deregulation Task Force has been replaced by the Better Regulation Task Force. This new group was appointed in September 1997. The change of name reflects the change in approach from deregulation to the wider issue of ensuring regulations are necessary, fair and effective for all concerned. The terms of reference of the Task Force reflect the importance given to the small business representation; they are"to advise Government … taking particular account of the needs of small businesses".

  The establishment of the new Task Force fulfilled the Government's manifesto commitment for half of the members to represent small business. There are therefore no plans to increase small business representation on the Task Force. Other members represent citizen and consumer issues, the voluntary sector, larger businesses and the enforcement community.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those applications under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code which he has received since 1 May indicating(a) the Minister on whose behalf the application was made, (b) the accompanying person, (c) the purpose, venue and dates of the visit and (d) if the application was approved or refused. [23740]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The principles governing foreign travel by Ministers have not changed and are the same as those followed under the previous Administration.

  It is not the practice to publish exchanges of Ministerial correspondence.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors underlay the decision that Lady Irvine's attendance was clearly in the public interest when granting permission
  733
  under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code for her to accompany the Lord Chancellor to Trinidad and Tobago between 4 and 11 January 1998. [24498]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The key principle governing travel remains the same as that applied by the previous Administration, as set out in the Ministerial Code. Anyone who accompanies a Minister at a cost to the public purse must do so for official purposes; it must be in the public interest, and it must receive my prior approval. My Government will continue to adhere to that principle.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the public interest justification under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code when he granted permission to the President of the Board of Trade to take her husband(a) to India and Australia from 15 to 22 November 1997 and (b) to China, Hong Kong and Pakistan from 10 to 21 January 1998; [25568]

  (2) what was the public interest justification under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code when he granted permission to the Attorney-General to take his wife to Dublin on 17 and 18 September 1997; [25570]

  (3) what was the public interest justification under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code when he granted permission to Lord Clinton-Davis to take his wife to Korea and Japan from 21 to 29 September 1997; [25569]

  (4) what was the public interest justification under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code when he granted permission to Lord Williams to take his wife (a) to Jersey on 11 and 12 July 1997 and (b) to the Isle of Man on 15 and 16 August 1997. [25567]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him today.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines he has issued about the granting of diplomatic immunity to Ministers on overseas visits. [27254]

  The Prime Minister
  None. There is no provision in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations for Ministers to be afforded diplomatic immunity whilst on overseas visits.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister what definition of partner will apply to paragraph 83 of the ministerial code of conduct. [25462]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: 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.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Overseas Conference Visitors
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his Department's policy in respect of the provision of conference facilities for overseas visitors in(a) London and (b) the United Kingdom. [26840]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Conference facilities are an important part of business tourism which is why an industry led Working Group has been asked to look at this. Its findings will feed into the strategy for tourism we aim to publish in the summer.

  World Cup
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning the ticket allocation system for the 1998 Football World Cup; and if he will make a statement. [26266]

  Mr. Banks
  I have received a number of representations about the ticket allocation for England and Scotland supporters for this summer's World Cup Finals. Ticketing is a matter for the football authorities. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on this subject on 4 February 1998,Official Report, columns 673–74.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what data he has collated about plans by(a) Government departments, (b) agencies, (c) independent organisations, (d) local authorities and (e) churches to celebrate the millennium; and if he will make a statement. [26496]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department is aware of a great many Millennium projects being undertaken by a wide variety of organisations and an up-to-date list has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  From April 1998, the British Tourist Authority (BTA), through its Regional Tourist Boards, will be collecting information on Millennium-specific events, which will be available from BTA offices or via the Internet at "www.visitbritain.com". This will supersede the paper record kept by my Department in due course.

SCOTLAND

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many working days were lost in Scotland as a result of industrial action in each year since 1978–79. [22379]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: The table shows the number of working days lost (in

  735
  thousands) and the working days lost per 1,000 employees in Scotland in each year since 1978.

  The annual figures are given in the table.

  Working days lost (thousands)

  Working days lost per 1,000 employees in Scotland

  1978

  886

  429

  1979

  3,298

  1,569

  1980

  1,447

  695

  1981

  599

  299

  1982

  634

  328

  1983

  308

  162

  1984

  2,333

  1,210

  1985

  681

  358

  1986

  312

  166

  1987

  425

  226

  1988

  205

  107

  1989

  541

  276

  1990

  122

  62

  1991

  121

  60

  1992

  55

  27

  1993

  111

  57

  1994

  16

  8

  1995

  71

  36

  1996

  119

  60

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Prisoners (Alcohol Consumption)
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners have been apprehended while consuming alcohol in the past three years; how many were charged and found guilty and which prisons were involved; and if he will make a statement. [25830]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: Prisoners who are suspected of consuming alcohol in prison may be charged under Rule 94, Schedule 3(v) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 1994 which states that
  "a prisoner shall be guilty of a breach of discipline if he consumes, takes, injects or ingests any substance which is a prohibited article". Information concerning those charged with consuming alcohol specifically is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nursery Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance will be available to those nursing, midwifery and the professions allied to medicine students who are unsuccessful in applying for maintenance bursaries. [26560]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 30 January 1998]: All students gaining a place on a diploma level nursing or midwifery course in Scotland will have access to non means-tested bursaries. Scottish domiciled students undertaking full-time degree courses leading to qualifications in nursing and midwifery, and those undertaking courses in the professions allied to medicine will have access to means-tested bursaries. Those who do not secure a bursary will be assisted on the same terms as other entrants to full-time higher education from academic year 1998–99 onwards.

  A90
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with implementing the route action plan for the A90 agreed by his Department in 1989, with particular reference to(a) grade separated junctions and (b) the installation of central reserve safety fencing. [27087]

  Mr. McLeish
  The first of the four grade separated junctions announced within the route action plan was opened to traffic in August 1996 at Longforgan. The second, at Inchmichael, was the subject of a Public Local Inquiry last July, and the Reporter's findings and recommendations are now with the Secretary of State for consideration. Publication of the Orders required for the third, at Inchture is scheduled for next month. Preparation work on the last, at Glendoick, along with an additional junction at Kinfauns is at an early stage.

  Safety fencing has been installed on the A90 between Perth and Dundee with the exception of the sections between Halfway and Inchmartine and Longforgan to Swallow Roundabout. Safety fencing is planned to be introduced as part of a package of road improvements on these sections. Proposals for the former were subject to consideration as part of the Public Local Inquiry into Inchmichael Interchange, whilst negotiations are underway to resolve issues arising from the publication of draft Orders for the latter section.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of fatalities and seriously injured involved in accidents on the A90 in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [27086]

  Mr. McLeish
  The table lists the numbers of fatal and serious casualties on the A90 between Perth and the Aberdeen City Boundary from 1988 to 1997 inclusive.

  A90 Fatal and Serious Casualty Numbers (1988–19971)

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  1988

  17

  93

  110

  1989

  27

  104

  131

  1990

  23

  87

  110

  1991

  12

  83

  95

  1992

  14

  75

  89

  1993

  13

  74

  87

  1994

  5

  51

  56

  1995

  21

  58

  79

  1996

  9

  52

  61

  19971

  2

  15

  17

  Total

  143

  692

  835

  1Figures are only part year.

  Sport
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many sports his Department recognises for the purpose of funding; [27129]

  (2) if he will list the chairpersons or chief executives responsible for the governance of sport in Scotland; indicating those who have represented their country; [27130]
  737
  (3) if he will list the governing bodies for sport in Scotland; and how many places there are on each; [27131]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the governing bodies for sport in Scotland. [27132]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The recognition of sports in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Sports Council. In the financial year ended 31 March 1997, the Council provided grants totalling £2.549 million to the 52 governing bodies set out as follows.

  Details are not held centrally of the names or sporting backgrounds of chairpersons and chief executives of governing bodies, or the numbers of members on governing body councils or executives.

  Archery

  Scottish Archery Association

  Scottish Field Archery Association

  Athletics

  Scottish Athletics Federation

  Badminton

  Scottish Badminton Union

  Basketball

  Scottish Basketball Association

  Bowling

  Scottish Bowls Coaching Committee

  Canoeing

  Scottish Canoe Association

  Cricket

  Scottish Cricket Union

  Croquet

  Scottish Croquet Association

  Curling

  Royal Caledonian Curling Club

  Cycling

  Scottish Cyclists Union

  Dance and Keep Fit

  Fitness Scotland

  Health and Beauty Exercise

  Disabled

  Scottish Sports Association for the Disabled

  Fencing

  Scottish Fencing

  Fishing

  Scottish Anglers National Association

  Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling

  Football

  Scottish Women's Football Association

  Games (Highland and Border)

  Scottish Games Association

  Gliding

  Scottish Gliding Association

  Golf

  Scottish Ladies Golfing Association

  Gymnastics

  Scottish Gymnastics

  Hang Gliding

  Scottish Hang Gliding and Paragliding Federation

  738

  Hockey

  Scottish Hockey Union

  Judo

  Scottish Judo Federation

  Karate

  Scottish Karate Board

  Lacrosse

  Scottish Lacrosse Association

  Lawn Tennis

  Scottish Lawn Tennis Association

  Mountaineering

  Mountaineering Council of Scotland

  Netball

  Scottish Netball Association

  Orienteering

  Scottish Orienteering Association

  Parachuting

  Scottish Sport Parachute Association

  Petanque

  Scottish Petanque Association

  Riding

  British Horse Society

  Rowing

  Scottish Amateur Rowing Association

  Rugby

  Scottish Rugby Union

  Scottish Women's Rugby Union

  Shinty

  The Camanachd Association

  Shooting

  Scottish Target Shooting Federation

  Skating

  Scottish Ice Skating Association

  Skiing

  Scottish National Ski Council

  Sub Aqua

  British Sub Aqua Club (Scottish Federation)

  Swimming

  Scottish Amateur Swimming Association

  Table Tennis

  Scottish Table Tennis Association

  Trampolining

  Scottish Trampoline Association

  Triathlon

  Scottish Triathlon Association

  Tug of War

  Scottish Tug of War Association

  Volleyball

  Scottish Volleyball Association

  Water Skiing

  Scottish Water Ski Association

  Weight-Lifting

  Scottish Amateur Weight-Lifters' Association

  Wrestling

  Scottish Amateur Wrestling Association

  Yachting

  Royal Yachting Association, Scotland

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 627, if he will estimate how many individuals made complaints against the police in 1996–97. [27416]

  Mr. McLeish
  As indicated in my previous answer on 10 December 1997,Official Report, columns 627–28, there were 1,333 complaint cases against the police in Scotland in 1996–97. It is not possible, however, to distinguish from the records held centrally on these cases the total number of individuals who made complaints.

  Health Green Paper
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Green Paper on improving Scotland's health will be published; and if he will make a statement. [28494]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Green Paper, "Working Together For A Healthier Scotland", is published today. Copies have been laid before the House and are available in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.

  The Green Paper seeks views on a range of proposals for improving health in Scotland, in a way which recognises the relationship with poverty, poor housing, unemployment and the environment as well as the importance of healthy lifestyles in addressing Scotland's major health problems such as coronary heart disease and cancer. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for a concerted approach across Government and involving local authorities and other bodies whose policies impact on health.

  The Green Paper will be widely distributed and comments are invited by 30 April 1998, with a view to the publication of a White Paper later in the year.

  Market Research
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies(a) in 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each; and if he will make a statement. [26639]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information sought is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Officers Association
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met national officers of the Prison Officers Association; and what issues were discussed. [27399]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend last met the Prison Officers Association on 18 December 1997. He discussed industrial action in the Prison Service and the role of the Prison Officers Association and the Government's position on private prisons.

  Judith Ward
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects a final settlement of compensation to be made to Judith Ward. [27414]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand that the assessor expects to complete his final assessment of the amount of compensation payable to Judith Ward within a few weeks.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many meetings he has had with the President of the Council in order to discuss educating young people about the dangers of illegal drugs; [26295]

  (2) how many meetings he has had with the Secretary of State for Education in order to discuss educating young people about the dangers of illegal drugs. [26294]

  Mr. Straw
  The Cabinet sub-committee on Drug Misuse, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) represents the Home Office, takes the lead in co-ordinating policy on this subject. I have therefore had no formal meetings on this issue with my right hon. Friends, but I have had many informal discussions with them and we correspond regularly.

  Tariffs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the setting of tariffs for Eddie Bolton, Harry Duggan, Joe O'Connell and Hugh Doherty. [27415]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 4 February 1998,Official Report, column 720.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he has undertaken since 1 May 1997 to promote more active regimes within young offenders institutions. [26305]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend announced in a speech on 2 February 1998 that the Prison Service will be piloting welfare-to-work programmes over the coming year in nine young offender institutions. Intensive eight-week courses of job preparation and skills training will be designed so that on release the young offenders can gain maximum benefit from the Government's New Deal for 18 to 24 year-olds.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consideration he has given to re-investing the projected efficiency savings from the computerisation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in order to eliminate the backlog of asylum applications; [26518]
  741
  (2) what efficiency savings, expressed as a percentage, he expects to result from the computerisation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [26515]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate Caseworking Programme is a privately financed project where the supplier, Siemens Business Services, shares the efficiency benefits as payment for the Programme. Any substantial increase in casework output in order to reduce backlogs would require additional funding. The future funding levels will be decided in the light of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Reviews. Siemens Business Services forecast that, when fully effective, the new systems will improve efficiency by 40 per cent.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [26919]

  Mr. Straw
  No senior civil servants in the pay band covering posts at the level equivalent to grade 3 or above have(a) resigned, (b) retired before pensionable age or (c) moved to different responsibilities within the Department since 1 May 1997.

  Persons cautioned and defendants prosecuted and found guilty at magistrates' courts for offences relating to the employment of children by type of offence and result, 1990–1996

  England and Wales

  Offence description/ Year

  Total cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  Total sentenced

  Causing a child or young person to be in any street, &c. for purpose of begging [Children and Young Persons Act 1933, S4]

  1990

  —

  7

  5

  5

  1991

  1

  6

  6

  6

  1992

  1

  21

  19

  19

  1993

  2

  29

  25

  25

  1994

  4

  14

  11

  11

  1995

  2

  39

  31

  31

  1996

  1

  32

  29

  29

  Causing or allowing person under 18 to go abroad to perform for profit [Children and Young Persons Act 1933 S25 & 26]

  1992

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1994

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1995

  —

  7

  7

  7

  Offences against the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920, S1—so far as relates to industrial undertakings other than mines, factories and workshops

  1990

  —

  2

  2

  2

  Offences against the Education Act 1944, S58 to 60—including offences against byelaws as to employment of children (except offences relating to mines, factories or workshops)

  1991

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1993

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1994

  —

  8

  4

  4

  1995

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Drink Driving
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has issued advice to chief constables in respect of the allocation of police resources to target drinking drivers. [27349]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 4 February 1998]: No advice has been issued because the allocation of resources to particular areas of police activity is a matter for individual chief officers and their police authorities to determine in accordance with local needs and priorities.

  Chief officers attach high importance to the enforcement of drink driving legislation. Police forces in England and Wales administered a total of 781.100 screening breath tests during 1996. This figure represented an 11 per cent. increase over the number of tests taken in 1995.

  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences relating to the employment of children were recorded for each year since 1990; and what were the average penalties imposed for each type of offence. [27119]

  Mr. Michael
  Offences relating to the employment of children are summary offences and do not form part of the notifiable offences series (recorded crime).

  The table shows the number of persons cautioned and defendants prosecuted for offences relating to the employment of children by type of sentence given from 1990 to 1996.
  743

  Persons cautioned and defendants prosecuted and found guilty at magistrates' courts for offences relating to the employment of children by type of offence and result, 1990–1996

  England and Wales

  Offence description/ Year

  Total cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  Total sentenced

  Offences in connection with employment of children and young persons [Children and Young Persons Act 1933, S18 to 21 (S18 as amended by the Children Act 1972)]

  1990

  5

  25

  21

  21

  1991

  3

  15

  12

  12

  1992

  3

  12

  9

  9

  1993

  1

  5

  4

  4

  1994

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1995

  1

  3

  3

  3

  1996

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Causing or allowing children to take part in entertainments without licence [Children and Young Persons Act 1963, S40(1)(a)]

  1990

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1991

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1996

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Obstructing officer in the exercise of powers conferred under Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993, S28

  1990

  —

  4

  2

  2

  1991

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Similar provisions in Local Acts, but not offences against the Mines Acts, Factory Acts, &c.

  1991

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1992

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Type of sentence given

  Offence description/ Year

  Discharge

  Fine

  Average fine(£)

  Community penalties

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Average sentence length

  Causing a child or young person to be in any street, &c. for purpose of begging [Children and Young Persons Act 1933, S4]

  1990

  1

  3

  43

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1991

  3

  3

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  5

  14

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  16

  8

  31

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  8

  3

  43

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  6

  24

  77

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  5

  23

  43

  —

  —

  1

  7 days

  Causing or allowing person under 18 to go abroad to perform for profit [Children and Young Persons Act 1933 S25 & 26]

  1992

  —

  1

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  1

  1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  7

  127

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Offences against the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920, S1—so far as relates to industrial undertakings other than mines, factories and workshops

  1990

  1

  1

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Offences against the Education Act 1944, S58 to 60—including offences against byelaws as to employment of children (except offences relating to mines, factories or workshops)

  1991

  —

  2

  80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  4

  138

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  1

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Offences in connection with employment of children and young persons [Children and Young Persons Act 1933, S18 to 21 (S18 as amended by the Children Act 1972)]

  1990

  3

  18

  74

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  —

  12

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  —

  9

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  4

  159

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  2

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  1

  2

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Causing or allowing children to take part in entertainments without licence [Children and Young Persons Act 1963, S40(1)(a)]

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  744 745

  Type of sentence given

  Offence description/ Year

  Discharge

  Fine

  Average fine(£)

  Community penalties

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Average sentence length

  Obstructing officer in the exercise of powers conferred under Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993, S28

  1990

  —

  2

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  —

  1

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Similar provisions in Local Acts, but not offences against the Mines Acts, Factory Acts, &c.

  1991

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  —

  1

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Air Weapons
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of cats being illegally shot with air weapons have been reported to the police in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [27134]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been(a) killed and (b) injured in attacks with air weapons in each year since 1988. [27133]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which a police officer on duty was injured by an air weapon

  Fatal injury

  Other injury

  Total

  1988

  —

  4

  4

  1989

  —

  3

  3

  1990

  —

  2

  2

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  —

  4

  4

  1993

  —

  2

  2

  1994

  —

  7

  7

  1995

  not available centrally

  1996

  not available centrally

  Correspondence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter of 24 October from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East about his constituent Mr. Jonathan Edwards and the final payment under the Firearms Compensation Scheme, and to the further letters on the same issue sent on 5 November 1997 and 16 January 1998. [27162]

  Mr. Michael
  The reply was incorporated in my composite letter of 30 January 1998 to each hon. Member about the present position on the compensation scheme. I regret that the volume of correspondence received about the progress of individual claims had delayed a reply in this particular case, although I have replied to the hon. Member on other cases.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will require those establishments given project licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures)746
  Act 1986 to keep full records of animals bred for experimentation and subsequently destroyed or sold on without being so used. [27542]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Project licences authorise programmes of work regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They are not granted to establishments but to individuals.

  Under sections 6 and 7 of the Act, establishments where animals are used in scientific procedures or where animals listed in Schedule 2 of the Act are bred or supplied for such use must be designated in a certificate issued by the Secretary of State. The standard conditions which apply to all designated user establishments include:
  "The certificate holder shall ensure that records are maintained of the source, use and final disposal of all protected animals accommodated in the establishment for scientific purposes and that such records are available to be seen by the Inspector or for submission to the Secretary of State".

  For designated breeders or suppliers they include:
  "The certificate holder shall ensure that records are maintained of the source, use and final disposal of all protected animals bred, kept for breeding or kept for subsequent supply for use for scientific purposes and that such records are available to be seen by the Inspector or for submission to the Secretary of State".

  These records are not, however, collated centrally.

  We do not propose to bring all animals which are protected under the terms of section 1 of the Act within the scope of Schedule 2. It will, therefore, remain possible for animals not included in Schedule 2 to be bred for use in scientific procedures in non-designated establishments. We have no powers to require such establishments to keep or provide records.

  All the standard conditions on Certificates of Designation, Project Licences and Personal Licences are published in the Appendices of the Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the practice of MI5 of withholding all information from persons on whom records are held in respect of non-security matters; and what data protection requirements apply to MI5 in this respect. [27543]

  Mr. Straw
  Section 27 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1984 provides that personal data are exempt from the Act's registration and subject access provisions if the exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. The previous Administration determined in 1986, under section 27 (2) of the Data Protection Act
  747
  1984, that all personal data held by the Security Service were required to be exempt from the registration and subject access provisions of that Act in order to safeguard national security. Similar determinations were made for all personal data held by Security Intelligence Service and Government Communication Headquarters.

  My Department has been considering with the Security Service and the intelligence agencies whether such a blanket exemption will still be necessary under the Data Protection Bill now before Parliament. That consideration is not yet complete. Its outcome will be announced in due course.

  As regards the wider question of access to information about whether the Service holds files on any individual, I am unable to add to the answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 29 January 1998, Official Report, column 307.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has held with the Department of Transport over use of the new format driving licence as an identity document; what representations he has received on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [27527]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and I have made it clear that the Government will be issuing the photocard driving licence solely as a driving licence, not as an identity document.

  I regularly receive representations for and against national identity cards from hon. Members, members of the public and interest groups. We have no current plans to introduce national identity cards in the United Kingdom.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many penal institutions(a) regularly, (b) occasionally and (c) never allow drug-detecting dogs to roam during prison visit sessions; [27513]

  (2) how many penal institutions have (a) more than three, (b) three, (c) two, (d) one and (e) no dogs trained to detect drugs. [27514]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Passive drug detection dogs were used in 28 establishments in 1997 to search visitors and staff for drugs on entry into the establishment or the visits area. Active drug dogs are used occasionally to search visits areas before or after visits. Although drug detection dogs may pass through visits areas as a deterrent during visits it is not policy to allow dogs to roam in visits areas during visiting times.

  There are currently:

  12 establishments with more than three dogs;

  2 establishments with three dogs;

  9 establishments with two dogs;

  37 establishments with one dog; and

  75 establishments with no dogs.

  748
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the time elapse after which it is not possible to detect heroin in prisoners using present drug detecting equipment. [27512]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Using the testing processes and cut-off levels employed on behalf of the Prison Service, it is possible to determine that a positive test result was definitely due to heroin in a urine sample taken up to 12 hours after last use. Heroin degrades to morphine, which can be detected for up to seven days after last use. In these circumstances, it is not possible to be certain that heroin was the drug used.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the results and dates of the last three mandatory drug tests in each penal institution in England by(a) numbers tested, (b) the number of tests found positive and (c) the percentage of positive tests. [27517]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Figures are provided in tables for the last three mandatory drug tests undertaken at each establishment in England prior to 1 December 1997, which is the most recent period for which reliable data are available. A copy of these tables has been placed in the Library.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the results and dates of the last three random drug tests in each penal institution in England by(a) numbers tested, (b) the number of tests found positive and (c) the percentage of positive tests. [27516]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Figures are provided in tables for the last three random mandatory drug tests undertaken at each establishment in England prior to 1 December 1997, which is the most recent period for which reliable data are available. A copy of these tables has been placed in the Library.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by each penal institution in the country the number of people charged with supplying drugs to prisoners and the number found guilty in the last year for which figures are available. [27515]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The following table gives, for each penal institution in England and Wales, for the twelve months ending 31 December 1997, the number of visitors to prisons who were arrested by police in connection with possible drug related offences. The Prison Service does not record what action was subsequently taken by the police.

  Establishment

  Number arrested

  HMP Acklington

  19

  HMP Albany

  2

  HMP Aldington

  2

  HMP Ashwell

  7

  HMP Aylesbury

  2

  HMP Belmarsh

  2

  HMP Buckley Hall

  10

  HMP Blundeston

  14

  HMP Bedford

  8

  HMP Brockhill

  2

  HMP Bristol

  8

  HMP Birmingham

  2

  749

  Establishment

  Number arrested

  HMP Bullingdon

  4

  HMYOI Brinsford

  4

  HMP Blakenhurst

  28

  HMP Brixton

  3

  HMP Chelmsford

  11

  HMP Cardiff

  43

  HMP Camp Hill

  8

  HMP Cookham Wood

  2

  HMP Coldingley

  1

  HMYOI Castington

  5

  HMP Channings Wood

  10

  HMP Canterbury

  16

  HMP Dartmoor

  7

  HMP Durham

  21

  HMP Doncaster

  25

  HMP Dorchester

  1

  HMYOI Deerbolt

  2

  HMYOI Dover

  1

  HMP Erlestoke

  6

  HMP Everthorpe

  5

  HMP Exeter

  13

  HMP Elmley

  30

  HMP Frankland

  8

  HMYOI Feltham

  130

  HMP Full Sutton

  8

  HMP Featherstone

  3

  HMP Garth

  34

  HMP Guys Marsh

  5

  HMP Grendon

  1

  HMYOI Glen Parva

  6

  HMP Gartree

  2

  HMP Hollesley Bay

  1

  HMP Holme House

  45

  HMYOI Hindley

  1

  HMP Hull

  14

  HMP Highdown

  2

  HMP Highpoint

  16

  HMP Haverigg

  13

  HMP Holloway

  19

  HMP Kirkham

  3

  HMP Lancaster

  4

  HMP Leicester

  13

  HMP Leeds

  42

  HMYOI Lancaster Farms

  27

  HMP Lindholme

  9

  HMP Lincoln

  17

  HMP Long Lartin

  5

  HMP Liverpool

  4

  HMP Littlehey

  4

  HMP Lewes

  23

  HMP Moorland

  18

  HMP Manchester

  72

  HMP Maidstone

  6

  HMP The Mount

  10

  HMP Nottingham

  8

  HMRC Northallerton

  8

  HMP Norwich

  28

  HMYOI Onley

  8

  HMYOI Portland

  1

  HMP Parkhurst

  9

  HMP Preston

  11

  HMP Pentonville

  17

  HMP Rochester

  1

  HMRC Reading

  5

  HMP Ranby

  8

  HMP Risley

  15

  HMP Stafford

  18

  HMYOI Stoke Heath

  2

  HMP Stocken

  5

  HMP Swaleside

  4

  HMP Shepton Mallet

  1

  HMYOI Swinfen Hall

  1

  HMP Styal

  4

  HMP Swansea

  9

  750

  Establishment

  Number arrested

  HMP Shrewsbury

  7

  HMP The Verne

  2

  HMP Wellingborough

  7

  HMP Winchester

  1

  HMP Wakefield

  7

  HMP Wealstun

  1

  HMP Woodhill

  25

  HMP Wayland

  6

  HMP Wymott

  4

  HMP Wolds

  20

  HMP Whitemoor

  2

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  34

  HMP Wandsworth

  8

  Notes:

  1. HMP: Her Majesty's prison

  2. HMYOI: Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution.

  Immigration Advisers
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 250 firms of immigration advisors, including the 40 firms of solicitors, he referred to as unscrupulous in his oral answer to the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) of 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 704. [27944]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. It would not be right to publish details of companies and individuals whose activities are currently under investigation or who may be further investigated in the future or who may be behaving in a way which is currently within the law where we believe the law to be inadequate and in need of amendment.

  Handguns (Compensation)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many legal cases have been brought against the Government over the non-payment or late payment of compensation claims for surrendered handguns; and what was the outcome in each case. [27697]

  Mr. Michael
  Country Court proceedings have been issued in four cases, as follows:

  Court

  Number of guns involved

  Current position

  Ilford

  2

  Case struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action

  Cheltenham

  3

  Awaiting hearing

  Norwich

  8

  Awaiting hearing

  West London

  2

  Subject to Appeal

  The Appeal in the fourth case above is by the Home Office against a District Judge's refusal to strike out the case as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. A further case, before a Sheriff Court in Scotland, has also been struck out.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many compensation claims arising from the surrender of handguns before
  751
  (a) 1 August 1997, (b) 1 September 1997, (c) 1 October 1997 and (d) 1 November 1997 were not paid by 1 February 1998. [27696]

  Mr. Michael
  The information is not available in the detail requested, as all claims have not yet been entered on the computer system. At 1 February 1998, around 18,000 claims received in the Firearms Compensation Section after 1 September 1997 had received no payment, and 11,477 claims received on or before that date, the great majority of which are mixed claims which have received a payment under Options A and B of the compensation scheme, were awaiting payment under Option C.

  Hunt Trespass
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many instances the British Transport Police have prosecuted hunts for trespass on operational railway lines. [26768]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the three years between 1994–95 and 1996–97 the British Transport Police have prosecuted one hunt for the offence of trespass on railway lines.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Staff
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom diplomatic staff from ethnic minorities hold overseas postings. [27397]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The number of UK-based FCO staff who have declared themselves to be members of ethnic minority groups and who are on overseas postings is 34.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position Her Majesty's Government's representative to the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers will adopt on human rights in Turkey with particular reference to Turkish parliamentarians who are imprisoned, when the Committee of Ministers next meets. [27407]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Our representative at the Council of Europe Ministerial meeting in May will adopt the same approach to the issue of human rights in Turkey as the government has consistently maintained to date. We remain concerned at Turkey's poor human rights record, but believe that legitimate criticism of Turkey's shortcomings must be backed up by constructive assistance.

  We have stressed to the Turkish authorities that the imprisonment of democratically elected politicians for the non-violent expression of their views can only damage Turkey's international standing.

  Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 752
  conclusions of the 14 January 1998, meeting of state parties to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. [27413]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The States Parties elected nine members to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Professor Michael Banton, the UK nominee, was re-elected.

  Homosexuality
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to British Dependent Territories in the Caribbean on legislation outlawing homosexuality. [27362]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Governors of all five of the British Dependent Territories in the Caribbean were instructed in October 1997 to raise with their respective local governments our concerns about legislation outlawing certain homosexual acts, and all have done so.

  Venezuela
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations he has entered into with the Venezuelan Government in respect of concluding a prisoner exchange agreement; what timescale he has set for the conclusion of an agreement; and if he will make a statement. [27381]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We first approached the Venezuelan authorities in 1994 regarding a bilateral Prisoner Transfer Agreement but could not agree a mutually acceptable text. On 17 April 1997 we approached them about accession to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. We continue to press for their reply.

  A priority of our Presidency of the European Union is to encourage countries that have not already done so to accede to the Convention. We will raise the subject again with the Venezuelan authorities at the earliest opportunity.

  Argentina
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there have been any new exceptions to the arms embargo on Argentina. [28232]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have recently granted an exception to the embargo to allow the sale of 155 NBC suits and 50 pairs of boots for use by the Argentine contingent of the UN task force in Kuwait. This is an exception but not a change to the embargo.

  Intelligence and Security Services
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1997,Official Report, column 605, whether he will make any changes to the nationality rules for applicants for employment with the intelligence and security services. [28231]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  After a detailed and careful review of existing procedures in which the interests of not discriminating against the individual have been balanced against the requirements of national security, I have approved several changes to the nationality rules for employment with GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has
  753
  approved the same changes with respect to the Security Service. The new rules still require that an applicant or employee should be a British citizen, (and hold no other citizenship) but those relating to parental nationality have been simplified. The requirement is now that at least one parent should be British or have substantial ties with the United Kingdom.

  The rule restricting the nationality of spouses and cohabitants to limited categories of countries has also been relaxed. It will, however, continue to be the case that the circumstances of each applicant are examined in detail as part of the security vetting process in order to assess any risks. The new rules will come into force with immediate effect.

  Luxembourg European Council
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the increase in pre-accession aid announced in the Presidency conclusion of the Luxembourg European Council of 12 to 13 December 1997. [27519]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We welcome the commitment to an increase of preaccession aid made in paragraph 17 of the Luxembourg European Council Presidency Conclusions. We look forward to detailed Commission proposals being tabled soon.

  Dayton Agreement
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Dayton Agreement with respect to Bosnia. [25682]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia is progressing steadily. The Bonn Peace Implementation Conference in 1997 found that notable progress had been made. However, much more could have been achieved had the authorities in Bosnia contributed their full share to the construction of a civil and democratic society in the country.

  A copy of the conclusions of the Bonn Peace Implementation Conference has been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

  Since the Bonn conference, the pace of implementation has been maintained, in particular by the High Representative Mr. Carlos Westendorp making use of the enhanced powers given to him at Bonn to impose deadlock-breaking decisions.

  The international community also welcomes the formation in January of a new government in the Republika Srpska committed to co-operation with Dayton implementation. The detention by SFOR troops in January of a further war crimes indictee also demonstrated that the international community continues to attach high priority to this important aspect of Dayton implementation.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance(a) the EC and (b) Her Majesty's Government have given to importers in respect of the geographical limits of the trade preference given under the EC-Israel agreement. [27199]
  754
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Importers can seek guidance on matters relating to preferential Community agreements, including the EU-Israel agreement, from Customs Advice centres.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 1998,Official Report, column 718, when the importers into the EC of Brazilian orange juice mislabelled as Israeli, will be required to repay the lost duty. [27200]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  HM Customs and Excise and the European Commission are currently examining Israeli preference certificates issued for orange juice in 1995. Appropriate action will be taken with UK importers when this examination is completed.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 1998,Official Report, column 718, if (a) the EC and (b) Her Majesty's Government have informed those importers who imported at a preferential rate Brazilian orange juice mislabelled as Israeli, that they are liable to repay any lost duty. [27198]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In its notice to importers, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 8 November, the European Commission advised importers that if preferential certificates issued by Israel proved to be invalid, such certificates have already engendered, or could give rise to a customs debt. HM Customs and Excise gave this notice wide publicity through trade associations and journals.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the cost of(a) Ministerial cars and drivers and (b) the Department's bill for taxis, in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year. [27731]

  Clare Short
  (a) The estimated cost of ministerial cars and drivers for the Department for International Development is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure £

  1995–96

  46,000

  1996–97

  52,000

  1997–98 (to date)

  84,000

  1997–98 (full year)

  112,000

  (b) We do not hold information centrally on the amount spent on taxis and this could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) other

  755
  public bodies for which she has responsibility, in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year. [26649]

  Mr. Foulkes
  (i) Neither the Department for International Development (DFID) nor the former Overseas Development Administration owned empty properties for the years in question.

  (ii) DFID has no agencies.

  (iii) In the case of public bodies for which DFID is currently responsible, the information is as follows:

  1995–96 nil

  1996–97 Annual cost £4,500

  Total value £37,100

  1997–98 Annual cost £10,400

  Total value £164,000

  The total value figures relate to the capital cost of the premises and not the market value for which records do not exist. The figures refer to properties overseas.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list which Ministers in her Department have made overseas visits and to which countries since 1 May. [27821]

  Clare Short
  The following is the information

  Year

  Secretary of State's visits overseas 1997

  5 June

  Luxembourg

  9 June

  Zurich

  22 June

  New York

  1 July

  Paris

  2 July

  Geneva

  15–25 September

  Bangladesh/Hong

  Kong/Japan

  5–10 October

  Uganda/Nairobi/Rwanda

  21 October

  Brussels

  22 October

  Paris

  27–29 October

  Sweden/Norway

  10 November

  Brussels

  28 November

  Brussels

  2–3 December

  Canada

  11–12 December

  Rome

  15–16 December

  Spain/Portugal

  1998

  3–8 January

  Malawi

  19 January

  Brussels

  2–3 February

  Bosnia

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State's visits overseas 1997

  20–22 May

  Toronto

  4–5 June

  Luxembourg

  26–30 July

  Botswana and South Africa

  31 August-3 September

  Montserrat and Antigua

  12–13 October

  Geneva

  23–26 November

  Ukraine

  1998

  13 January

  Paris

  Periodicals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if she will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26650]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Expenditure on newspapers and magazines was as follows:

  £

  Date

  Expenditure

  1995–96

  15,409

  1996–97

  15,507

  1997–98 (full year)

  15,943

  1997–98 (to date)

  12,476

  The titles taken are:

  Financial Times

  Times

  Sunday Times

  Daily Telegraph

  Sunday Telegraph

  Guardian

  Observer

  Independent

  Independent on Sunday

  Le Monde

  London Financial News

  Daily Mail

  Mail on Sunday

  Express

  Express on Sunday

  Sun

  Observer

  Daily Mirror

  News of the World

  Evening Standard

  The Herald

  The Scotsman

  East Kilbride News

  Times Educational Supplement

  Times Higher Educational Supplement

  Times Literary Supplement

  What's on in London

  The List

  Economist

  Time

  Newsweek

  Spectator

  Paris Match

  New Scientist

  European

  Private Eye

  Bookseller

  West Africa

  Flight

  757

  Newsweek

  Construction News

  Farmers' Weekly

  Tribune

  Choice

  Flight International

  New Statesman.

  We also take a number of free and paid-for professional journals.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non departmental public bodies, in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii)1997–98 to date. [27732]

  Clare Short
  (a) The Department for International Development submits an annual return to the Treasury of suspected and proven fraud, including attempted fraud. Figures are as follows:

  1995–96: £19,756

  1996–97: £11,262

  1997–98 to date: £5,177.

  The cost of theft is:

  1995–96: £10,000

  1996–97: £22,000

  1997–98 to date: £1,825.

  (b) The Department has no agencies.

  (c) In the case of public bodies for which DFID is currently responsible, the cost of theft and fraud combined is as follows:

  1995–96: £27,100

  1996–97: £65,500

  1997–98 to date: £12,100.

  These figures relate to the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) and include frauds and theft where the loss was over £7,500. Details of thefts from the CDC's overseas businesses prior to 31 December 1995 are not available.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her current estimate of the expenditure of her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on hospitality since 1 May 1997. [27735]

  Clare Short
  The current estimate of expenditure for the Department for International Development on hospitality is £27,426.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on external consultants in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year; and if she will also estimate the cost savings resulting from the employment of such consultants for each of the above years. [26647]
  758
  Clare Short
  External consultants have been employed by my Department as follows:

  £ million

  Cost of external consultants

  Resulting cost savings

  1995–96

  1.2

  1.2

  1996–97

  0.82

  0.35

  1997–98 (to date)

  0.94

  nil

  1997–98 (full year)

  1.1

  nil

  Since 1997–98, external consultants have primarily been used to assist with IT developments and training by bridging short-term skill gaps.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list by grade the number of officials in her Department at grade 3 or above who have(a) taken early retirement, (b) taken official leave, (c) been dismissed, (d) changed jobs within the Department, (e) moved to another Department and (f) been offered and rejected an alternative position (i) within the Department and (ii) in another Department since 1 May. [27452]

  Clare Short
  Individual grades no longer exist in the Senior Civil Service. The information is as follows in respect of officials at former Grade 3 level and above.

  (a) none

  (b) 10

  (c) none

  (d) 3

  (e) 1

  (f)

  (i) none

  (ii) none

  Lost and Stolen Items
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those items valued at more than £25 stolen or lost from her Department since 1 May 1997; and if she will make a statement. [27733]

  Clare Short
  Items valued at more than £25 stolen or lost from Department for International Development since 1 May 1997 are as follows:

  Item

  £

  Mobile phone charger

  45

  Lap-top Computer

  915

  Video Camera

  600

  Buildings Refurbishment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by her Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if she will make a statement. [26651]
  759
  Clare Short
  The cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by Department for International Development is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  79,600

  1996–97

  9,500

  1997–98 to date

  25,300

  1997–98 full year

  25,300

  These costs relate to refurbishment only and exclude day to day maintenance and reconfigurations required for operational reasons.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the rates of absenteeism in her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 to date; and if she will make a statement. [26648]

  Clare Short
  (a) The estimated rate of absenteeism in Department for International Development (DFID) for the year 1995–96 was 4 per cent. Figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are not yet available and I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the information is to hand.

  (b) DFID currently has no agencies.

  (c) The estimated rates of absenteeism in public bodies for which DFID is currently responsible are:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1995–96

  1.8

  1996–97

  2.1

  1997–98

  1.7

  Brazil (Amazonian Regions)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what new initiatives her Department is taking to open up markets in Europe for products which emanate from the Amazonian regions from enterprises other than logging. [27097]

  Clare Short
  In Amazonia and elsewhere, our aim is to promote consistent policies which ensure that economic development and trade in non-timber forest products is managed sustainably, and prevents over-exploitation of natural resources. Within our programme, we support projects which help to identify potential non-timber products and encourage linkages with European and other international markets. We shall continue to look out for further opportunities in this area.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list each major new computer system that(a) her Department, (b) non-departmental bodies and (c) agencies under her responsibility have purchased in the last five years; what was the initial purchase cost and what was the final cost; what was each system's (i) planned and (ii) actual date
  760
  of commissioning; what major computer systems will be purchased by bodies in categories (a), (b) and (c) in the next financial year; and what is their estimated cost. [27853]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development's major computer systems implemented in the last 5 years are as follows:

  Resource Accounting System (RAB)

  Purchase cost of software—£271,000

  Final cost of system—£2,000,000

  Actual commissioning date—February 1998

  Management Accounting System Migration (MIS)

  System developed, not purchased

  Final cost of system—£1,784,000

  Actual commissioning date—February 1998

  Pensions System Migration

  System developed, not purchased

  System developed jointly with MIS, so costs included above

  Actual commissioning date—February 1998

  Replacement Office System (ASSIST)

  System developed, not purchased

  Final cost of system—£3,332,000

  Planned commissioning date—end December 1996 (UK) mid 1997 (overseas)

  Actual commissioning date—end December 1996 (UK) end December 1997 (overseas)

  Systems to be implemented in the next Financial Year are as follows:

  Project Information Monitoring System (PRISM)

  System being developed, not purchased

  Planned cost £1 million (£600,000 this Financial Year)

  Planned commissioning date—First quarter Financial Year 1998–99

  DFID Intranet

  System being developed, not purchased

  Cost to date—£84,000

  Planned commissioning date—March 1998

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the cost of Ministerial overseas travel in her Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 to date. [26646]

  Clare Short

  1995–96: £132,875

  1996–97: £96,815

  1997–98 (to date): £97,858

DEFENCE

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals in respect of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency at Old Dalby, Leicestershire; what representations he has received in respect of these proposals; what is the cost to the Exchequer of keeping the ABSDA open; and
  761
  what assessment he has made on the potential impact of the closure of the ABSDA, for firms based in Leicester. [23183]

  Dr. Reid
  I have accepted, as the basis for consultation, the recommendation of the Quarter-Master General's Storage Rationalisation Study recommendation that the sub-depot of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA) at Old Dalby should close. Consultation with all relevant parties on this proposal ended on 23 January.

  The saving expected from the implementation of the study's recommendations, including the closure of Sub-Depot Old Dalby, is £17.5 million in net present value terms over 10 years.

  A number of representations against the proposed closure have been received from both individual employees and other organisations. All the points raised including those relating to its economic and other effects are, of course, being taken fully into account as part of the consultation process.

  Foxes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy on the control of foxes by(a) gassing, (b) snaring and (c) shooting on his Department's estate by personnel other than his Department's employees; [27523]

  (2) what is his policy on the gassing of foxes on his Department's estate; [27525]

  (3) what is his policy with regard to the use of rifles for fox control on training areas currently in use on his Department's estate; [27521]

  (4) what is his policy on snaring of foxes on his Department's estate; [27526]

  (5) what is his policy with regard to the use of rifles (a) by day and (b) by night for the control of foxes on his Department's estate; [27522]

  (6) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the use of shotguns as a means of fox control on his Department's estate (a) by day and (b) by night. [27520]

  Mr. Spellar
  While the gassing of foxes is not illegal, there are no Government approved products for such use. The gassing of foxes is not therefore permitted.

  Snaring is legal provided the snares used are the free running type. These are used on the Defence Estate.

  Rifles and shotguns are licenced for use both during the day and night.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on digging out foxes on his Department's estate for purposes of fox control. [27524]

  Mr. Spellar
  The policy for digging out foxes on my Department's land has not changed. Under the Master of Foxhounds Rules, digging out must only take place at the request of the landowner. It remains my Department's policy that, as a landowner, this request would not be made.
  762
  I have, however, directed that if any of my Department's tenants are troubled by rogue and destructive foxes, application may be made for the fox to be dug out following a prescribed authorisation process. It is stressed that where such action is permitted, it is on the basis that it is a specified fox control measure and will not be taken to form part of general hunting practice.

  Type 42 Destroyers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the average availability of Type 42 destroyers for operational service in each of the last five years. [27176]

  Dr. Reid
  Type 42 destroyers achieved approximately 84 to 86 per cent. average availability for operational service in each of the last five years. This discounts time spent in planned maintenance.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the complement of crew carried by Type 42 destroyers(a) was when they were commissioned and (b) is currently. [27177]

  Dr. Reid
  When first commissioned the complement of crew carried by Type 42 destroyers was 270. The current complement is 247.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his policy to allow service personnel to occupy married quarters with a person other than a spouse; and if he will make a statement. [27243]

  Dr. Reid
  It is not current MOD policy to allow Service personnel to occupy married quarters with a person other than a spouse. Whilst this policy is kept under review, there are no present plans to alter it.

  Early Leavers Child Support Agency
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many servicemen leaving the service early have given the activities of the Child Support Agency as one of their reasons for leaving. [27093]

  Dr. Reid
  Specific information of the nature requested is not held centrally. Such information as is available comes from the feedback which the Services receive in the form of individual returns to the various internal surveys which are carried out. According to the responses to these surveys, no Service personnel have given the activities of the Child Support Agency as a reason for their decision to leave the Armed Forces.

  Type 22 Frigates
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the average period availability of Type 22 frigates for operational service in each of the last five years. [27386]

  Dr. Reid
  Type 22 frigates achieved approximately 82 to 86 per cent. average availability for operational service in each of the last five years. This discounts time spent in planned maintenance.
  763
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to refit Type 22 frigates with less manpower-intensive equipment; and if he will make a statement. [27364]

  Dr. Reid
  There are no plans to specifically refit Type 22 frigates with less manpower-intensive equipment. The installation of new or updated equipments on all vessels, including Type 22 frigates, is made to address issues of obsolescence, achieve improved reliability or provide enhanced operational capability.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what crew complement Type 22 frigates carried when first commissioned; and what complement they now carry. [27363]

  Dr. Reid
  The Type 22 frigate was introduced in three Batches. When first commissioned the complement of crew carried by a Batch 1 Type 22 frigate was 229. The current complement has increased slightly to 243 on the latest Batch.

  Hyderabad and Meeanee Barracks, Colchester
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects that the Hyderabad and Meeanee Barracks at Colchester will cease to be required for military purposes and disposed of. [27896]

  Dr. Reid
  It is too early to say. Future plans for the existing Hyderabad and Meeanee Barracks will depend on progress with the major Private Finance Initiative project which I announced by writing to the hon. Member on 13 October last year, and whose purpose is to redevelop the whole of Colchester Garrison. As I told the hon. Member in a second letter on 14 November, this project holds out the possibility of yielding surplus land for development, and the land that is earmarked for disposal includes the current sites of Meeanee and Hyderabad Barracks.

  Royal Family (Helicopters)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future provision of helicopter flying for the Royal Family.[28563]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply 31 July 1997, c. 466]: The Ministry of Defence has run a competition, on behalf of the Royal Household, for the provision of a helicopter service for the Royal Family. As a result of the responses to the competition it became clear that the option of using an aircraft with civilian aircrew operating out of a civilian airfield would provide greater savings to the taxpayer than a military operated solution. The Royal Household therefore decided that they wished to pursue this option and have now decided to place contracts for such a civilian service with Sikorsky and Air Hanson.

  Recruitment and Training
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current status of the Partnering Arrangement between the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency and Flagship Training Ltd. [28287]
  764
  Dr. Reid
  Under a Competing for Quality and Public/Private Partnering initiative, the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) entered into a 15 years contract with Flagship Training Limited in July 1996. Flagship is a public limited company set up specially for the provision of training administrative and support activities, Income Generation and Public/Private Partnership initiatives in a Partnering Arrangement with the NRTA. Flagship's equity is held by Vosper Thornycroft, GEC Marconi and Johnson Controls Limited.

  Under this pathfinder project, Flagship will market NRTA's irreducible spare training capacity and provide support services in return for fixed maximum charges. The NRTA has wholeheartedly embraced Partnering. Certain Support Services (mainly the already contractorised catering and cleaning) have already been transferred to NRTA's considerable advantage.

  I am pleased to announce that, following detailed negotiation between the Agency and Flagship, agreement has been reached over the transfer to Flagship of the first and major phase of support service activities. This agreement centres on the provision of activities in the General, Administration and Training Support areas; 434 Civil Service posts and 550 uniformed posts presently deliver these activities. The net result of transferring the posts to Flagship is expected to be the creation of approaching 300 new civilian jobs and release of much needed uniformed personnel to fill gaps elsewhere in the Navy. A conservative assessment of the net cash savings to the NRTA is £29 million over 13 years from this first phase of transfer; with downstream savings of a similar amount expected from later phases.

  Under Income Generation, approximately £20 million worth of contracts have already been secured by Flagship, and, prospective business worth about £300 million over 13 years has been identified, with the potential for creating up to a further 100 jobs in areas affected by previous reductions in the Defence budget. The recently awarded Kuwait contract typifies the benefits that Partnering offers the UK. The provision of naval training for a ship order secured by another nation is unprecedented, and indicates the value of combining Flagship's commercial expertise with Naval training internationally recognised as second to none.

  National and Local Trades Unions have been informed regularly of the progress and I have recently approved, in principle, the signing of a formal contractual agreement involving the transfer of the activities and employees from the NRTA to Flagship in a phased manner beginning on 5 May 1998, subject to the outcome of formal consultation with Departmental Trade Unions. A copy of the consultative document has been placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Youth Service
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the current arrangements in the Youth Service; and if she will order a review of the service. [22736]
  765
  Mr. Worthington
  I launched a review of youth service policy on 16 June 1997. The Policy Review Group which I appointed is expected to report in 3 stages and I expect to make a comprehensive policy statement by Easter 1999.

  Weapons Decommissioning
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what weapons and explosives have been dealt with to date, by the Decommissioning Body. [22900]

  Mr. Ingram
  No terrorist weapons or explosives have yet been dealt with by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. The Commission quickly produced their proposals for schemes and continue to work on the detailed arrangements to facilitate actual decommissioning. It is now for those in possession of illegal arms to take this important confidence building step.

  Irish Republic (Bombs)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has made to the Irish Government about the origin of the bomb planted in Newry Street, Banbridge on 6 January. [22902]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no representations to the Irish Government about the origin of the bomb. The RUC are, however, continuing with their investigations with help from the Gardai.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make it her policy to hold the Irish Republic Government financially responsible for the costs of compensation where explosions in Northern Ireland result from bombs manufactured there. [22903]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Fluoridation
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if HM Prison Maze(a) is or (b) has been artificially fluoridated. [25114]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is not nor has there been any artificial fluoridation of the water supply to HMP Maze.

  Handguns
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many target(a) pistols and (b) revolvers, belonging to members of licensed gun clubs, have been used in terrorist incidents in each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [25672]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: There is no evidence to indicate that weapons belonging to members of licensed gun clubs have been used in terrorist incidents in the past five years.

  SACHR
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance she has issued to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights regarding its powers to(a) commission research and
  766
  (b) propose policy; and what assessment she has made of its effectiveness in dealing with political discrimination. [26736]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was established by the 1973 NI Constitution Act. Its remit is defined by that Act. In order to fulfil that remit, SACHR does commission research and make recommendations on policy. I have not issued any separate guidance. SACHR's role is to advise on the adequacy and effectiveness of the law in preventing discrimination, but not to provide remedies for people who may have been discriminated against. The Government very much welcomes the advice given by SACHR, which they take into account in making policy decisions.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the number, rank and status of Irish military personnel stationed at the Anglo-Irish Secretariat at Maryfield; and if she will make a statement. [26734]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It would not be appropriate to provide information concerning staffing arrangements in respect of the Irish Side of the Anglo-Irish Secretariat.

  Provisional IRA
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received on reparations from the Irish Government for their part in the creation of the Provisional IRA; and if she will list the numbers of soldiers, police and civilians killed by the organisation. [26739]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have received representations from two of the Northern Ireland parties in relation to their call for an inquiry in the Republic into the creation of the Provisional IRA. No representations have been received about reparations as such. Records are not available to show the number of deaths caused by individual organisations. However, the table indicates the number of deaths of RUC members, army and civilians due to Republican terrorists from 1969 to 29 January 1998.

  Deaths due to the security situation 1969 to date (29 January 1998)

  Attribution

  RUC

  Army

  1Civilian

  Deaths Total

  By Republican

  293

  640

  957

  1,890

  1 Includes persons actively engaged in terrorist activity at the time of Incident.

  Firearms
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the written question on licensed firearms, tabled by the right hon. Member for Strangford on 22 January 1998, for answer on 28 January 1998 was not answered on that day; and if she will make a statement. [27098]
  767
  Mr. Ingram
  It is regretted that the written question referred to was not answered on 28 January as it was necessary to refer the question to a number of branches in the RUC, which required a manual search of records.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many barristers in Northern Ireland are QCs; and what percentage of the Northern Ireland Bar this represents. [27832]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are 430 practising barristers in Northern Ireland, 54 of whom are Queen's Counsel, representing just over 12 per cent. of the Northern Ireland Bar.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to publish the 1997–98 Report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. [28448]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Copies of the 1997–98 Inspection Report, which is the fifth RUC Inspection Report to be published, have today been placed in the Library.

  I am most grateful for the Report and will be considering its recommendations carefully. Her Majesty's Inspector's overall remit is to examine police operational efficiency and effectiveness and offer his independent and professional recommendations. These are largely for the Chief Constable to consider and action. This report has covered a number of areas relating to matters such as organisation, planning, personnel and community relations.

  I am pleased to note that Her Majesty's Inspector continues to be impressed, as I am, by the courage, enthusiasm and commitment of the RUC and considers it to be efficient and effective.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the rates of absenteeism in her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 to date; and if she will make a statement. [26606]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The estimated rates of absenteeism for non-industrial staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service(a) the cores of Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland office and (b) their agencies are as follows:

  (a) Departmental cores Per cent.

  (b) Agencies Per cent.

  (i) 1995–96

  5.6

  8.3

  (ii) 1996–97

  5.6

  6.5

  (iii) 1997–98 (1 April 1997— 31 December 1997)

  5.7

  6.5

  768
  Information in respect of non-departmental public bodies as at (i), (ii) and (iii) is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Northern Ireland departments/agencies and the NIO monitor their absenteeism levels closely. They have introduced a number of initiatives to improve control and tackle particular problems in this area and are continuing to explore all available solutions to improve attendance.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her estimate of the (a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which she has responsibility, in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year. [26607]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list by grade the number of officials in her Department at grade 3 or above who have(a) taken early retirement, (b) taken official leave, (c) been dismissed, (d) changed jobs within the Department, (e) moved to another Department and (f) been offered and rejected an alternative position (i) within the Department and (ii) in another Department since 1 May. [27451]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The answers to the questions are as follows:

  (a) 3 Staff (2 Grade 1 and 1 Grade 3)

  (b) Nil

  (c) Nil

  (d) 2 Staff (1 Grade 2 and 1 Grade 3)

  (e) Nil

  (f) Nil.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors underlay the delays in effecting inter-jurisdictional transfers of prisoners between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. [27544]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the Republic of Ireland ratified the Convention on the transfer of Sentenced Persons in November 1995, there have been 18 applications for transfer from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. Arising from those applications, 9 prisoners have been repatriated; a further 4 applications have been approved; 2 were withdrawn; 1 has been refused and 2 remain under consideration. Six applications have also been made for repatriation from Northern Ireland to the Republic; 5 were recently submitted and are being processed and one application was subsequently withdrawn by the prisoner concerned.
  769
  Factors which may not enable some applications to be processed immediately on receipt are largely the necessity to seek further information or clarification which will enable an informed decision to be made on the applicants eligibility for repatriation.

  Under the Convention for the transfer of sentenced persons, to which both the UK and the Republic of Ireland are signatories, the two States involved in any transfer are required to exchange information in advance of making a determination regarding the applicant and also to provide the prisoner with information regarding the effect of the repatriation on his sentence to allow him on balance to decide whether to accept the transfer.

  My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland are of course responsible for such matters relating to each of their own jurisdictions.

  Judiciary (Independence)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place in the Library the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary. [27405]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have been asked to reply.

  The report of Dato' Param Cumaraswamy, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, is expected to be published within the next six weeks. The Report will be available through the UN's Optical Disk System in the House of Commons library. We will also arrange for a paper copy of the Report to be deposited in the libraries of the House.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her estimate of the cost of Ministerial overseas travel in her Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 to date. [26604]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of overseas travel for Ministers is as follows:

  1995–96: £103,929

  1996–97: £69,874

  1997–98: £37,328 to 30 January 1998.

  Buildings Refurbishment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by her Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if she will make a statement. [26609]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The estimate of the costs are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  13,718,843

  1996–97

  21,962,985

  1997–98 (to date)

  13,096,874

  1997–98 (full-year)

  17,235,883

WALES

  Transport Policy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons powers for the regulation of the railways will not be devolved to the Welsh Assembly; and what assessment he has made of the impact of this on the Government's plans for an integrated transport policy. [27178]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government's policy on devolution is that the National Assembly will take over virtually all the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales. My right hon. Friend has very few statutory functions in relation to the railways. The Government are committed to the creation of a new rail authority, combining functions currently carried out by the Franchising Director and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to ensure effective and accountable regulation of the railways throughout Great Britain. It will in due course be necessary to define the Assembly's relationship with the new rail authority.

  Work is continuing on the development of an integrated transport policy, and a separate policy statement for Wales will be published at around the same time as the integrated transport White Paper.

  Welsh Joint Education Committee
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the Welsh Joint Education Committee. [27446]

  Mr. Hain
  With effect from 1 April 1996 the Welsh Joint Education Committee became a company limited by guarantee jointly owned by the unitary authorities and its future is, therefore, a matter for them. I would expect the WJEC, alongside the other examination boards, to play an active role in implementing the reforms to the post-16 qualifications framework set out in the consultation paper "Qualifying for Success".

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by grade the number of officials in his Department at grade 3 or above who have(a) taken early retirement, (b) taken official leave, (c) been dismissed, (d) changed jobs within the Department, (e) moved to another Department and (f) been offered and rejected an alternative position (i) within the Department and (ii) in another Department since 1 May. [27465]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The number of officials in my Department within the Senior Civil Service equivalent to the former Grade 3 and above who have since 1 May 1997 taken:

  (a) Early retirement: nil

  (b) Official leave: in accordance with their conditions of service

  (c) Been dismissed: nil

  (d) Changed jobs within the Department: nil

  (e) Moved to another Department: nil

  (f) Been offered and rejected an alternative position—

  (i) within the Department: nil

  (ii) in another Department: nil.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii)1997–98 to date. [27792]

  Mr. Hoon
  Estimates of the cost of theft and fraud are given in the table.

  £

  Cost by financial year

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98 to date

  LCD1

  17,658

  55,145

  51,943

  Court Service

  118,833

  65,648

  not available

  Public Trust Office

  0

  0

  0

  Northern ireland Court Service

  0

  0

  1,700

  Public Record Office

  1,321

  0

  440

  Land Registry

  51,485

  13,308

  4,093

  Legal Aid Board

  40,000

  7,000

  0

  ACLEC

  0

  0

  0

  1 Headquarters, associated offices and magistrates courts losses borne by the Department.

  Lost and Stolen Items
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those items valued at more than £25 stolen or lost from his Department since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [27793]

  Mr. Hoon
  Items stolen or lost are as listed, together with their values:

  Theft of electronic stapler: £373

  Theft of heavy duty stapler: £55

  Theft of lap top computer: £1,500.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the landings of fish by weight in the European Community by each member state whose fleets operate in(a) international fishing zones or third countries with which the European Community has an international agreement, (b) those states where no agreement exists and (c) international waters, indicating the approximate proportion of European Community fish consumption that is represented by all such sources. [24414]

  Mr. Morley
  I am afraid that information to establish the proportion of European Community fish consumption accounted for by fish caught by Member States fleets in the various fisheries outside EU waters is not available. Neither UK nor EU statistics make it possible to identify where landings by Member States' fleets operating in international fishing zones or third countries have occurred. Nor do consumption figures indicate the origins of the fish consumed.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [27045]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: My Department aims to reply to letters from hon. Members and Peers within 15 working days. MAFF received almost 7,500 letters during 1997 and 76 per cent. of those received a reply within this target. The procedure is constantly monitored to ensure letters are dispatched as soon as possible after typing.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the membership of the Expert Group recommended by the Krebs Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers. [28492]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I am pleased to be able to announce the membership of the independent Expert Group to oversee the experiment recommended in Professor Krebs' Report to assess the effectiveness of badger culling in reducing TB breakdowns in cattle herds. I am grateful to Professor John Bourne for agreeing to chair the Group and to Dr. Christl Donnelly who will be Deputy Chairman. In addition, Sir David Cox, Professor George Gettinby, Professor Ivan Morrison and Dr. Rosie Woodroffe have all kindly agreed to serve as members.

  The terms of reference for the Group are:
  'To advise Ministers on implementation of the Krebs Report on bovine TB in cattle and badgers by:
  overseeing the design and analysis of the randomised experiment to test the effectiveness of badger culling as a means of controlling bovine TB;
  regularly monitoring the progress of, and outputs from, the experiment and assessing any important differences in results between the treatments;
  monitoring the data on the M bovis situation in areas and species outside the experiment;
  reporting to Ministers on progress; and
  advising, as requested, on related issues.'

  We are currently consulting on how the report's recommendations should be implemented. Firm decisions on implementation of the report's recommendations will not be made until the end of this consultation period and until further consideration has been given to the public expenditure, legal and practical implications. We shall make another announcement once this further work has been done. In the meantime, I have asked the Expert Group to press on with its work on the detailed experiment design.

  The Group has a key role in providing independent expert advice as we carry this important work forward. In addition, my ministerial colleagues and I and MAFF officials will seek to ensure that close contact is maintained with all the key interested parties, including wildlife, conservation and farming organisations on implementation of the Krebs report.

HEALTH

  Radiotherapy
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into radiotherapy damage resulting from radiotherapy treatment; [24536]

  (2) what information is made available to alert women to the possible side effects of radiotherapy for breast cancer. [24537]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1994, the Department of Health issued guidance to the National Health Service on quality assurance in radiotherapy, "Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy—A Quality Management System for Radiotherapy". This is monitored through the Inspectorate for the Ionising Radiation Regulations (1988).

  More recently, the Department's Central Audit Unit has funded two pieces of work. The first was guidelines on the management of women with adverse effects following radiotherapy treatment. They were produced by the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) through a group chaired by Dr. Jane Maher. The guidelines were issued to the NHS by the Department in October 1995. The second was a confidential clinical review of 126 consenting members of Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure (RAGE)—a support group representing those suffering damage following treatment by radiotherapy for breast cancer—which was also conducted by the RCR and disseminated by the College to its fellows.

  We are concerned to ensure that all patients and their families, including cancer patients who may have particular worries about the disease and its treatment, receive information which is clear, concise and easily understood, not only about the proposed treatments, but about possible alternatives and any substantial risks, so that they can make a balanced judgment about accepting treatment.

  In 1995, the support group British Association of Cancer United Patients (BACUP), in conjunction with the Royal Colleges and other charities like CancerLink, Breast Cancer Care and RAGE, produced a series of three leaflets about radiotherapy for breast cancer and early detection of any adverse effects. This was partly funded by the Department of Health.

  Copies of the leaflets were sent to each breast care nurse and oncologist with details of how to obtain a stock from BACUP for distribution to patients as needed. It was considered that these professionals were in the best position to make the leaflets available to patients at the appropriate stage in their treatment. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Hysterectomies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hysterectomies were carried out for menorrhagia in the last year; at what cost; and what clinical guidance his Department issues as to the appropriateness of this procedure. [26940]
  774
  Ms Jowell
  18,804 hysterectomies were carried out for menorrhagia in National Health Service hospitals in England in 1995–96, the latest year available. The estimated average cost of a hysterectomy, based on 1995–96 prices, is approximately £2,400.

  The Department of Health issued an Effective Healthcare Bulletin on 'The Management of Menorrhagia' in 1995. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is currently preparing clinical guidelines on the management of menorrhagia in both primary and secondary care. The guidelines, which are funded by the Department of Health, are expected to be published later this year.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who has the ultimate responsibility for determining whether the accident and emergency departments at the(a) Alexander Hospital in Redditch and (b) Kidderminster General Hospital close. [27159]

  Ms Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Opencast Mining
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects his Department's joint research with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions into the effects of opencast mining on health to be made available; and if he will make a statement. [27117]

  Ms Jowell
  This research, which started in August 1996, is being undertaken at Newcastle University and is expected to be completed in October this year, although it is unlikely that the results will be published until early in 1999.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the future of Bart's Hospital; and when he expects to make a statement on his decision. [27372]

  Ms Jowell
  We received a large number of representations on the future of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Its future has been discussed with managers, clinicians and local people.

  The Government announced their response to the Turnberg report in a statement to the House on 3 February 1998, Official Report, columns 843–46. We have accepted all the recommendations in the report, including the recommendation that St. Bartholomew's Hospital should not close.

  As part of our ten year programme to modernise London's health services Bart's will continue in its present role while other hospital developments in east London take place; Bart's will then concentrate its renowned specialist expertise on cancer and cardiac services.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by grade the number of officials in his Department at grade 3 or above who have(a) taken early

  775
  retirement, (b) taken official leave, (c) been dismissed, (d) changed jobs within the Department, (e) moved to another Department and (f) been offered and rejected an alternative position (i) within the Department and (ii) in another Department since 1 May. [27454]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1 May 1997, at Grade 3 equivalent or above in the Department, 1 Grade 1 and 2 Grade 3 equivalents have taken early retirement; records of annual leave are not kept centrally; none have been dismissed; none have changed jobs within the Department; 1 Grade 2 equivalent has moved to another department on promotion; and none have been offered and rejected alternative positions either within the Department of Health or other departments.

  NHS Board Appointments
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1998,Official Report, columns 155–56, if he will publish the full text of (a) the guidance given to regional chairmen in June on NHS board appointments and (b) the guidance given by regional chairmen to council leaders in June when requesting nominations for NHS board appointments, together with accompanying documentation in each case. [27811]

  Mr. Dobson
  Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library.

  Percentages

  Review Body

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Apr. 1994

  Jan. 1995

  Apr. 1996

  Dec. 1996

  Apr. 1997

  Dec. 1997

  Apr. 1998

  Dec. 1998

  AFPRB

  1.5

  2.7

  0.9

  2.6

  2.7–3.3

  1.0

  2.00

  1.0–1.4

  2.00

  1.75–2.2

  DDRB

  1.5

  3.0

  —

  2.5–3.0

  2.8–5.8

  1.0

  2.00

  1.4

  2.00

  4.2–5.2

  NPRB

  1.5

  3.0

  —

  11.0

  12.0

  —

  2.00

  1.3

  2.00

  1.80

  STRB

  1.5

  2.9

  —

  2.7

  2.75

  1.0

  2.00

  1.3

  2.00

  1.80

  SSRB

  Senior Military

  20

  2.75

  —

  3.2

  2.9–4.6

  1.0

  2.00

  0.75–4.0

  2.00

  0.3–5.0

  Judiciary

  20

  2.75

  —

  32.5

  2.90

  1.0

  2.00

  1.0–5.0

  2.00

  3.50

  Senior Civil Service

  20

  2.75

  —

  2.5

  4—

  —

  —

  —

  4—

  —

  Average

  Recommendation

  —

  3.1

  52.7

  54.0

  3.3

  3.9

  Award (In-year)

  1.5

  3.1

  52.7

  53.3

  2.4

  2.7

  1 Initial increases in central pay scales, supplemented by local pay negotiations.

  2 The Pay Review Bodies were asked not to report in 1993.

  3 To implement a recommendation in the 1994 SSRB report, the Judiciary receive an additional 0.63–2.48 per cent. annual increase for five years from 1 April 1995.

  4 For the Senior Civil Service, new pay ranges were set in 1996–97 and increased by 2.75 per cent, in 1997–98 and 3.5 per cent in 1998–99. Within these ranges, individual performance-related increases were staged on the same basis as other groups.

  5 Excluding Nurses whose pay was supplemented by local pay negotiations.

  Individual Savings Account
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish the findings of the consultation exercise on the ISA Green Paper; and if he will place the full results in the Library at the end of the consultation period. [24881]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: The consultation exercise allows the Government to draw on the widest possible range of experience and expertise. An appropriate summary of the findings of the consultation exercise will be made available after details of the scheme have been announced.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to answer the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 15 December concerning Michael Ashley of Southdown College, Mill Lane, Brixham, and his treatment for haemophilia. [27813]

  Mr. Boateng
  My noble Friend Baroness Jay replied on Wednesday 4 February.

TREASURY

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effective annualised increase in public sector pay for those workers covered by the Pay Review Bodies for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [24743]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: The following table shows the pay settlements for the groups covered by the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay (AFPRB), the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB), the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB), the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) and the Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB).

  Framework Arrangements (Northern Ireland)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the litigation in the European Court of Justice on the use of framework arrangements in Northern Ireland; what discussions he has held with other departments on the implications for procurement procedure; and if he will place in the Library the Reasoned Opinion of the European Commission of 2 May 1997 and the response by the Northern Ireland section of his Department of 25 May 1997. [27701]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The European Commission has announced its decision to refer the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice concerning the use of framework arrangements for the award of contracts to
  777
  which EC Directives on public procurement apply. The United Kingdom does not accept that the directives have been breached and will continue to put its case forcefully, if necessary. The case has been discussed with departments.

  The Commission's Reasoned Opinion and the United Kingdom's response of 25 July 1997 cover complex and delicate issues which might not be raised before the Court. They are considered by both parties as confidential between them and I am unable to place these documents in the library. If the case goes ahead, details of it will of course be available in the judgment of the Court.

  Euro
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the sale of excess reserves of(a) gold and (b) foreign currency by central banks participating in the euro on (i) world gold prices and (ii) international exchanges. [27528]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Developments in the world gold market are kept under continuous review as part of the normal process of managing the official reserves.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what period he expects the United Kingdom would be required to keep the pound in a fixed relationship with the euro before the United Kingdom were to join the Economic and Monetary Union. [27815]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The interpretation of the criteria set out in Article 109j of the Maastricht Treaty is a matter for collective discussion between EU Heads of State and Government when they meet in May to decide which Member States meet the conditions for Stage Three of EMU.

  It is not the Government's intention to rejoin the ERM. The Government believe that what is important for exchange rate stability is macroeconomic stability achieved through sound fiscal and monetary policies. The Government's new framework for macroeconomic policy and programme of structural reforms will deliver the macroeconomic stability the UK economy needs before we can join EMU. The Government do not believe that ERM membership is the best way to achieve stability or convergence.

  Bank of England Bill
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the European Monetary Institute's opinion concerning the Bank of England Bill under Article 109f(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 5.3 of the Statute of the EMI. [28493]

  Mr. Darling
  I have today placed copies of the opinion in the Libraries of the House.

  Savings
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of non-taxpayers without an interest-bearing account. [26234]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Inland Revenue can make no estimate of this from its own records.
  778
  In household surveys, about 40 per cent. of adults aged 16 and over who report a gross income below their personal tax allowance also report that they hold no interest-bearing accounts. This would imply a total of about 8 million adult non-taxpayers with no interest-bearing accounts in the population. Similar sources yield an estimate of about 6 million children under 16 holding no interest-bearing accounts.

  Competition Policy (Ministerial Meetings)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which ministers in his Department have attended meetings in connection with policy on competition. [27681]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I am responsible for the Treasury's interests in competition policy as part of the wider growth agenda. Other Ministers' responsibilities may, on occasion, involve competition issues.

  Beef Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue lost to the Treasury as a result of the recent decline in sales and employment in the beef sector. [22595]

  Mr. Darling
  Information on revenue from beef sales and employment levels in the beef sector is not held centrally. However, MAFF, the other Agriculture Departments, and HM Treasury have commissioned an independent study which aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of BSE across the UK economy and the regions. The study, which includes an assessment of the public expenditure and employment effects of the BSE crisis, is currently being finalised and will be published shortly.

  Orion Trust
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what further discussions the Paymaster General has had with the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury since 14 December concerning Orion Trust and TransTec shares; [25533]

  (2) what information the Paymaster General has provided to him on the circumstances leading to the transfer of TransTec shares to the Orion Trust on 30 April 1997; [25532]

  (3) what reasons the notes to the accounts of Stenbell Ltd. describe the Paymaster General as a beneficiary of the Orion Trust rather than a potential discretionary beneficiary; [25531]

  (4) what part the Paymaster General had in the selection of Richmond Corporate Services as trustees of the Orion Trust; [25541]

  (5) if the "Geoffrey Robinson personal settlement" financed or guaranteed the money which enabled Stenbell Ltd. to purchase the Paymaster General's TransTec shares. [25530]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answers 26 January 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on 13 January 1998, Official Report, column 169.
  779
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what letters of wishes the Paymaster General has written to the Orion trustees. [25529]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Paymaster General has complied with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury Press Office received the information that the Paymaster General had suggested to Orion that it buy TransTec shares. [25543]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The question refers to the Paymaster General's interview with The Observer on 13 December. As is the standard practice, a Treasury Press Officer was in attendance.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury will reply to the letter of 12 December from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). [25534]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: He has done so.

  Offshore Trusts (Taxation)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that papers relating to taxation of offshore trusts and tax enforcement are not passed to the Paymaster General. [25539]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the second of my answers to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) of 10 December 1997, Official Report, column 576. Decisions on the taxation of offshore trusts and tax enforcement are a matter for me.

  Tax Affairs (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Paymaster General concerning the possibility of the Paymaster General waiving his right to confidentiality in his tax affairs. [25542]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: None.

  Paymaster General (Press Statement)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury approved in advance the statement and accompanying document issued by the Treasury Press Office on 8 December concerning the Paymaster General. [25536]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Permanent Secretary was consulted on whether it was appropriate to issue the statement on Treasury headed paper. After seeing the text, he agreed that it was.

  Titmuss Gainer, Delheny Letters
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contacts(a) the Chief Press Officer and (b) other Treasury civil servants have had with Titmuss Gainer, Delheny subsequent to the issue of their letters of 8 December. [25538]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: All Treasury officials have acted in line with established Civil Service guidance.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the accuracy of the Treasury press release of 8 December 1997 containing the Titmuss Sainer, Dechert letters to The Sunday Times and The Observer. [25540]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: None, apart from standard Press inquiries, Parliamentary Questions and the points raised in the Adjournment Debate on 21 January.

  Paymaster General (Financial Affairs)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of Treasury resources, including press office time, devoted to dealing with the queries surrounding the Paymaster General's financial affairs. [25537]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: All such queries were handled within existing Treasury resources. To disaggregate running costs in the way that is requested would be disproportionately expensive, and is not a practice pursued by previous Governments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sterling
  Mr. St.Aubyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from exporters on the current value of the pound. [25697]

  Mrs. Roche
  Ministers and officials in my Department hold regular meetings with representatives of the business community. Exports and the current value of the pound are among the many issues discussed.

  Inward Investment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the estimated level of inward investment into the United Kingdom this year. [25707]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The full results for 1997–98 will be announced later this year in the IBB Annual Report. There have, though, already been some notable successes including the ACER peripherals investment in Cardiff which will create 1,000 jobs, Pfizer's announcement of a £109 million expansion to their research centre in Kent, creating 1,000 new jobs; Cadence Design Systems of the US investment in Scotland creating 1,895 jobs and Capital One, one of the largest US credit card issuing companies locating in Nottingham creating 600 new jobs. This is
  781
  clear evidence that the UK continues to be the preferred location for internationally mobile companies who wish to compete on a global scale.

  Far East (Economic Instability)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussion she has recently held with her counterparts in Asian countries to discuss trading conditions following the recent economic difficulties in the region; and if she will make a statement. [25709]

  Mrs. Beckett
  During my recent visit to China and Hong Kong I discussed this with senior members of the Chinese and Hong Kong SAR Governments.

  Post Office (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the Post Office's proposals for mail distribution services in Liverpool; and if she will make a statement. [25710]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend has received representations about Royal Mail's proposals for mail processing services in Liverpool from hon. Members representing Merseyside constituencies, from Liverpool City Council, from the Communication Workers Union and from individual post office employees and members of the public. I understand that Royal Mail is currently assessing an alternative proposal which has been submitted to them by the CWU.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the Low Pay Commission to report. [25711]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We have asked the Low Pay Commission to report with its recommendations by the end of May 1998 at the latest.

  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current estimate of oil and gas reserves in the United Kingdom. [25712]

  Mr. Battle
  Details of the UK's oil and gas reserves can be found in the Department's 1997 Energy Report, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the level of awareness of the need to take action on the millennium compliance of computer systems in the private sector. [25713]

  Mrs. Roche
  Surveys indicate a relatively high level of awareness, some as high as 90 per cent. However, we remain concerned that many businesses, particularly small and medium ones, are still not taking the necessary action to tackle the millennium bug. DTI's initiative—Action 2000—will, as part of its programme of work, undertake research specifically to benchmark the current levels in business across the board. The outcome will ensure that Action 2000's programme is properly focused.

  Look-alike Products
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have taken place between her Department and the British Brands Group about look-alike products. [25714]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Department has had a number of discussions with the British Brands Group about look-alikes, most recently in meetings on 23 November 1997. I met representatives of the BBG with a number of colleagues on 20 January 1998. I am grateful to the BBG for the helpful material they have supplied and which is the subject of discussions with DTI officials.

  Defence Industry (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she is taking to help workers in defence-related industries in the Chelmsford area who have been made redundant as a result of the peace dividend; and if she will make a statement. [25715]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department maintains close contact with local organisations which are working in partnership to address immediate redundancies in the Chelmsford area and long-term dependence on defence related manufacturing.

  KONVER funding is being used for retraining and to provide support to start-up businesses.

  Business Performance
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from business about the development of policies to improve Britain's business performance. [25716]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Through my Competitiveness UK initiative and through other contacts, I have had extensive discussions with a wide range of businesses.

  South-East Asia
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on trade with south-east Asia. [25717]

  Mrs. Beckett
  In 1997, UK exports of goods to South East Asia were worth £16.7 billion, 2 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The value of imports from the region increased by 4½ per cent. to £29.2 billion. Information on UK trade in services is not available for many of the countries in South East Asia, nor for the region as a whole.

  Details of UK trade in goods with each of the countries in the region are given in the following tables.

  UK Exports—Goods

  £ million, current prices

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  percentage change on 1996

  Burma

  19

  13

  15

  21

  15

  -28.3

  Thailand

  664

  749

  838

  974

  862

  -11.5

  Laos

  1

  1

  3

  5

  3

  -41.7

  Vietnam

  17

  63

  60

  50

  95

  91.2

  Cambodia

  3

  2

  3

  3

  2

  -26.6

  Indonesia

  331

  366

  525

  828

  701

  -15.3

  Malaysia

  966

  1,310

  1,197

  1,160

  1,205

  3.9

  783

  UK Exports—Goods

  £ million, current prices

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  percentage change on 1996

  Brunei

  324

  418

  1,254

  562

  560

  -0.4

  Singapore

  1,431

  1,769

  2,071

  2,145

  2,043

  -4.7

  Philippines

  306

  355

  432

  395

  600

  51.8

  S Korea

  796

  971

  1,153

  1,304

  1,223

  -6.2

  Taiwan

  668

  735

  962

  941

  1,034

  9.8

  Hong Kong

  2,170

  2,298

  2,655

  2,923

  3,211

  9.8

  China

  739

  845

  828

  739

  920

  24.6

  Japan

  2,654

  3,001

  3,783

  4,264

  4,178

  -2.0

  SE Asia

  11,090

  12,898

  14,781

  16,315

  16,653

  2.1

  UK Imports—Goods

  £ million, current prices

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  percentage change on 1996

  Burma

  9

  14

  9

  14

  19

  41.6

  Thailand

  771

  914

  1,040

  1,188

  1,222

  2.9

  Laos

  0

  2

  14

  7

  6

  -13.7

  Vietnam

  22

  66

  107

  160

  194

  21.5

  Cambodia

  1

  2

  8

  22

  25

  12.1

  Indonesia

  701

  783

  904

  981

  1,029

  4.9

  Malaysia

  1,397

  1,204

  1,489

  2,380

  2,025

  -14.9

  Brunei

  308

  294

  126

  292

  337

  15.4

  Singapore

  1,618

  1,896

  2,206

  2,573

  2,714

  5.5

  Philippines

  277

  244

  352

  895

  761

  -15.0

  S Korea

  1,080

  1,095

  1,562

  2,038

  2,239

  0.8

  Taiwan

  1,621

  1,582

  1,727

  2,088

  2,342

  12.1

  Hong Kong

  2,998

  3,081

  3,539

  4,073

  4,349

  6.8

  China

  1,327

  1,642

  1,940

  2,202

  2,495

  13.3

  Japan

  8,532

  8,831

  9,635

  8,994

  9,410

  4.6

  SE Asia

  20,661

  21,651

  24,658

  27,907

  29,167

  4.5

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise.

  Competitiveness
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to assist British companies to improve their competitiveness. [25718]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe).

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress her Department has made in preparing United Kingdom businesses for EMU. [25719]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, who is a Minister in both the DTI and the Treasury, has been appointed as Minister responsible for business preparations.

  My Department has worked with the Treasury to produce a Booklet "EMU: Practical Information for Business", some 65,000 copies of which have been distributed. My Ministerial colleagues and officials also emphasise the need for firms to prepare for the single currency in their contacts with business. To reinforce this approach, the Government are also planning an awareness and information campaign to alert British business to the effects of EMU from 1 January 1999 and help them prepare.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the future of competition in the electricity industry. [25720]

  Mr. Battle
  PA and OFFER have recommended that the roll out of electricity supply competition start in September and the industry has endorsed this proposal. Customers will benefit from new price controls which will take effect on 1 April and from penalties on the public electricity suppliers which will take effect from the end of April.

  University Capital Equipment
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to make up the shortfall in university capital equipment identified in the Dearing report. [25722]

  Mr. Battle
  The issue of university infrastructure and equipment needs is being considered within the Comprehensive Spending Review. In the meantime, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to maintaining state of the art equipment within UK universities through the increased funding of £13 million provided by the Research Councils, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Department for Education and Employment for the 1997 round of the Joint Research Equipment Initiative (JREI). This raised the total amount of public funds for this round of the scheme to over £34 million, which with the associated contributions from the private sector, has provided research equipment worth some £80 million. We also announced in January that the JREI would continue on an annual basis.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing industry. [25723]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Through our Competitiveness UK initiative and commitment to macro-economic stability, the Government are determined to create a climate in which all business, including manufacturing, can prosper.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the long-term future of Britain's coal industry. [25691]

  Mr. Battle
  The future of the UK coal industry will be influenced by many factors, some of which are currently the subject of reviews initiated by the Government, others of which are the subject of action already taken by the Government. I believe that the Government will be better placed to report to the House on their views of the future of the industry once we are in a position to report on the outcomes of those reviews.

  Utilities (Regulation)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the review of utility regulation to present its findings; and if she will make a statement. [25694]

  Mr. Battle
  I hope to be in a position to publish the conclusions of the Review on utility regulation in a Green Paper in the near future. Following publication, there will be a period of consultation during which all interested parties will have the opportunity to submit representations on any proposals for change. I do not propose to make a statement in advance of publication.

  EU Structural Funds
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress the Government have made in obtaining objective 1 status for Cornwall. [25708]

  Mrs. Roche
  In its communication "Agenda 2000", published on 16 July 1997, the Commission outlined in general terms its approach to the reform of the Structural Funds. We expect the Commission to publish more detailed draft regulations covering the future operation of the Funds in March or April this year. These draft regulations, covering the period 2000–2006, will then need to be negotiated in the Council of Ministers and approved by the European Parliament. Only once the final regulations have been agreed will we know which specific regions or areas will be eligible for Structural Funds. I and other Ministers have raised the specific treatment of Cornwall and other similar UK areas with low per capita GDP directly with the Commission. The Government will be working hard to ensure an outcome which is fair to the UK's regions and to the UK as a whole.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her estimate of the cost of Ministerial overseas travel in her Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 to date. [26598]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The estimated costs of Ministerial overseas travel for the years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 to date are as set out.

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  399,000

  1996–97

  443,000

  1997–98

  176,000

  British Coal Corporation
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been put in place for the future management of the British Coal Corporation. [28564]

  Mrs. Beckett
  At the end of December 1997, most of the Corporation's remaining property was transferred to the Coal Authority, and the outstanding actual and contingent liabilities for accident and health damage claims were transferred to the DTI. In light of the greatly reduced scale of activity, I have decided that the future management of the Corporation should be provided from 786
  within the DTI (Coal Directorate) at 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET. I have accordingly appointed Mike Atkinson as Corporation Chairman with effect from 1 January 1998. I have no immediate plans for the dissolution of the Corporation.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the extension of working time controls to sectors excluded from the Working Time Directive. [27529]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The European Commission issued a White Paper on the sectors and activities excluded from the Working Time Directive on 15 July last year. The White Paper was discussed by the Social Affairs Council on 15 December. As yet, the Commission has made no formal proposals to extend working time controls to the excluded sectors and activities.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's support for clean coal technology. [25721]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 54.

  Medicines (Retail Price Maintenance)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the cost to public funds of the referral of retail price maintenance of over-the-counter medicines to the Restrictive Practices Court by the Office of Fair Trading; and if she will publish this estimate. [26804]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 4 February 1998]: Referrals to the Restrictive Practices Court are a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I am asking him to write to the hon. Member.

  Racing Newspapers
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will make a statement on the proposed transfer to Mirror Group plc of the assets of The Racing Post and the right to use the title name; [26936]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the percentage of the United Kingdom's existing racing newspaper market covered by (a) The Racing Post and (b) The Sporting Life. [26937]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I announced today that I have given my consent, under section 58 (4) of the Fair Trading Act 1973, to the transfer of The Racing Post, and its assets, from The Racing Post Limited to Mirror Group plc, without a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In coming to this decision, I took into account all relevant considerations.

  Concessionary Fuel Agreement
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what statutory basis he has decided to change existing entitlements to concessionary fuel as set out in the 1983 Concessionary Fuel Agreement. [22234]
  787
  Mr. Battle
  We are required to ensure that, as a major purchaser of solid fuel, our purchasing does not discriminate between suppliers of fuels. Such discrimination is unlawful under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (Treaty of Rome) and under Articles 4 and 63 of the ECSC Treaty (Treaty of Paris). In addition, the Public Procurement Supplies Directive (93/36/EEC) imposes obligations of non-discrimination, spelt out particularly in the provisions relating to technical specifications. It is necessary that required specifications are not used in a potentially discriminatory manner. Specification of manufactured smokeless fuel products by brand name is not permitted.

  Hydrogen-fuelled Vehicles
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals the Government have to assist research into the use of hydrogen as a fuel in the internal combustion engine. [25492]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are supporting research at the University of Loughborough on novel techniques for the storage of hydrogen fuel. In addition, proposals have been invited under the Foresight Vehicles LINK Programme, covering the supply, distribution and provision for refuelling, of gaseous fuels for road vehicles, and also for on-board storage and re-forming of methane into hydrogen for use in fuel cells.

  Radioactive Wastes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) of 10 June 1997,Official Report, column 415, on radioactive wastes, what progress has been made with the negotiations between BNFL and ENEL on the return of reprocessed Magnox radioactive wastes; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the exchange of letters between the United Kingdom and Italian Governments on the option to return wastes to Italy. [27245]

  Mr. Battle
  BNFL continues to negotiate with ENEL on the form and timescale of return of wastes from the reprocessing of the latter's Magnox fuel.

  I have arranged for the letters between the British and Italian governments dated 29 February and 12 April 1984 and a translation into English of the Italian letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total volume of spent nuclear fuel imported for reprocessing for each year since 1990 broken down to show(a) high level, (b) intermediate level and (c) low level waste, indicating countries of origin. [26979]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: Reprocessing of imported spent nuclear fuel is carried out at British Nuclear Fuels' site at Sellafield and by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at its Dounreay site. All spent nuclear fuel imported is categorised as high level.

  While it is not possible to give figures for each year since 1990, in the period from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1997, over 1,700 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel, which is
  788
  categorised as high-level nuclear material, was imported for reprocessing in the United Kingdom. This material originated from Australia, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the gross annual cost of increasing the basic state pension by(a) £5, (b) £10 and (c) £20 per week; what would be (i) the annual savings in means-tested benefits and (ii) increased Treasury receipts from income tax if the basic state pension was increased by (1) £5 per week, (2) £10 per week, (3) £20 per week; and what increase in national insurance contributions would be needed to meet the net cost of increasing the basic state pension by (A) £5 per week, (B) £10 per week, and (C) £20 per week. [24807]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  The additional costs of increasing basic state pension in 1998–99 by £5, £10 and £20 if contributory retirement pension (RP) only increased

  1998–99

  £5 increase

  £10 increase

  £20 increase

  Gross cost (£ million)

  2,380

  4,750

  9,510

  Income-related benefit offset (£ million)

  -630

  -1,210

  -2,220

  Income tax offset (£ million)

  -190

  -400

  -830

  National Insurance effects

  The Lower Earnings Limit would be increased to

  £69

  £74

  £84

  The Upper Earnings Limited would be increased to

  £520

  £560

  £635

  To offset the increase in net costs:

  The employees' NIC rate would have to be increased by

  0.4 percentage points

  0.9 percentage points

  1.9 percentage points

  The employers' NIC rate would have to be increased by

  0.2 percentage points

  0.5 percentage points

  1.1 percentage points

  The additional costs of increasing basic state pension in 1998–99 by £5, £10 and £20 if contributory retirement pension (RP) and linked benefits increase

  1998–99

  £5 increase

  £10 increase

  £20 increase

  Gross cost (£ million)

  2,860

  5,720

  11,440

  Income-related benefit offset (£ million)

  -750

  -1,450

  -2,710

  Income tax offset (£ million)

  -190

  -400

  -830

  National Insurance effects

  The Lower Earnings Limit would be increased to

  £69

  £74

  £84

  The Upper Earnings Limit would be increased to

  £520

  £560

  £635

  789

  The additional costs of increasing basic state pension in 1998–99 by £5, £10 and £20 if contributory retirement pension (RP) and linked benefits increase

  1998–99

  £5 increase

  £10 increase

  £20 increase

  To offset the increase in net costs:

  The employees' NIC rate would have to be increased by

  0.5 percentage points

  1.0 percentage points

  2.3 percentage points

  The employers' NIC rate would have to be increased by

  0.3 percentage points

  0.6 percentage points

  1.4 percentage points

  Notes:

  1. All estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Gross costs were estimated by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD).

  3. The effect on income tax revenues were estimated by Inland Revenue.

  4. Means-tested benefit offsets were calculated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the May 1996 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, both uprated to 1997–98 prices, benefits and earnings levels, and calibrated to the forecasts underlying the 1997 Departmental Report.

  5. The lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit are legally linked to the rate of basic State pension; The Class 2 and Class 3 rates are all tied to the basic State pension rate by convention. GAD have assumed that all these limits and rates will continue to be linked to the RP rate. Hence altering the basic State pension rate has an automatic knock-on effect on several aspects of the contributions system.

  6. Inland Revenue are not able to estimate the effect of increasing the linked benefits on income tax revenues. The net costs of increasing contributory RP and the linked benefits have therefore been calculated by subtracting the estimated increase in income tax receipts from increasing contributory RP only from the net DSS costs of increasing contributory RP and the linked benefits.

  7. Since income related benefits and income to tax revenues do not form part of the NI Fund, the revenue raised from increasing National Insurance Contribution rates on the basis shown will be insufficient to meet the extra expenditure falling on the Fund from the stated benefit increases.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list by grade the number of officials in her Department at grade 3 or above who have(a) taken early retirement, (b) taken official leave, (c) been dismissed, (d) changed jobs within the Department, (e) moved to another Department and (f) been offered and rejected an alternative position (i) within the Department and (ii) in another Department since 1 May. [27450]

  Mr. Denham
  From 1 April 1996, the Department moved away from grades for staff previously at grade 5 and above, to a system based on nine overlapping paybands. Posts were scored in a range of 7 to 22, using Job Evaluation of Senior Posts (JESP) methodology. Posts with a JESP score of 13 or above are considered to be equivalent to grade 3 or above.

  Since 1 May 1997, no officials have taken early retirement; no officials have taken official leave; no officials have been dismissed; one civil servant in a post with a JESP score of 16 has changed jobs within the Department; three civil servants in posts with JESP scores of 13, 16 and 20 respectively have moved to another Department; no officials have been offered and rejected an alternative position within this Department or another Department.

  Periodicals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if she will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26622]

  Mr. Field
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out. Offices of the Department's Agencies also subscribe to publications; however, details of these are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure on newspapers and magazines

  Year

  £

  1995–96 (approximate)

  68,000

  1996–97

  74,058

  1997–98 to date

  72,002

  1997–98 (estimated outturn for year)

  87,514

  The Department subscribes to a wide range of publications including all of the major daily and weekend newspapers.

  Magazines currently purchased include:

  The Actuary

  American Economic Review

  Anbar Abstracts

  Anti Poverty Matters

  Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin

  Benefits and Compensation International

  The Big Issue

  Byte

  Campaign

  CCTA Technology Update

  Community Care

  Current Research in Social Security

  Disability Now

  Economic Trends

  Economist

  Equal Opportunities Review

  Europe Daily Bulletin

  European Social Policy

  Family Matters

  Financial Adviser

  Findings: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

  Government Business

  Health and Safety at Work

  Health Service Journal

  Housing Review

  Housing Today

  IBIS Review

  IDS Pension Service Bulletin

  Interfaces

  International Social Security Review

  Internet Magazine

  Investors Chronicle

  Journal of Documentation

  791

  Journal of European Social Policy

  Journal of Political Policy

  Journal of Social Security Law

  Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

  Labour Market Quarterly Report

  Lancet

  Legal Action

  Management Today

  Managing Information

  Money Management

  Municipal Journal

  National Institute Economic Review

  Nature

  New Law Journal

  New Scientist

  New Statesman

  Occupational Health

  Occupational Pensions

  OECD Observer

  Official Journal of the European Communities

  Online

  Oxford Economic Papers

  PC Magazine

  Pensions Age

  Pensions Management

  Personal Computer World

  Political Quarterly

  Press Gazette

  Private Eye

  Records Management Journal

  Roof

  Scientific American

  Social Policy and Administration

  Social Policy Bulletin

  Social Security Abroad

  Spectator

  Taxation

  Total Quality Management

  Trends in Social Security

  Voluntary Voice

  Volunteering

  The Week

  Welfare Rights Bulletin

  What Investment

  Which

  Work, Employment and Society

  Working Brief

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the(a) annual and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which she has responsibility, in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year. [26621]
  792
  Mr. Field
  When calculating the cost to the department of "empty properties" it has been assumed that reference was being made to properties that are wholly vacant and not to vacant space within the department. The value of such Crown properties has been calculated to be £429,000. The last valuation exercise was conducted in June 1995, information for 1996 to date could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The amount of commercial rent that is payable on the property that is also vacant, for the period 1997–98 is approximately £1.01 million.

  There are properties on the estate that have been identified as having space that is vacant, but as the building is still used to house staff employed by the department these properties have not been included in calculating the figures used in this response. The disposal of surplus space has formed part of the recently signed PRIME contract whose aim is to reduce the overall running costs to the department of the space needed to deliver the department's business.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non departmental public bodies, in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii)1997–98 to date. [27747]

  Mr. Denham
  The estimated cost of theft and detected internal fraud within the Department of Social Security for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97 is shown in the table. It is not yet possible to provide costing figures for the year 1997–98.

  £000

  Agencies

  1995–96

  1996–97

  BA

  1,190

  693

  CSA

  27

  5

  CA

  23

  22

  WPA

  1

  0

  ITSA

  6

  33

  HQ

  16

  30

  Department total

  1,263

  783

  Note:

  The estimated cost figures for non-departmental public bodies for 1995–96 is £300 and nil cost for 1996–97.

  The previous administration estimated the level of benefit fraud at around £4 billion a year. The Government are currently examining the estimate of fraud in the light of further analysis of the findings of the ongoing programme of benefit reviews.

  Contract (Criteria)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to apply best value criteria to the awarding of contracts for provision of accommodation and office services for her Department. [26538]

  Mr. Field
  Bids from the private sector will be tested against the criteria outlined in my accouncement of 31 July 1997 to ensure that service delivery proposals work and that they are fair to customers, taxpayers and staff. They will establish a minimum quality of service thereshold that must be met; give priority to flexible service delivery, controlled through robust quality
  793
  monitoring systems that ensure high performance; and test bidders' plans for managing people against our new strengthened criteria and concern for staff issues. Contracts will not be awarded unless they meet these criteria, no matter how low the price.

  Child Care Disregard
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates were made for take-up of the child care disregard on family credit prior to its introduction; what percentage of family credit claimants actually receive the child care disregard; and what assessment she has made of the reasons underlying the take-up rate. [25632]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The original estimate was that, in the long term, 150,000 families would benefit from the child care disregard.

  The latest figures available, as at August 1997, for Family Credit recipients with an allowed claim for child care costs are set out in the table:

  Number

  Percentage

  Number of Family Credit recipients

  757,000

  Number with allowed claim for help with child care

  37,000

  4.9

  of which receiving no extra benefit

  5,000

  0.7

  of which receiving extra benefit

  32,000

  4.2

  Source:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of all awards.

  It is not possible to assess the reasons underlying the level of take up as the take up estimates produced for the income-related benefits do not provide estimates of component elements such as the child care disregard.

  The number of families who benefit from the child care disregard reflects the lack of affordable, quality child care. The development of a National Child Care Strategy will seek to ensure that the provision of affordable, quality child care meets the needs of parents so that they may successfully balance their family and working lives.

  Councillors' Allowances
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 671, on councillors' allowances, if she will list concessions in the benefits system which are available to councillors but not to other people. [25859]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Neither Jobseeker's Allowance nor Income Support are payable to people who work for 16 hours a week or more on average. Work done as a councillor does not count towards the 16 hours allowed before benefit entitlement ceases.

  Travel allowances paid to councillors, including those from home to council offices, are also ignored for benefit purposes. For other part-time employees, work related expenses, including travel expenses, are not disregarded.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 December 1997,794
  Official Report, column 465, for the period 23 July 1997 to 23 January 1998, how many (a) letters were sent out to lone parents, (b) lone parents attended interviews or booked appointments, (c) lone parents agreed to continue to participate following an interview, (d) lone parents found jobs, (e) lone parents failed to respond to the initial letter sent to them and (f) lone parents declined to participate following an interview with a personal adviser. [27540]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Sufficient data to evaluate the results of the New Deal for Lone Parents are not yet available, and conclusions cannot be drawn from early figures. A full report of the New Deal for Lone Parents will be published in 1999. The impact of the first phase will be measured by comparing outcomes for lone parents in the New Deal areas with the outcomes for lone parents in a similar, but geographically separate, group of control areas where the New Deal service is not yet available.

  Information on the operation of the New Deal for Lone Parents is available up to and including 31 December.

  As at 31 December 1997:
  16,311 first invitations had been issued to lone parents.
  5,240 initial interviews had been arranged, and 3,404 lone parents had attended interviews.
  2,728 lone parents had agreed to participate in the New Deal for lone Parents following initial interviews.
  1,015 lone parents have found jobs following agreement to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents programme.

  Information on the number of lone parents who have failed to respond to initial letters is not available from the Management Information Statistics reports which are kept on New Deal for Lone Parents. However, Personal Advisers will follow up initial letters with further contacts.

  676 lone parents have declined to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents programme following an interview with a personal adviser.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents through the New Deal for Lone Parents(a) have been sent letters, (b) have obtained employment and (c) of those who obtained employment were in full-time employment on 1 February. [27698]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Data for 1 February 1998 are not yet available. As of 31 December 1997, 16,311 lone parents had received initial letters through the New Deal for Lone Parents; 1,015 lone parents had obtained employment; of which 755 were in full-time employment.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents who have obtained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents scheme are aged(a) between 21 and 25, (b) between 26 and 30, (c) between 31 and 35, (e) between 36 and 40 and (f) over 40 years of age. [27699]
  795
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Number of lone parents who have obtained work through the new deal for lone parent by age groups as of 31 December 1997

  Age Group

  Number of lone parents who have obtained jobs

  21–25

  139

  26–30

  219

  31–35

  249

  36–40

  220

  over 40

  155

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the number of lone parents who are(a) in work and (b) not in work. [25648]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We estimate that there are around 730,000 lone parents in work and 930,000 out of work.

  Notes:
  These figures are derived from the latest Department of Social Security estimates of the total number of lone parents in 1996–97, and from the Spring 1997 Labour Force Survey which suggests that around 44 per cent of lone parents in Great Britain are in work.
  "In work" includes those lone parents who are employed, self-employed and in Government training schemes on a part-time or full-time basis.
  Figures rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the rates of absenteeism in her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 to date; and if she will make a statement. [26620]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Days sickness absence per member of staff per year for 1995

  Days sickness absence

  Department overall

  11.8

  BA

  12.7

  CA

  12.5

  CSA

  13.4

  ITSA

  9.7

  WPA

  13.0

  HQ inc ISBs

  10.5

  Notes:

  1. The table shows the number of days of sickness absence per member of staff per year. It includes overall Departmental figures, plus Agencies and Headquarters separately.

  2. The Headquarters figure includes all non-departmental public bodies.

  3. The figures are available in the occupational Health and Safety Agency published reports, copies of which are in the library.

  4. 1996 figures are due to be published shortly. 1997 figures are not yet available.

  Lost and Stolen Items
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list those items valued at more than £25 stolen or lost from her Department since 1 May 1997; and if she will make a statement. [27748]
  796
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available. The Department does not separately maintain centralised records of individual items stolen.

  Conferences
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the conferences held by her Department since 1 May 1997, giving in each case the(a) purpose and (b) estimated cost. [27749]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available as it is not held centrally. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Expenditure brought to account on Management Conferences for Departmental staff between 1 May and 31 December is £958,201.

  Additionally expenditure brought to account on seminars for employers on National Insurance issues between 1 May and 31 December is £17,376.

  Fraud
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the basis on which estimates of the annual cost of benefit fraud are made. [27923]

  Mr. Denham
  The previous administration based estimates of the level of benefit fraud on the findings of the on-going programme of Benefit Reviews. Copies of published Benefit Reviews are available in the Library. The Government are currently examining the estimate of fraud in the light of further analysis of the results of the Benefit Review programme.

  Income Support
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the saving to the Exchequer from unclaimed income support in respect of pensioners; how much has been spent by her Department directly on advertising income support entitlement to the elderly; and if she will make a statement. [27894]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department's spending plans assume existing levels of take-up of benefits, taking into account any observed trends. Unclaimed benefit does not, therefore, represent a saving on published spending plans. Latest estimates are that between £670 million and £890 million of Income Support was unclaimed by around a million pensioners in 1995–96. We are determined to get help to this group, and have already commissioned research to find out why they do not make a claim. From April, we will be spending £15 million on a number of pilot projects to find the best way of encouraging them to make a claim.

  In 1996–97, the Benefits Agency spent over £5 million on publicising all benefits. It is not possible to identify how much of that figure directly related to Income Support for the elderly.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the meetings of 17 December between her Minister and
  797
  (a) the Social Affairs Commissioner in Strasbourg and (b) Members of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee in the European Parliament. [27700]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I met Commissioner Flynn and, separately, Members of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee of the European Parliament as part of a series of bilateral contacts in preparation for the UK Presidency of the European Union. I used the opportunity to explain the UK's Presidency priorities in the Social Security field and to listen to the views of both Commissioner Flynn and MEPs about the UK's plans.

  I explained that the priorities in the Social Security field would complement the key UK Presidency theme of employability and tackling unemployment. In particular, the UK Presidency would seek to reach agreement on the draft Directive on Supplementary Pensions aimed at protecting pension rights for employed and self-employed people who take up employment in another Member State. The UK would also work towards agreement on legislation and other action to modernise and improve the long-standing rules that coordinate the operation of Member States' statutory Social Security schemes for people moving between Member States.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the current study of the Child Support Agency literature will be complete; and when the revised material will be produced. [26212]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Sally Keeble, dated 4 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the current study of Child Support Agency literature.
  The current study is examining the Agency's most frequently used literature. It is due to be completed by April 1998 when it will make recommendations on the future development and review of all Agency literature. To date, it has reviewed and simplified around 60 forms and leaflets in accordance with Plain English standards and 16 key forms have been awarded the Plain English Campaign's Crystal Mark. Some forms have also been amalgamated.
  Offices are already using the new revised literature as stocks of existing literature become exhausted. It is not possible therefore to give specific dates when the new literature has been or will be used.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the numbers of people in respect of the Benefit Integrity Programme(a) assessed to date by postal questionnaire, (b) assessed to date by interview, (c) in (a) who have had their disability living allowance reduced, (d) in (b) who have had their disability living allowance reduced, (e) in (c) who have appealed against the reduction, (f) in (d) who have appealed against the
  798
  reduction, (g) in (e) who have succeeded in their appeal and (h) in (f) who have succeeded in their appeal. [26511]

  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 Benefits 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 4 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to recent Parliamentary Question regarding the numbers of people in respect of the Benefit Integrity Programme (BIP) (a) assessed to date by postal questionnaire, (b) assessed to date by interview, (c) in (a) who have had their disability living allowance reduced, (e) in (c) who have appealed against the reduction, (f) in (d) who have appealed against the reduction, (g) in (e) who have succeeded in their appeal and (h) in (f) who have succeeded in their appeal.
  The number of people whose award of Disability Living Allowance (DLS) has been re-examined as part of BIP at 31 December is 40,615. Of these, 25,638 cases have been dealt with by postal enquiry and 7,515 have been visited. A further 7,462 cases where a short term award of DLA was approaching renewal, have bee dealt with by asking for further medical evidence to support the renewal application.
  Of the cases dealt with by postal enquiry, 3,520 have had their benefit reduced, this includes 1,274 whose benefit has been stopped and of the cases dealt with by visit, 845 have had their benefit reduced, this includes 153 whose benefit has been stopped.
  The first recourse of anyone who is dissatisfied with a decision to reduce the amount of their benefit is to request a review of that decision by a different Adjudication Officer. Data concerning reviews is not available until the review outcome is known so it is not possible to tell you how many people in each category have requested a review. However, of the 3,520 postal cases where benefit has been reduced/stopped, 783 have been reviewed of which 162 have been increased (119 of these have been increased back to—or higher than—the rate in payment before BIP postal enquiry). Of the 845 visit cases whose benefit has been reduced/stopped, 59 have been reviewed leading to 12 increases (9 of these have been increased back to the rate in payment before the BIP visit).
  Anyone dissatisfied with the review decision is entitled to appeal to an Independent Tribunal. At 31 December, 311 Appeals have been received but no cases have been heard by the Independent Tribunal Service.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Tribunal Appeals
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assistance is available to applicants for disability benefits for obtaining medical evidence in support of tribunal appeals. [25738]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Kidney, dated 4 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding what assistance is available to applicants for disability benefits for obtaining evidence in support of tribunal appeals.

  799
  Claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are decided by independent adjudicating authorities who are specially appointed under legislation for the purpose. They are responsible for deciding if the conditions for entitlement are satisfied.
  Entitlement to DLA is primarily based upon the needs of a customer arising from their disability or illness rather than the diagnosis of a customer's illness or disability. The self assessment statement provided by a customer detailing their needs is therefore the principle factor in determination of a claim. The onus for providing this evidence lies with the customer. There has been a move away from the reliance of a medical assessment and more emphasis is placed upon a person's day to day care and mobility needs. The customer is considered best placed to know the practical effects of the disability.
  In the majority of claims for DLA an Adjudication Officer (AO) can determine the application based upon the self assessment information provided. The AO may find that there is sufficient evidence on the balance of probability and make a decision in favour of, or against, the customer. An AO must however, request factual evidence from other sources, if this is required to make an accurate and fair decision. A customer has the opportunity to request a visit from an independent doctor on the initial application forms.
  Similarly, in keeping with other decisions on DLA the emphasis on decisions made by Disability Appeal Tribunal's (DATs) is on the customer's own evidence of how their disability or illness affects them rather than a purely medical assessment. There may be some situations where further medical information may be the only way a DAT could reasonably reach a decision. For these cases procedures are in place whereby a medical examination can be undertaken or other medical information collected prior to the DAT hearing. It is also open for an appellant to produce any supportive evidence from carer's or other sources which can be presented to the tribunal.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Spending
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the average amount spent per pupil in Shropshire relative to the national average for those of(a) primary and (b) secondary school age for each year from 1991–92 to 1996–97. [27104]

  Mr. Byers
  The table sets out the net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA maintained pre primary/primary schools and secondary schools from 1991–92 to 1996–97 for Shropshire LEA and England. Expenditure on pupils in GM schools is not included.

  LEA maintained schools cost per pupil

  Pre-primary, Shropshire

  primary England

  Shropshire

  Secondary England

  1991–92

  1,497

  1,469

  2,349

  2,145

  1992–93

  1,590

  1,583

  2,509

  2,256

  1993–94

  1,577

  1,630

  2,354

  2,245

  1994–95

  1,605

  1,661

  2,413

  2,270

  1995–96

  1,573

  1,687

  2,384

  2,286

  1996–97 Provisional

  1,613

  1,733

  2,445

  2,333

  National Curriculum
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for introducing international development into the National Curriculum. [27172]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are already requirements and opportunities for pupils to study issues related to international development through the National Curriculum, particularly in geography and history. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is due to give formal advice this Spring on the scope and nature of possible revisions to the National Curriculum after 2000. Meanwhile, the new flexibility in the primary curriculum will give schools more opportunity to offer intentional development education if they wish.

  Pupil:Teacher Ratio (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the pupil:teacher ratio in Shropshire for the(a) maintained nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary sectors for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [27103]

  Mr. Byers
  Information on pupil:teacher ratio estimates for individual Local Education Authorities is not available.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the pupil:teacher ratio for Shropshire for the(a) maintained nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary sectors for each year since 1992. [27105]

  Mr. Byers
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Pupil:teacher ratios in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in Shropshire As at January in each year

  Year

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools1

  1992

  10.0

  21.5

  15.2

  1993

  15.0

  22.0

  15.6

  1994

  21.8

  23.1

  16.1

  1995

  22.1

  23.3

  16.2

  1996

  20.9

  24.3

  16.5

  1997

  21.3

  24.4

  16.5

  1 Excludes Sixth Form Colleges

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by grade the number of officials in his Department at grade 3 or above who have(a) taken early retirement, (b) taken official leave, (c) been dismissed, (d) changed jobs within the Department, (e) moved to another Department and (f) been offered and rejected an alternative position (i) within the Department and (ii) in another Department since 1 May. [27458]

  Dr. Howells
  Since 1 May 1997, 3 officials at Director (broadly equivalent to the former grade 3) level in DfEE (including the Employment Service) have taken early retirement, none have taken official leave and none have
  801
  been dismissed. Two have moved to posts at Director level on promotion, 1 has returned to DfEE at this level having been on loan to another Department and 1 has returned to the Department at this level after a secondment to an outside organisation. No one at Director level has moved to another Department or been offered and rejected an alternative position, either within the Department or in another Department. None of the circumstances listed have applied to anyone at Director General (broadly equivalent to the former grade 2) level and above in DfEE since 1 May 1997 although further restructuring of the DfEE Board later this year is likely to involve 1 early retirement and 1 change of job.

  Qualifications Curriculum Authority
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the annual budget of the Qualifications Curriculum Authority. [25784]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 1 December 1997,Official Report, column 11. I expect the Authority to submit its Corporate Plan to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, in the very near future. He will then determine the Authority's grant in aid. My Department has indicated to the Authority that a sum of around £53 million will be available.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Marquess of Exeter— Took the Oath.

Facial Coverings and Crime
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon The Earl of Carnarvon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will include in the Crime and Disorder Bill a provision similar to Section 35 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 to prevent persons wearing face coverings, balaclavas or hoods in public places without reasonable excuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Northern Ireland provision is aimed at the wearing of balaclavas and so forth by paramilitary terrorists and is part of a range of measures intended to tackle the particular circumstances that have prevailed in the Province. The position in England and Wales is markedly different. This particular measure will be far less effective than may be supposed. For that reason the Government have no plans at present to extend the provision to the mainland.
In 1993 the Association of Chief Police Officers considered and rejected the idea of making it an offence to wear balaclavas and so forth without reasonable excuse. I know that it has reconsidered that in the light of an approach from the noble Earl and will be consulting the Home Office shortly. We shall of course consider with great care its views on this serious matter.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and, in asking my supplementary question, I wish him a happy birthday today. Is he aware that there is unanimous support from all 44 chief constables for the power to demand the removal of face coverings before crime and disorder take place? Last year there were several serious offences by masked persons during the National Front march in Dover and during the Bristol City versus Bristol Rovers football match. Will the noble Lord consider amending Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to permit officers to demand the removal of face coverings that might intimidate other persons or which might inhibit the subsequent identification of offenders?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for reminding me that time does pass, however slowly, in your Lordships' House. I am indebted to him, as always, for his great scruple and courtesy in indicating the line his supplementary
738
question would take. Perhaps I may deviate for a moment because Northern Ireland has been mentioned. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, back in the Chamber after her recent indisposition.
This is a serious matter. The noble Earl has mentioned a number of specific incidents and there are others which he and I have discussed privately, some of which are sub judice. This is a significant issue. We are awaiting representations from the chief officers of police. Remedies already exist: for instance, the power of arrest where a breach of the peace is reasonably apprehended. There are also difficulties about defining facial coverings because they might include sunglasses when the sun shines and, perhaps more often, rainhoods when it rains. This is a serious matter, not least, as the noble Earl said, as regards the production of identification evidence for subsequent successful prosecutions. That is why at the door of the Home Office no one is allowed in who is wearing, for instance, a motor cycle crash helmet.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there will be a great deal of appreciation for the fairly positive replies that he has given this afternoon? Is the Minister aware that there is strong support among chief officers of police for a change in the law, as the noble Earl rightly said? That applies not only to the sort of episodes to which the noble Earl referred, but also to a number of armed robberies committed by people wearing some form of covering to the face. Will he look at this matter very carefully with ACPO when it has submitted its report to the Home Office?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that approach. I entirely accept what the noble Lord said. These head coverings are worn to escape identification, but, as far as we are concerned, they are also used to intimidate people who are being attacked. It is a serious matter. The letter from ACPO to the noble Earl was dated 21st January, which was when he was courteous enough to forward it to me. We have not received the representations yet. We shall deal with the matter with all appropriate seriousness.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord gave a sympathetic response to the Question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. Can he be assured by me that, should he wish to make the changes suggested by this Question, he will have full co-operation from these Benches, particularly if he wishes to make those changes during the passage through this House of the Crime and Disorder Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, again, I am very grateful. That is always the general attitude that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, adopts. It may be that an amendment to Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 would be the more appropriate place for consideration. But if there were an appropriate opportunity during our present journey through the current Bill, we shall consider it. This is

739
definitely a mischief which needs to be looked at with great care. I can only reiterate all our thanks to the noble Earl for raising it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I appreciate the background to my noble friend's Question which concerns crime. However, are the Government aware that any changes would require the greatest care—particularly in relation to smog masks worn by cyclists and such things as chadar scarves?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord reminds me that my list of facial coverings had not previously been exhaustive. I anticipate that any proposed offence would have built into it the proposition that the offence could not be committed without reasonable excuse. People do sometimes want to wear things round and about their faces, such as football supporters, Welsh rugby supporters and people of that sort.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I welcome the positive response of the noble Lord, but will he give the House an assurance that particular attention will be paid to the opinion of the Chief Constable of the RUC, where parallel provisions have operated with great benefit?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with such an authoritative source I can give that assurance. Curiously, as it happens. that offence has never been invoked in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the mere passage of the Bill making it an offence has had the desired social consequence without the need for prosecutions. It was a surprise to me—and it may be to the noble and learned Lord—that Section 35 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 has never been invoked.

Primary Schools: Curriculum
3.9 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that children under the age of 11 continue to have a properly broad-based education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, all primary schools will be required to give priority to literacy and numeracy within a balanced and broadly based curriculum. They will continue to teach all 10 national curriculum subjects and religious education. Contrary to some press reports, no school will be allowed to abandon any subject. However, schools will have more opportunity to offer tasters in other subjects—for example, modern foreign languages—if they wish.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I should like to ask two questions. First, does
740
the noble Baroness accept that it is just as important for children at the age of 11 to understand the significance of 1066, 1588, 1802 and 1940 as it is for them to know the nine times table? Secondly, I know of a primary school in south London, which is an extremely good school, but after three years in that school a form will have reached only the eight times table. I recognise that the eight times table is an exacting table—indeed, a Minister of the Crown recently showed that he had not yet absolutely mastered it—but surely we ought to be able to make more progress than that. Does the Minister agree that a well tried way of getting the tables learnt is for the teacher to stand in front of the form and to drill the children through the tables until they can gabble them by heart and then begin to dodge them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that it was the seven times table that tripped up my honourable friend. I hope that no Member of your Lordships' House will try to test me! In response to the noble Lord's point about the teaching of history, it is important that there should be a broad and balanced curriculum. Although not wanting to become involved in a debate about the specific dates to which the noble Lord referred, I agree that it is vital that all primary school-children have access to teaching about our history. With regard to numeracy and the teaching of the tables, there are a variety of approaches which teachers might want to adopt when deciding how best to teach numeracy, but this Government are determined that our targets for both numeracy and literacy at 11 will be met. It is for those reasons that we are making some changes; we are loosening and providing greater flexibility in the primary school curriculum to allow that.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is still serious under-achievement in both reading and mathematics in many primary schools, and that some pupils go on to secondary school unable to read, while in some primary schools pupils are over five years behind the pupils at other schools in mathematics and three years behind in reading? What is being done to improve those essential skills of numeracy and reading, without which one cannot understand any other subject?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I intimated just now, the Government have set tough targets for all primary schools to achieve with regard to the scores that children at the age of 11 obtain in both literacy and numeracy. It is extremely important that children do not go on to secondary school without having reached the scores that they should, otherwise they are in danger of falling behind. The Government have also decided to make it clear to all primary schools that the amount of time that they allocate to both literacy and numeracy should be increased. It is because the curriculum was somewhat over-burdened in terms of the number of national curriculum subjects with prescribed programmes that the decision was made to lift the prescribed programmes in the six foundation subjects.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that children with special educational needs also need access to a broadly

741
based curriculum, more especially in the light of the debate in this House on 3rd February and MENCAP's innovative work with children with profound and multiple disabilities? Is not their claim one of the highest priority?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend will be aware that the Government have published a Green Paper concerning children with special educational needs, on which we are consulting. We are looking, and hoping, for a debate on how to improve opportunities for children with disabilities, whether slight or more profound. Every child should be given the opportunity to reach his or her potential.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister accept
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree—
Noble Lords: Elton!
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister accept the enormous importance of equipping teachers to teach in methods that we regard as traditional and simple but which from the 1660s became regarded as old-fashioned—
Noble Lords: 1960s!
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure which table I have fallen foul of! I refer to the enormous importance of equipping teachers to teach children. Merely addressing teachers who are already teaching will not suffice. We need a professional teaching body. Urgent attention must be paid to this matter in the teacher training colleges so that teachers are taught how to teach in such methods before they begin their careers.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure what the curriculum was like prior to 1660, but it is extremely important that all teachers are adequately trained. That is why in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill that is now before the House we are introducing new arrangements for the induction of teachers when they arrive in school. The first year can be vital in terms of the qualities that teachers can later reveal in their classroom performance. We are also looking at ways of improving the quality of teacher training. Again, that Bill contains provisions to ensure that Ofsted is able to inspect all teacher training courses, including those in universities.
Lord Tope: My Lords, does the Minister agree that not only is a broadly based curriculum important in itself, but it is also essential in providing a proper framework for the promotion of literacy and numeracy? Is the Minister aware that the initial relief felt by teachers at the fact that the Government had at last recognised that the national curriculum was over-burdened has now been replaced by confusion about exactly what they are going to do? Can the Minister tell us when guidance will be issued to teachers
742
on how they are to achieve the objectives of both giving priority to literacy and numeracy and providing a broadly based curriculum?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, teachers are aware that they are required to continue to teach the six foundation subjects as well as the core subjects of English, Maths, Science and IT. However, the Qualification and Curriculum Agency is currently working on new guidance to inform teachers, and to reassure them, about exactly what breadth in the curriculum should mean.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extreme anxiety among musicians about the effect that the reduction in the time given to music in schools will have? There have been letters in The Times, particularly from Sir Simon Rattle, about the poor quality of music that will result if children are no longer required to be taught music in primary school as a serious part of the national curriculum. Can the Minister reassure the public in general that special steps will be taken to improve the quality of music in primary schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am of course aware of the anxieties as I have been lobbied as somebody with a long-standing interest in the teaching of music and of other arts subjects in both primary and secondary schools. The Government have no intention of seeing music knocked out of the primary school curriculum. On the contrary, we very much value the excellent work of many teachers in providing music tuition. Sir Simon Rattle has been invited to join a new government committee which will consider innovation and creativity in young people and how to develop it in our schools.

Metrication: Enforcement
3.19 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to use criminal penalties to enforce metrication throughout the United Kingdom's commercial and retail sectors.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, of course the Government do not intend that people shall he locked up simply because they do not use metric units of measurement. But the United Kingdom has been converting to the metric system in stages over many years so that most goods formerly required to be sold in imperial units are now sold in metric units. It is where local authorities find evidence of fraud or the consumer being misled that such matters can be brought before the court.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Does he agree that if criminal penalties were imposed to enforce metrication throughout the United Kingdom it would add substantially to the already considerable anti-European

743
Union feeling in this country? In that context, can my noble friend give an assurance that a Labour government will never seek to make criminals out of businessmen and women and shopkeepers who seek to serve their customers goods in a form that their customers, particularly elderly ones, understand and have used all their lives?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I repeat that the Government do not intend that people should be locked up simply because they do not use metric units of measurement. I can reassure my noble friend that until the end of the century goods sold loose from bulk by weight such as fresh fruit and vegetables can be sold in imperial units. Moreover, after that date consumers can continue to ask for a pound of apples or potatoes and the shopkeeper will provide the metric equivalent. There are exceptions. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that the pint of beer in the pub and the doorstep pint will continue indefinitely and road signs will continue to be in miles. That said, the trend in business is strongly towards metrication. We are members of a single market, and a worldwide market, where metric measures are used overwhelmingly. We would surely find ourselves at a competitive disadvantage if we did not conform.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, far be it for a Member of this House to discount the difficulties of the elderly, but can the Minister confirm that the process of metrication was started some 30 years ago, five years before we joined the European Community, and that the pioneer in that process was that champion of old Labour then known as the right honourable Anthony Wedgwood Benn? Can the noble Lord confirm that since that time every other member of the Commonwealth has both started and finished the process of metrication and that it is now almost a quarter of a century since the state school system, then presided over by my right honourable friend, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, discontinued instruction in imperial measurement? Further, does the noble Lord believe that it would help the process of improving numeracy in schools if new Labour completed the process which old Labour set in hand so long ago?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I confirm that the process of metrication started in 1965. It was very shortly after the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, became Prime Minister that the Metrication Board was abolished.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Australia people were happily and easily converted to metric distances, in particular by their introduction in horseracing? Does he believe that if we encouraged all sports to use metrication the process would proceed more rapidly? The noble Lord said that road signs were still in miles. Does he agree that if we are to go metric it is time that our road signs were also changed to metric?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I believe that some sports have converted to metric units. Certainly that is true in
744
the case of rugby. As far as concerns roads, it appears to be the overwhelming wish that road signs remain in miles. Britain has a special derogation for that purpose.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister has given an assurance that shopkeepers who continue to use imperial measurements will not locked up. Can he also give an assurance that they will not be fined?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, traditionally the use of fines is directed towards those shopkeepers who intend to mislead or defraud the public in some way by mixing up the measurements that they use.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when Australia went metric a number of farmers said that the only consequence of metrication was that their properties were half the size and twice as far away from town as they were before?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that British farmers will take careful note of that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that old habits die hard and that over 50 per cent. of the population, even among the young, still think in terms of imperial measures? Has my noble friend heard the story of the old lady who went to the market and asked for a pound of potatoes only to be told by the shopkeeper, "They're kilos now, madam"? She replied, "All right, I'll have a pound of kilos".
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I have not heard that story. Certainly old habits do die hard, but in schools and most education institutions metrication is pretty standard. I believe that our children and grandchildren are more at home with metric units of measure than we are.

Tax Returns: Self-Assessment
3.26 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of taxpayers had submitted their self-assessment tax returns by 31st January 1998.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, 8 million taxpayers sent their self-assessment tax returns in by the 31st January deadline. This represents almost 90 per cent. of those who received a return, which is a very satisfying achievement in this first year of the new system.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Despite the relatively high proportion of forms already submitted, there are still a large number outstanding. I understand that, of those forms that have been submitted, a very large number contain errors and that at some point all those people must pay a penalty. In those circumstances, will the Minister urge the Inland Revenue to adopt a lenient policy to avoid many hundreds of thousands of taxpayers being asked to pay a penalty simply because they have found the

745
introduction of the new system and the need to fill in for the first time that most daunting piece of paper—a tax form—both difficult and confusing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not the case that all the people who have not sent in their tax returns will pay a fine of £100. First, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made it clear that in cases where there are relatively minor errors taxpayers will be given 14 days to correct them without any penalty being imposed. Secondly, it has been made clear that no penalties will exceed the amount of tax due so that if, for example, £50 were outstanding there would be a penalty of only £50. Thirdly, we understand that a very considerable number of taxpayers, including the self-employed, have sent money in advance even before they completed their tax returns. They shall certainly not be subject to penalties.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten noble Lords on what all the fuss is about? I suppose that, like me, my noble friend submitted his tax form on time. I believe that it is an easy and straightforward form— certainly much easier to fill in than completing a lottery ticket. Can my noble friend take into consideration the view that those who have sent in their forms on time and have already received—certainly in my case—too large a tax Bill do not wish to see leniency shown to those who have not done what appears to be perfectly reasonable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to assume that I sent in my tax return on time. Indeed, I sent it in before the 30th September deadline, which meant that the Revenue did the calculation for me. I found that I was one penny out. I cannot remember in which direction the penny was, but I know that very reasonably and properly the Inland Revenue did not send me either a cheque or a demand for one penny. The change to a self-assessment system is one that avoids many of the difficulties which particularly the self-employed have suffered in previous years with estimated assessments—the requirement for detailed accounts and a confrontational aspect to tax collection. I hope that that will at least diminish, if not disappear.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, as it is important that a tax system should be as acceptable as possible, or—to be more realistic perhaps-should achieve the least degree of unacceptability, does the Minister agree that a draconian and rigid approach to the introduction of a new system would not just be unfair in many cases, but it would be unwise, and, in the long run, might cost the Revenue dear?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would agree, but that is a hypothetical question. I do not accept that what has been introduced is a draconian or rigid system. All the penalties which now apply to late or inaccurate returns, including those relating to interest payments for late payments, have been in existence for a number of years. The self-assessment system has been within public knowledge for a number of years now. It has
746
been extensively piloted in Southampton and Leicester. It has not been found to be significantly less acceptable than the system which it supplanted.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, with the introduction of self-assessment the Inland Revenue has taken the opportunity to move the basis of assessment for the self-employed from prior year to current year. When that was announced originally, the impression was given that that change would be tax neutral. While that will be the case in the future, will my noble friend tell the House whether, in the current year, additional taxes will be raised on the self-employed, and, if so, the extent of them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is of course right that the change to self-assessment has happened concurrently with the important transitional year of the current-year basis of assessment for the self-employed, although the two are not necessarily connected. He is also right when he says that in the year in which the change takes place the Revenue's cash flow will benefit and the self-employed will therefore suffer. Apart from that transitional year, the effect of the current-year basis of assessment is, as he rightly recognises, tax neutral. The same tax will he paid on the same amount of profit.

Competition Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Clauses 17 to 19,

Schedules 1 to 4,

Clauses 4 to 16,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 20 to 24,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 25 to 44,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 45 to 48,

Schedule 8,

Clause 49,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 50 to 52,

Schedule 10,

Clause 53,

Schedule I 1,

Clauses 54 to 69,

Schedules 12 to 14,

Clauses 70 and 71.—(Lord Simon of Highbury.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1.
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
SPECIAL PROVISION FOR RELIGIOUS BODIES
(". Section 4(2A) of this Act makes special provision for religious bodies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question is whether special provision should be made for religious bodies, as proposed in Amendment No. 8 to Clause 4, incorporating subsection (2A) as stated in Amendment No. 1. Until the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield spoke in Committee, no consideration appeared to have been given to any need for some special provision, by the Government, by the General Synod of the Church of England or, indeed, by anyone else.
In his speech in Committee on 24th November the right reverend Prelate—this is the nub and essence of the amendment—stated:
"I greatly regret that I am not comforted by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He seems to have rather deliberately left out the question of religious freedom. I am concerned that a very strict, rather totalitarian view of 'public' is endangering the freedom of choice of very large numbers of people in this country who see, as part of their democratic freedom, the freedom to have their children educated in a particular type of school without so-called public rights being used against that very freedom. At Second Reading I was glad to speak on behalf of the Churches very much in favour of the Human Rights Bill. But if a sense of rights is being introduced in this total kind of way, at the expense of the choice of individual families, then something very serious is being lost. Church schools in my diocese welcome in considerable numbers children of other faiths. That is seen as a freedom that we respect in their case. I hope that we shall resist any infringement, on this very delicate matter, of the religious nurture of the young in our country.".—[Official Report, 24/11/97; co1.7991]
In the wake of that speech I had some private discussions in the Bishop's Upper Room, which prompted my Amendment No. 24 discussed on Report on 3rd December. The amendment was supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. I spoke to Amendment No. 24 and I supported Amendment No. 23, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young.
Your Lordships gave leave for me to withdraw Amendment No. 24 and to return on Third Reading on the undertaking, which I gave, to study with care what had been said in the debate. Having read the Official Report it became wholly apparent that Amendment No. 24 was not well conceived. It sought exemption
748
from Clause 6—the public authorities provision. It is now well understood why the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon abstained on that Division.
The amendments to which I speak today seek to reflect the substance of the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. They have the support of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk who cannot attend because he is abroad, the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and the two right reverend Prelates who have kindly set down their names.
Although there is a distinct divergence in concept between the amendments to which I speak and Amendment No. 6 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, there is no inherent conflict or mutual inconsistency. Each is freestanding on its own merits. I respectfully canvass the support of my noble friend and that of noble Lords who propose to support her amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 11, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton and which is grouped with my amendment, I say with respect—and I mean it—that we are not concerned with religious courts or with corporate religious bodies and the exclusion of such under Clause 6. That matter was dealt with some time ago and those Divisions were lost. But we are concerned with the exclusion of the fast track in proceedings in a court under Clause 4. Amendment No. 11, although grouped with my amendment, is also freestanding.
The concept of Amendment No. 1 is similar to that of the amendment prompted by the right reverend Prelate. It is to provide an all-creed exemption for religious bodies from the fast track procedure by removing the discretion of the court to make a declaration of incompatibility under Clause 4. However, the discretion of the court is always preserved to refer any alleged breach of the convention to the commission or to the European Court of Human Rights if so advised in accordance with extant procedures.
The concept of my noble friend's Amendment No. 6 differs. It is to introduce a statutory defence where a question has arisen in connection with a convention right for determination under the Act. The effect of that would not only afford exemption from the fast track procedure but also inhibit the court from referring such questions to the commission or to the ECHR. It is assuredly a wide and fundamental exclusion from the jurisdiction of our courts. There is within it a difficulty, as anyone conversant with the convention would understand. It provides a statutory defence in a Bill which does not as such incorporate the rights and obligations under the convention. Therefore, there is to some degree a difficulty in that concept.
Under the treaty obligations, all bodies, whether religious or not, are subject to the jurisdiction of the commission and the court, to which there is direct access having exhausted our domestic procedures. All bodies, whether religious or not, all persons acting under their authority, are subject to our criminal law and to our civil law. Under the Bill, if in any proceedings the submission is made that certain conduct, albeit justifiable according to our domestic law, constitutes a

749
breach of the convention, the court has the discretion as to whether to refer the convention issue to the commission and to the ECHR for adjudication or to make a declaration of incompatibility which triggers the ministerial remedial action to amend our domestic law by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
However, under the amendment to which I speak, in this context, if a submission is made concerned with any spiritual matter—examples of which are given in the amendment—the discretion to make a declaration of incompatibility under Clause 4 is removed. However, the court may, if so advised, formulate and refer the convention issue to the commission and the court of justice. It will be for the court to judge on the facts of each case and to consider whether the amendment applies and whether the submission as to alleged infringement is of sufficient cogency as to warrant such a reference. It will not be for the court to determine the submission as to whether the alleged breach is well founded or not. It is wholly accepted that it is not the business of the Secretary of State to designate religious bodies. It would be a matter for the court on the facts of each case and on the evidence adduced. It is accepted that there can be no finite exclusive definition of spiritual matters and examples have been given.
According to Rolv Ryssdal, a distinguished and long-serving member of the court at Strasbourg, the convention was not intended to destroy the richness of our cultural heritage and other variety of life found in Europe by imposing rigid uniform solutions, but to recognise the right of free societies, within limits, to choose for themselves human rights policies which suit them best. There are 40 signatory states. The amendment to which I speak will inhibit the imposition of a rigid uniform solution in this context in the United Kingdom in a situation where I say unashamedly that uniformity should never be sought and should never be sought to be imposed.
We have heard much about Articles 8 to 10 relating to the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression. In that context, your Lordships may well believe that alleged breaches of the convention by all religious bodies and persons exercising functions under the authority of such institutions should not be a matter for adjudication in our courts and tribunals, but by the commission and the court of justice, multinational judicial bodies to which there is direct access under our treaty obligations.
Your Lordships may also believe that it is neither appropriate, acceptable nor necessary that our courts should make declarations in this context so as to trigger remedial measures by affirmative resolutions.
In this all-creed context, is it really the business of government to seek to devise and impose upon our country some rigid, uniform solution, some ethical moral code, based upon ad hoc case-by-case decisions of our courts and tribunals? Is it really the proper business of courts? As to that, there is considerable doubt about how our courts would approach the matter. What would happen in a family situation under Article 8?
On that, as I said on Report, the opinion on the approach as between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, differs and there can be no certainty. To save time, I shall not repeat the matter. But we are predominantly a Christian society tolerant of all manner of creeds, dissenters, agnostics and atheists. Each religion has its own dogma, teaching, rituals, ceremonies and discipline according to its own concept of the universal grace of God. Each religion has its own concept of respect for family life. I give that as but one example.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, truly said on 9th December, families in our society vary infinitely; the Government are not in the business of preaching or prescribing.
This is no exercise in confrontation with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or with noble Lords on the Benches opposite. It is but an effort at persuasion as to how your Lordships should exercise the advisory role as to making special provisions for religious bodies, with an expression of gratitude to the two right reverend Prelates for having added their names in support of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I shall not address myself to the technicalities, which are best left to those who are expert in the law, but I shall address the heart of the matter. What I say now refers also to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
I remain to be convinced that the Government have really heard the concerns of the Churches in this matter. We are concerned not for privileges but for the protection of conscience, a proper pluralism in our society and the proper integrity and autonomy of the Churches and other religious traditions in this country. We have no reason to doubt the good intentions of the present Administration but we are afraid of unintended consequences in future years. Liberal regimes can turn out to be as authoritarian as illiberal regimes.
I give an example. I am a supporter of the ordination of women to the priesthood. But I regard it as wholly intolerable that that should have been imposed on the Church of Sweden as an Act of state.
I give a warning also. When the state interferes with the rights of conscience or with the internal life of religious bodies, it is nearly always the state which ends with egg on its face. There are enough pictures of the seven Bishops in this place to make the point. Another example is the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874. As soon as the courts started to put obstinate clergymen into prison, the whole thing fell into disrepute.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am rather surprised that Amendment No. 11 has been grouped with these amendments. Although it overlaps Amendments Nos. 8 and 6 and the amendments grouped with it, because it deals with problems of religious courts and bodies, it deals with them in a broader, different and technically necessary way. If any of those amendments were to be accepted, Amendment No. 11 would be consequential.

751
But even if none of those amendments had been moved, Amendment No. 11 on its own would be worth consideration and should be considered. Therefore, I shall reserve my right to speak on it when various other ways of dealing with religious problems have been considered. But I shall not trouble your Lordships further with it at this moment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the European Convention on Human Rights is one of the most powerful weapons for the protection of religious freedom which has ever been created. That is why I am frankly surprised and somewhat sad that those who have put their names to the amendments, which include some Members of your Lordships' House for whom I have the highest regard, have persuaded themselves that the Bill is not a defence but a threat to them.
I remind your Lordships what the European convention actually says about religion. That is very clearly set out in Article 19, which states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion … to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance … Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
Article 2 of Protocol 2 gives rights to parents in respect of religious education in accordance with their consciences.
To allow those provisions of the European convention to be relied on by the English courts will benefit the Churches. Absolutely contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it will encourage diversity of religion and culture. It will not create rigidity.
Let us take an example. Let us assume that a future government passes an Act which authorises homosexual marriages. Two homosexuals go to their local Church of England vicar and say, "We are members of the Church of England. We are regular communicants. We live in your parish. We want a church wedding. You must marry us". In those circumstances the vicar would rely on Article 9 and would say, "If this Act requires me to perform such a marriage, it is incompatible with my religious beliefs and therefore incompatible with Article 9".
I must point out that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on this issue would deprive that hypothetical vicar of the right to raise that defence in an English court. He would have to take the matter to Strasbourg. The noble Lord was wrong to say that the court itself could refer the matter to Strasbourg. There is no such power. The vicar would have to take the matter there at his own expense or that of the Church. This amendment would have denied that hypothetical vicar any relief in English law because the only right he could obtain was a declaration of incompatibility and that has now been forbidden to him.
Therefore, as a rule, Churches and other religious bodies will seek a declaration of incompatibility. Amendment No. 8 denies them the right to do that.
752
Therefore, I say in response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham Amendment No. 8 would give enormous help to an illiberal and authoritarian future government.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to exclude the church courts from their position under the Bill as a public authority. If a decision will affect the legal rights of a party before that court, why should he not be entitled, for example, to a fair trial under Article 6? Let us take the example which I mentioned at an earlier stage of an incumbent who faces proceedings in a church court to deprive him of his benefits. Is he not entitled to rely on Article 6?
At an earlier stage, the Church of England raised an entirely legitimate criticism of the Bill for enabling the fast-track procedure to be applied to Measures of the General Synod. That criticism was met by the Government's amendment put forward on Report. In welcoming that amendment, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said:
"The Church of England—I am confident that I speak for other Churches also—does not wish to escape its proper obligations under the convention".—[Official Report, 29/1/98; col. 397.]
I greatly welcome that statement as I believe it accords with the highest traditions of the Church of England. If the amendments are passed, the suggestion would appear to be that the Churches might escape their proper obligations.
I regret that the movers of these amendments do not adopt the attitude which appeared to me was being adopted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. I should emphasise once again that, if this amendment is passed, it will not serve the Churches because it will reduce rather than increase the protection which they will get from Article 9 of the European convention.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should point out that he raised this issue on Report. I made it perfectly plain then that there is no question of my suggesting that the Church of England would be harmed or that any Church or religious body would, so to speak, not wish to be within the umbrella of the convention. The noble Lord misunderstands me again. Indeed, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon in this respect.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly on the matter following what has been said by my noble friend. I very much hope that your Lordships were able to absorb the many points that he made and with which I entirely agree. I have but a few points to make and I shall, I hope, not repeat anything that my noble friend said.
In the first place, the founders of the European Convention on Human Rights were men and women imbued with religious values as well as with the secular values of the Enlightenment. I was reminded of that fact by one of the Vatican's most senior lawyers when I was a rapporteur at an international gathering and referred to the Enlightenment. The Vatican lawyer pointed out,

753
quite rightly, that the convention is steeped in Christian values. Indeed, it is part of our Christian and Judeo-Christian tradition. That is why, as my noble friend pointed out, the guarantee of religious freedom is so ample in the convention.
Therefore, the convention provides no threat whatever to any Church that is a proper established Church; in other words, a religion which is well recognised and which acts in accordance with its tenets and beliefs. During the half century since the convention has been established and during the 30 years since British citizens were allowed to take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights, I know of none in which any of these problems has arisen in practice where any enemy of religion or of any Church has brought a case that has ever got anywhere in Strasbourg.
I do not understand why the movers of these amendments think that merely giving our courts the same powers as are possessed by the European Court of Human Rights would represent any threat at all. On the contrary, surely our own judges would be much more sensitive to the kind of issues raised by the movers of the amendments than would an international European court.
Further, when I look at the way in which the amendments are drafted, it seems to me, apart from the absence of any necessity for them, that they would do great harm to relations between people of different faiths in this country. Your Lordships will have noticed that the amendments depend upon applying the provision to "religious bodies". The Moonies, the Scientologists and other sects would no doubt claim that they are religious bodies and that, therefore, they are entitled to the protection of this kind of immunity under the convention. I would not like to see our courts, as has happened with other countries, having to decide claims of discrimination between, say, the Scientologists and the Moon ies on the one hand and Christians or Jews on the other.
One of the amendments in the group—Amendment No. 6 refers to "religious belief- which, for some reason, is confined to Great Britain and does not include Northern Ireland. I should have thought that Catholics and Protestants might be offended by their exclusion from that amendment. Surely they, more than most people in this country, have particularly passionate views in that respect. However, leaving that point aside, the amendment refers to the,
"practices of a christian or other principal religious tradition represented in Great Britain".
Some of us may think that the Moslems are a principal religious tradition represented in Great Britain, while others may think that they are not. I would not like to see a situation arise where arguments of that kind, as to whether or not a practice falls within the scope of this immunity, were brought forward.
The last time that the amendment was put forward it sought to give the Minister the power to define what was a religion. This time the aim is to give courts the power to define what is and what is not a religious body. That would simply transfer the problem of divisiveness. I fear therefore that the amendments are completely
754
unnecessary in that they would confer an immunity on bodies of which most Members of your Lordships' House would not approve, in the same way as they would approve of others. However, that is of no matter because it is not for us to decide what is and what is not a proper religion. Moreover, the amendments would lead to the kind of divisive arguments that we have already had, for example, in debates about the offence of blasphemy where Moslems objected strongly to the fact that the offence did not cover Islam as well as the Anglican faith.
I very much hope that your Lordships will be satisfied that there is no practical problem that any of us can identify. As I said, none of the examples given seems to be a real example of any conceivable breach of the convention. If that is so, then we are being asked to approve amendments which I believe are fraught with problems and which would serve no real practical purpose. Therefore, I very much hope that the careful balance as regards protecting religious freedom against the misuse of the powers of the state (which is what this charter of liberty is all about) will be maintained and incorporated into our law in the way in which the Government wish.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rise briefly to give the House some idea of our thinking on these amendments and those tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, with which we shall deal later. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway made it quite clear that his amendment was one approach to this particular problem and that that of my noble friend was another. He also made it clear that both sets of amendments were entirely free standing and could exist on their own. However, I suspect my noble friend will agree that it would not be wise for the House to try to press both sets of amendments and try to include both of them in the Bill.
As this is the fourth—or, possibly, the fifth time that we have discussed such matters, I do not intend to rehearse the arguments which were put forward at some considerable length at previous stages. Indeed, I made it quite clear earlier, especially on Report, where we stood on this sort of amendment and that we offered our support. However, I must now give some indication to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and to my noble friend Lady Young as to how I would recommend those of us on these Benches exercise our choice.
I prefer the amendments of my noble friend Lady Young. Therefore, when my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway considers how he should proceed with his amendments, I hope that he will feel it appropriate to withdraw them and leave it to my noble friend Lady Young to argue the case for her amendments and to press them at a later stage this afternoon.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the grouping is perhaps not entirely satisfactory. It is a difficult question how fully to respond to this debate on the first grouping of amendments without trespassing on the ground to be covered by Amendment No. 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the third grouping of amendments we shall consider.

755
But having regard to the extent to which some of your Lordships have ranged in this debate I think it better if I reply comprehensively so that the Church may be satisfied that we have given the fullest possible responses to its concerns. Therefore when we reach the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I shall endeavour not to repeat, at any rate excessively, what I say now, although much of it applies equally there.
Let us remember that the European Convention was drawn up after the Second World War in response to the devastation it caused, accompanied by the grossest denials of human rights. It is a convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. I emphasise the word "fundamental". For nearly 50 years the United Kingdom has been bound under international law to observe those basic human rights of people within its jurisdiction. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said. Over the some half century that we have been signed up to the convention, the Church has not experienced any problem whatever—that I am aware of—with the convention. It has been the clear desire of all the main political parties, and has had their general assent, that we comply with our convention obligations. That has been so for 50 years. The purpose of this Bill is to bring those rights home. It is to enable people to enforce their human rights in the courts of the United Kingdom rather than having to take their case to Strasbourg. The Bill does not create new human rights or take any existing human rights away. It provides better and easier access to rights which already exist.
In short, human rights are valuable and they deserve protection at home—equal protection to the protection to which they are entitled at Strasbourg. It is these central beliefs that lie at the heart of the Bill. When we introduced the Bill we did not expect it to meet with unanimous acclaim. But we did think that the principle of improving people's access to human rights would gain the strongest general support. I have to confess, as I did on Report, that it certainly did not occur to us that a campaign—admittedly, a very limited one—to deny access to human rights would be led by those claiming to speak on behalf of the Churches. What I have just said is in no way intended to belittle the sincerity or anxiety of those in the Churches who have expressed some concern about the impact on them of allowing human rights to be the subject of litigation in our own courts. I cannot claim—and I did not claim on Report—that we anticipated these concerns when the Bill was being prepared. But I can say that we listened carefully to the concerns as soon as we were made aware of them. I desire to persuade your Lordships' House that our responses have been full and satisfactory.
I remind your Lordships about events so far. First, a meeting was arranged with Home Office officials before Christmas. The meeting was at the request of the Church of England but helpfully included representatives of the other Churches. I think it fair to say that the Churches' representatives were given every conceivable opportunity to identify and present whatever anxieties they had. Following that meeting, a letter was sent to the Churches giving a considered response to all the
756
points that had been raised. I believe that a number of your Lordships will have seen and read that letter. No suggestion has been received, in response to that letter, that the assurances which it gave on the particular points which it addressed were in any way inadequate.
Subsequently, at Report stage, we discussed a number of amendments dealing with the position of the Churches. On one point—the action to be taken when a measure of the General Synod of the Church of England is declared incompatible with a convention right—the Government felt able to bring forward an amendment. That amendment was proposed by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and dealt with a proper concern which had been expressed and was particular to the Church of England. It was graciously received by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, and by the House, and it has disposed of that aspect of the Church's concerns. The Government did not feel able to agree to the amendments brought forward at that stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but I took the opportunity to reassure the Churches and the House in detailed terms about the Churches' expressed concerns.
Having heard the Government's response the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said on Report,
"The Government have begun to take note of the deep concerns of the Churches. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the great care and attention that they have given to our concerns. and to their officials for the careful work that they have done.— [Official Report. 19/1/98; col. 1325.1
At col. 1326 the right reverend Prelate referred to,
"a more general concern about the right of the General Synod to introduce measures and the degree of control which Parliament would be taking back were it to subject General Synod legislation to the provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that when we reach Amendment No. 46 we will find that our concerns have been met".
Amendment No. 46 was in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. The right reverend Prelate continued, at col. 1327,
"There are issues of great importance and considerable concern. We shall listen to the Government's reply with great attention".
I was gratified by those observations of the right reverend Prelate. Following the assurances which I gave I observed with pleasure that no bishop thought it right to vote against the Government on the amendments. I have therefore to ask myself whether it is the case that there is anything of real practical substance in the concerns that have been expressed.
Let us talk in general terms about the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 2 deals with the right to life. The Church will not breach that. Article 3 deals with prohibition of ill treatment, torture and degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment. The Church will not breach that, nor Article 4 which concerns the prohibition of forced labour, nor Article 5 which concerns the guarantee of liberty. To the extent that the Church courts are subject to Article 6, that, too, has not so far proved to be a problem. We have no submissions on that. Article 7 can hardly be relevant—the prohibition of retrospective criminal penalty. Articles 8, 10 and 11 all contain provisions which allow a proper reflection of the rights and freedoms of others, including, we say, the rights and freedoms of Church

757
members. Article 9 guarantees religious freedom, so that cannot be a problem either. Article 12 concerns the right to marry. I shall discuss that in more detail in a moment. As I explained on Report, Article 14 is not a freestanding, generalised guarantee against discrimination but merely refers to discrimination in respect of the specific convention rights listed in the convention which are not enlarged by Article 14.
If we move to the protocols, the Church will not interfere with an individual's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions—or deprive him of them—guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol 1. Article 2 of the protocol guarantees the right of parents to choose education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. I cannot see how this could be any problem for the Church. Article 3 is about elections, and again is a matter which does not touch the Churches.
I analyse the convention shortly in this way just to show that there is nothing in the Bill which in practice will pit the Church and the secular courts against each other. Let us therefore focus on particular concerns and not on generalised concerns. I submit that we should not be using language to suggest that here we are on the brink of some Olympian clash between Church and state. Of course we are not. We are discussing a very few particular points and, I hope, looking at them with a sense of proportion to see whether there is anything to worry about.
One of them is the question of appointments to key positions in Church schools or religious charities. The answer to that is simple. I submit to the House that it is compelling. Nowhere in the convention rights is there a right to be appointed or to remain in a particular position or post. Article 14 has no impact upon the accuracy and width of that proposition. That point is really as simple as that.
The other question—and it really is the only other question—which has been of some concern to the Churches is the question whether they might be required to perform marriages of which they would disapprove from the standpoint of religious doctrine and therefore conscience. The first case cited is that of persons of the same sex who wish to be married to each other. I expressed my clear view on that on Report. I do not repeat it. I simply tell your Lordships that what I said is amply borne out by a decision of the European Court of Human Rights which has clearly held that the right to marry in Article 12 of the convention refers to,
"the traditional marriage between persons of the opposite biological sex".
That is exactly what I advised your Lordships on Report. The case was one against the United Kingdom, and the court held that the legal impediment in the United Kingdom on the marriage of persons who were not of the opposite biological sex could not be said to have the effect of impairing the right to marry in Article 12.
But our domestic law is of the same effect. The legal impediment to which the European Court of Human Rights referred is an explicit statutory one in our own country. Section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which applies in England and Wales, provides in
758
terms that a marriage is to be void if, among other things, the parties are not respectively male and female. There is similar provision in Scotland in Section 5 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977, which clearly states that there is a legal impediment to a marriage if both parties are of the same sex. So even if the British courts were to lay aside the convention jurisprudence, which of course they are not going to do, a decision by Parliament would be needed before any such views could be given effect. I do not think that any of us have any serious doubt about what the view of Parliament would be on that.
The remaining specific concern—I find it difficult to deal with anything other than specifics—expressed by the Churches is about the remarriage of divorced persons, to which some but not all ministers of religion are opposed. The point here is that while the convention clearly recognises a right to marry, it does not recognise a right to marry, or to re-marry, according to a particular form of ceremony of one's own choice. Not only is that what the convention means, that is also in accordance with our own domestic law. Section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 specifically provides, in respect of clergymen of the Church of England and the Church of Wales, who alone of the Churches have any obligation to conduct marriages anyway, that they shall not be compelled to solemnise the marriage of any person whose former marriage has been dissolved and whose former spouse is still living.
These are the concerns which have been presented to us; and these are the fullest responses, in frankness to the House, that I can give. It is against that background that I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Amendment No. 8 would prevent a court making a declaration of incompatibility in relation to any provision of primary legislation if it concerned any spiritual matter, a term which is given a wide definition. That is the main amendment because Amendment No. 4 would simply make the provisions of Clause 2 subject to the religious provisions inserted into Clause 4 by Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 1 is of a purely declaratory nature.
The practical effect of Amendment No. 8 would be to prevent the remedial order procedure being used to correct an incompatibility between the convention rights and primary legislation on a spiritual matter. It does so by removing the trigger for the use of the remedial order procedure, namely a declaration of incompatibility.
I do not think that it is either necessary or even sensible to amend the Bill in this way. If one thinks of primary legislation on a spiritual matter, one thinks first of Measures of the General Synod of the Church of England. Your Lordships accepted a government amendment at Report stage which removed such measures from the scope of the order-making power. I cannot think of extant examples of Acts of Parliament as opposed to Measures of the General Synod which are both concerned with the decisions of a religion relating to teaching, ritual, and so on, and which raise a convention issue. I cannot think of an example. If such legislation did exist, then it would continue to operate under this Bill despite its incompatibility with the

759
convention rights. The Bill protects primary legislation, whatever its subject matter may be. If it cannot be interpreted compatibly with the convention rights, then in our view the higher courts should be free to say so. But a declaration would not be binding on the parties concerned and would not of itself create any liability. That is completely different from a finding that a public authority has acted unlawfully by breaching the convention right when that breach is not sanctioned by statute. Those are entirely different things.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. His amendment is in very wide terms. I think that it is helpful to address it because it is grouped with these amendments. It takes us straight back to a full-blooded exemption for the Churches.
I shall pass over quickly the question of what effect is achieved by inserting the word "corporate" before "religious body". Religious bodies are not normally categorised according to whether or not they are incorporated. But I leave that aside. The very real question of principle is whether it is right to exempt the Churches from the duty not to act incompatibly with the convention rights and from the liability which rests on them to the extent that they are properly to be regarded as public authorities to answer for their actions. That is really the issue which the House determined at Report stage, and I believe that the House should answer the same question and give the same answer today. We think it right as a matter of principle that the Bill should bear equally on all bodies which, on a reasonable view of the part they play in public life, can properly be regarded as public authorities. We do not believe that the Bill will encourage the ordinary courts, or that the ordinary courts will even be disposed, to interfere in purely spiritual matters. But if—and it is a very large "if"—a religious body should find itself, no doubt inadvertently, acting in a manner that is incompatible with basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, we believe that it ought to be amenable to correction in the same way as any other organisation playing a similar role and that the Churches should embrace that.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I wonder whether he agrees with me that there is consistent English case law making quite clear that the English courts will not take jurisdiction over spiritual matters or the exercise of jurisdiction by religious courts, whether they are Christian, for example, or the office of the Beth Din in the case of the Jewish faith.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I readily confirm that that is my understanding, too. Having offered those rather detailed reasons which I hope were to the convenience of your Lordships at this stage in our discussions, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I thank in particular the noble and learned Lord the Lord
760
Chancellor, who, with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has sought to give the House certain assurances. I do not know, any more than my noble friend Lord Renton, why his amendment, which relates to Clause 6 and exclusion, was grouped with this amendment. It is one of those mysteries which will perhaps never be resolved.
With the greatest respect, I am not convinced by the assurances of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I remain of the opinion that this amendment could well serve a valid, moderate and workable purpose; indeed, it is the minimum requisite to achieve such a purpose.
However, I accept the sense of the House. I always try to do so. Looking at the matter realistically, there is no great or sufficient support for this amendment on the Floor of the House today.
My noble friend Lord Henley says that the Opposition which I support—it is not a political matter anyway, so I do not know why we should be bothered with it—prefers another amendment to my own. I suppose that the Opposition can do that; why it has to inform this House of the fact I do not quite know.
Amendment No. 6 raises a most peculiar problem. Although the Opposition may prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, there is a problem, a sort of gremlin in it. The amendment attempts to create a statutory defence in our domestic law in a Bill which does not incorporate the rights and obligations of the convention into our domestic law. Therefore there is quite a serious problem, although, as I say, my noble friend Lord Henley prefers to live with that problem.
In any event, I take the point. One does not want to have two Divisions. In the circumstances, expressing my gratitude to the right reverend Prelates who supported this amendment and to noble Lords for having heard the argument, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1. insert the following new clause—
SPECIAL PROVISION FOR HER MAJESTY'S ARMED FORCES
(". Section 4(2B) of this Act makes special provision for Her Majesty's armed forces.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is devoid of any party-political content as Her Majesty the Queen commands the Armed Forces. It is moved, albeit from these Back-Benches, under the aegis of your Lordships' All Party Defence Study Group. It is, as noble Lords may well think, a matter which ought to be capable of resolution by accommodation and consensus. by some categoric satisfactory assurances acceptable to all political parties. Whether such be the case or not remains to be seen.
In its original form this amendment was moved as Amendment No. 25 on Report, having been tabled again on 3rd December, supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. Your Lordships gave leave

761
to return to the matter today, on the same undertaking. to read what was said in the Official Report with great care. That has been done as a matter of form. It is accepted that Amendment No. 25 was misconceived as seeking exclusion under Clause 6 as the Armed Forces are a public authority. However, the substance of the amendment to which I spoke remains: to remove Her Majesty's Armed Forces and persons exercising functions under their authority remains the substance and is reflected in this amendment.
No account was taken of this matter when the Bill was drafted. Indeed, again, no account was taken until the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield spoke in Committee. I referred to the approach to the convention as stated by Rolv Ryssdal when speaking to the amendment on religious bodies. Put quite simply,
"the Convention is not intended to impose rigid, uniform solutions, hut within limits to recognise the right of free societies to choose for themselves".
Among the 40 signatory states to the convention the structure of the armed forces in each is far from uniform. The United Kingdom is entitled to retain its own structure with, no doubt, certain changes from time to time to accommodate the "apple factor"—a by-product of overstretch.
Under this amendment the court retains a discretion to refer any question of an alleged breach of the convention to the commission or to the ECHR if so advised under extant procedures. But the discretion to make a declaration of incompatibility so as to trigger the fast-track approach for remedial action on a case-by-case basis is removed.
The Armed Forces should be excluded from the fast-track procedure as a special provision because of training and operational matters relating to discipline. It is not acceptable that at, say, Brentford County Court an application should be made that a member of the Armed Forces should not be sent to Bosnia as this would be in breach of Article 8 of the convention in constituting an infringement of his right to respect for his private and family life, even if, as is sadly the case, divorce in the services due to overstretch is rising at an alarming rate.
It is accepted that the Armed Forces are subject to the criminal and civil jurisdiction of our courts and to the jurisdiction of the Commission and the Court of Human Rights, an international body. It is accepted that due account of the convention must be had by the Government, the Armed Forces and such persons. However that may be, your Lordships may well think that it is neither necessary nor appropriate that in this context breaches of the convention on a case-by-case basis should be dealt with by our domestic courts and that declarations of incompatibility should not be granted. It is not the business of government or the judiciary to seek to construct a uniform code of conduct for the Armed Forces from all signatory states in apparent conformity with the convention.
And why not? As your Lordships know, there is no uniformity as regards terms of engagement, discipline, service, and so forth, among the signatory states. Each state has its own distinct and disparate provisions and system of maintaining good order and discipline. Would
762
it not be contrary to good order and effective discipline to afford a forum in our courts for every barrack-room lawyer or disgruntled or aggrieved serviceman in which to allege breaches of the convention? There is always someone grousing about something. It seems to me quite incongruous that one can keep good, tight discipline with a system such as that proposed by the fast-track procedure.
If we had not won the war, there would not be a human rights convention. If we had not been disciplined, we would not have won the war. The discipline and conduct of our Armed Forces, according to our traditions, are near and dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, but the attitude of the Ministry of Defence is not known. It is the view of noble and gallant Lords, some of whom will no doubt speak today, that the Bill as it stands would affect many provisions of the services discipline Acts and undermine the authority of commanding officers as regards discipline, operational training and administrative matters and that there is a severe threat to the traditions of our military ethos. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, as I did to the comparable amendment at Report stage. I asked at that time what the effect of the Bill would be on the Armed Forces Acts. I do not wish to repeat all that I said then, but I explained that I believed the importance of the Armed Forces Acts to be unquestioned. The authority of a commanding officer and the responsibility of those under command to obey lawful orders is fully underwritten by those Acts. I did not receive an assurance on that point. I also asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what the reaction of the Ministry of Defence, and in particular of the chiefs of staff, had been. He was unable to give me any more than an assurance in the following words:
"1 am not aware that the chiefs of staff have made any representations to government for an exemption along the lines of this amendment".—[Official Report, 19/1/98; col. 1359.1
My own inquiries lead me to believe—and I apologise to the House if I am wrong—that the impact of the Bill had not been brought to the attention of those within the Ministry of Defence who, like myself, would have great concern about an impact upon the command authority of individuals within the Armed Forces. I therefore believe that it would be of great assistance to the House to have a fuller understanding of the impact of the Bill upon the Armed Forces Acts. I do not question the value or importance of the Bill, but I remain extremely concerned that we are in danger of allowing it to undermine the essential ethos, military discipline and responsibility of commanding officers within our Armed Forces. On that basis, I believe it important that the amendment be accepted.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I strongly support Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 9 and 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway concerning the Armed Forces. I reiterate and strongly stress that these amendments in no way affect the human rights

763
conveyed through the Bill to service men and women, who could still submit a case to the European Court of Human Rights should they so wish. The amendments do not take away their human rights.
What do the amendments do? They prevent those enlisted in the Armed Forces from using the fast-track procedure detailed in Clauses 10 to 12, which would result in a military offence bypassing the military discipline system. I believe that we are dealing here with a procedural matter. A disciplinary offence could be referred to a civil court within the United Kingdom and judged by people who have no knowledge of military conditions and the military way of life. That would clearly undermine the authority of a commanding officer. I am concerned that it would make large sections of the service discipline Acts invalid and unusable.
It is horrifying to think that, had those in the services been able to use this new system, some might have refused to fix bayonets at Tumbledown in the battle for the Falklands and refused to continue the attack against the enemy when the ammunition ran out. How horrifying to think that any soldier might refuse to go into a dangerous area of Belfast for fear of being shot at by a sniper and, more than likely, killed. How horrifying to think that servicemen might disobey an order to hold and defend a position at all costs against a forthcoming enemy attack. Similar cases can be made for the other two services. Examples can also be given in relation to equally important training and administrative matters within the Armed Forces.
If I were to give a lawful command, placing a serviceman in a position in which he is likely to lose his life, as in the examples I have just given, a case could easily be made that I have intentionally caused loss of life. As I understand the Bill in its present form, service men and women could trigger a case to be dealt with under the fast-track procedure detailed in Clauses 10 to 12 involving the civil courts, bypassing the military system and totally undermining the authority of a commanding officer. The ability to bypass military discipline could tempt some service people down this route, leading to much expensive litigation and the possibility of vast sums being paid in compensation.
Members of the Armed Forces work with great team spirit. It is that team spirit and not the individual that counts in service life. When servicemen make the supreme sacrifice, they do so for each other, for their unit and for their country. That entire way of life and military ethos are underpinned by the code of military discipline. Bypass that proven system of military discipline and ethos, and the high morale and efficiency so critical to the Armed Forces will be destroyed.
Parliament has recognised the special need for a military code of discipline for generations; hence the service discipline Acts. Why should we now legislate for a new system when the one we have works so well? Failure to carry the amendment will destroy all existing military ethos and morale and will lead to inefficiency and poorly trained Armed Forces. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to think again.
764
I believe that the overall security of the realm may be put at risk. I strongly urge your Lordships to support the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the quality of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom is remarkably high. They may be the best forces in the world. Most of those who, like me, did national service in the years after the war emerged with considerable respect for the Armed Forces; indeed, I am still a member of the regimental association connected with the regiment in which I had the honour to serve.
I do not agree that forces discipline should be exempt from the operation of the Human Rights Bill. Indeed, the proposal in the amendment does not do that. It actually applies to only one limited aspect of the Bill; that is, the power to declare that a statute is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment does not stop any member of the Armed Forces raising a convention right if that convention right is dependent on something like an executive order and it is not a question of incompatibility with any statute. To a large extent therefore the amendment will leave the members of the Armed Forces with the right to raise convention points in legal action.
The forces are not exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights. An extremely important decision in February 1997, in the Findlay case, held that the court martial procedure under the Army Act 1955 was in fundamental breach of Article 6 of the convention. The previous government, to their credit, recognised that that procedure was indefensible even before the court gave its decision. For that reason they introduced what was enacted as the Armed Forces Act to set up a new procedure which complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. That involves the intervention of the European Court at the request of a member or former member of the Armed Forces. The sky does not seem to have fallen in on military discipline as a result.
The jurisprudence of the European Court recognises the special position of the Armed Forces. For example, in the case of Engel v. The Netherlands. the court accepted that confinement to barracks—what some of us remember as the dreaded "jankers"—did not involve an infringement of the right to liberty under Article 5, though it would have done so in the case of a civilian. The argument here is the same as it is elsewhere. If the Armed Forces are already subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court, why not extend that jurisdiction to the courts of the United Kingdom? I must say once again that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, repeated his suggestion that the courts have a power to refer cases to the European Commission or the European Court of Human Rights; but no such power exists.
Easier access to convention jurisdiction may possibly lead to a small flurry of challenges to forces discipline procedure in the first few months in which the Human Rights Bill comes into force. But the courts are robust enough to reject those challenges if no serious point is involved. I do not believe that the Bill will do the slightest damage to the efficiency or morale of the forces and there is some danger that an exemption

765
would do such damage. After all, these days we have a volunteer Army. What will be the effect on recruitment if those joining the forces are told they will be deprived, so far as the British courts are concerned, of rights enjoyed by everyone else in this country, such as the right to a fair trial under Article 6? I therefore call on the House to oppose the amendment.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment. It is capable of securing an important safeguard for the management or the administration of our armed services. However, I should like to advance a slightly different argument in its support.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Vivian that the Armed Forces are called upon to perform exceptional services. As we all know, they include on occasion being prepared to risk one's life. I believe therefore that they need to be regulated by exceptional legislation providing, in particular, for a unique disciplinary code and structure.
It is no less important that our armed services should always act within the law. As has been said, that applies already to the provisions of the convention and it is a duty which the Bill will now make explicit. Obedience to an order that is unlawful has never been a defence in our law and I am sure that it never will be. These arrangements are a prime illustration of what we mean by the rule of law. But we always need to remember that these arrangements and rules can expose servicemen to difficult questions of judgment and often to great danger.
It is easy for us in Parliament—and, if truth be told, rather satisfying—to intone about the rule of law. It is much more difficult and dangerous to uphold it in the course of one's duty when one is, for example, in support of a civil power on the streets of Northern Ireland. It follows that the Armed Forces disciplinary Acts need to be carefully and perceptively constructed; and so they are. They are the product of long experience and long evolution. Any change to them therefore needs to be the result of equally careful consultation and debate including, crucially, parliamentary debate. I believe that that should only be done by primary legislation, which I concede may need to be brought forward urgently in a specific case. It cannot suitably be done by a remedial ministerial order made under the fast track procedure in this Bill. That would be available if a court exercises a discretionary power to declare that a provision of primary or subordinate legislation is incompatible with a convention right. The deficiencies of the order-making procedure in this House and in the other place for this purpose are all too well known to noble Lords. There is no need for me to rehearse them.
I therefore applaud the thrust of the amendment. It is a purely procedural amendment, not a substantive one. It will still be open to the serviceman or woman to challenge in the courts the lawfulness in convention terms of disciplinary action taken against him or her of the kind the amendment deals with. The amendment does not put the Armed Forces above the law; it does not chip away at the obligations of the convention in their case; nor does it act at the expense of members
766
of the Armed Forces in terms of their rights under the convention. What the amendment does do is to remove what I believe to be the wholly inappropriate fast track procedure for making summary changes in the sensitive legislation by which the Armed Forces are at present properly regulated.
5 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly make clear the position of these Benches. The amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raise some very serious issues. The fact that his amendments have been supported by not one but two former chiefs of staff certainly underlines the seriousness with which the Armed Forces view these issues and how seriously they think they ought to be addressed.
These issues were addressed at an earlier stage. We have not gone into them in the detail applied to the amendments we discussed some time ago. Nor has there been the detailed discussion that will occur on later amendments. However, the issues were certainly raised on Report. At that stage the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, voiced his concerns. He raised those concerns again today. He made clear that it was his understanding that the service chiefs had not been consulted on the drafting of the Bill and on its application to the Armed Forces.
Before I and my noble friends make any decision as to how we vote should my noble friend decide to press the amendment to a Division, we certainly want to listen very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has to say in response to the amendment. I am eager to hear in particular what he has to say about the suggestion that the service chiefs were not consulted and whether they are satisfied now that they will not be affected in the way that many of my noble friends seemed to feel might be the case. I shall listen with extreme care to what the noble and learned Lord has to say before I make any decision as to how I shall vote in the Division Lobbies.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may make this point in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. In his argument on Amendment No. 1, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, appeared to be saying that a domestic court in relation to Amendment No. 1 could refer a spiritual matter to the convention institutions in Strasbourg. Here he is repeating the same point—that a domestic court could refer a convention issue concerning the Armed Forces to Strasbourg. In fact, no domestic court or the Government can refer a convention matter to Strasbourg. Only a victim of a violation of the convention may do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is also correct in saying that the Armed Forces are already subject to the convention and to the Strasbourg court. In the Findlay case, to which he referred, the relevant statutory provisions governing courts martial, in particular as they concern the role of commanding officers in courts martial, were found to breach the convention. Accordingly, our predecessors had to bring forward

767
primary legislation to deal with that. So there is nothing in particular that is new here. The only point is that under the Bill these matters can be dealt with through our domestic courts and will not have to await Strasbourg.
The key point, in the Government's view, is that the Armed Forces fall squarely within the category of an obvious public authority. If they are not that, it is difficult to say who is. What I mean is that it is scarcely conceivable that there could be a Bill of this kind which did not cover the Armed Forces. Secondly, the Government are plainly answerable in Strasbourg for the actions of the Armed Forces which engage the responsibility of the state. Thirdly, if the intention is to bring rights home so as to allow our own courts to adjudicate on convention issues, this seems to be a clear case. Therefore, we cannot see any justification for excluding the Armed Forces from the scope and reach of the Bill.
As I understand the argument, the noble Lord is content for the Armed Forces to remain subject to the convention rights but maintains that only the Strasbourg institutions and not our domestic courts should be able to adjudicate on those rights. I cannot see the merit in that proposition. The major purpose of the Bill is to allow individuals to enforce their convention rights in United Kingdom courts. It would clearly run counter to the purpose of the Bill if we were to deny our courts the ability to take account of convention rights where the Armed Forces are involved.
The actual effect of Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 is to prevent a declaration of incompatibility being made in respect of legislation concerned with specified military matters or in courts martial proceedings subject to judicial review or the Courts Martial Appeal Court. The effect of the amendments is to prevent the remedial order procedure being used to correct an incompatibility between the convention rights and Armed Forces legislation. That is contrary to the scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Bill is that legislation should be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the convention rights so far as possible; that incompatible primary legislation should continue to operate; and that Parliament should be given an opportunity to amend the incompatibility by means of an expedited procedure.
But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the Government are not obliged to go by way of the expedited procedure. It might be appropriate in such cases. It would depend upon the extent of the incompatibility, and the detailed consideration of legislation that might be required, whether it would be appropriate to go by way of remedial order, which it would be if, for example, the provision which infringed the convention was capable of easy remedy. There might be a greater argument for primary legislation if a fuller assessment of the relevant legislation was called for. But we do not see a case for exempting the Armed Forces from the terms of the Bill and we do not see a case for ruling out declarations of incompatibility being made in respect of legislation that affects the military.
In practice, convention issues as they might affect the Armed Forces would arise in the course of proceedings before military courts and would be resolved there.
768
Appeals would go to the Courts Martial Appeal Court. For example, if a soldier attempted to proceed directly against the Army command under Clause 7(1)(a) of the Bill, the court adjudicating the point would be the one specified in rules made in accordance with Clause 7(2). I am mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said. I would be perfectly happy to indicate that we would have to reflect on it, but we would consider designating military courts as the proper venue for the consideration of complaints on convention grounds by Armed Forces personnel against the command of the Armed Forces.
As regards the concerns expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence takes the view that the Bill raises no issues which are special to the Armed Forces. Along with his colleagues, he desires the Bill to proceed. However, the noble and gallant Lord will be aware that several of the convention articles permit restrictions to be placed on an individual's rights provided certain specified conditions are met. It may be that there will be situations in which special considerations will certainly have to apply to the Armed Forces because of the nature of their work. It would be a matter for the Armed Forces to look at each situation on its merits and ensure that any actions they took were consistent with the convention rights as they would be applied to the particular circumstances of the case.
I also remind your Lordships and the noble and gallant Lord that under Article 15 of the convention a state may, in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, take measures derogating from its obligations under the convention to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces. I have given an indication about willingness to consider designating military courts as the appropriate forum for the consideration of complaints on convention grounds by Armed Forces personnel. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he deal with the conflict mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway when the courts, no doubt acting properly, find that there is something in the convention which conflicts with a decision made within the Armed Forces, of which Her Majesty the Queen is the head, as my noble friend said? Would it not be better to avoid such a conflict rather than have to face up to a situation which has to be resolved?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no. If an unlawful act is committed by the Armed Forces which is in breach of the convention, that is intended to be remediable under the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, hit the nail right on the head. It is all very well to have to keep listening to the "scheme of the Bill" and what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says about it and, with great respect, what the noble and learned Lord says about it. I am concerned with the maintenance of discipline in Her Majesty's Armed Forces. I am far more

769
concerned with that than with the scheme of the Bill. I find no sympathy from the Woolsack nor understanding of the fundamental issue which is of great importance to this country. There has been no satisfactory assurance given. I seek the opinion of the House.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 153.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Marlesford, L.

Annaly. L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Beloff, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Blaker, L.

Monson, L.

Blatch, B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Boardman, L.

Naseby, L.

Caldecote, V.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Nickson, L.

Camegy of Lour. B.

Norrie, L.

Chesham, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cockfield, L.

O'Cathain. B.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Cox, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Patten, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gormanston, V.

Romney, E.

Granard, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rowallan, L.

Hambro, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harmsworth, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hemphill, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Holderness, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Strange, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Swansea, L.

Kitchener, E.

Tebbit, L.

Leigh, L.

Vivian, L. [Teller.]

McConnell, L.

Waterford, M.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Carlisle, E.

Acton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Chandos, V.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Amos, B.

Chorley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Avebury. L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bath, M.

David, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Borrie, L.

Desai. L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Dholakia, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Diamond, L.

Bnice of Donington, L.

Dixon, L.

Burlison, L.

Donoughue, L.

770

Dormand of Easington. L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ezra, L.

Molloy, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Fitt, L.

Murray of Epping Forest. L.

Gallacher, L.

Nelson, E.

Gilbert, L.

Newby, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Goodhart, L.

Nicol, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Orme, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Paul, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Plant of Hightield, L.

Hardie, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Puttnam, L.

Haskel, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hayman, B.

Randall of St. Budcaux, L.

Healey, L.

Rea. L.

Hilton of Eggardon. B.

Redesdale, L.

Hollick, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard. L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Holm of Cheltenham, L.

Rochester. L.

Howell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hoyle, L.

Russell, E.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury., L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

St. John of Bletso. L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sandberg. L.

Hylton, L.

Sandwich, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Serota, B.

Sewel, L.

Shore of Stepney. L.

Jacobs, L.

Simon, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stralbolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Taverne, L.

Kirkwood. L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tenby, V.

Levy, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lockwood, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thurso, V.

Ludford, B.

Tope, L.

McCarthy, L.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B. [Teller.]

Walker of Doncaster. L.

McNair, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNally, L

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Maddock, B.

Whiny, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wigoder, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Meston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Methuen, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.25 p.m.
Clause 1 [The Convention and the First Protocol]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("sections 2(4) to (7) and 7(7A) to (7C) and to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have now come to the last opportunity in your Lordships' House to debate this matter. I start by thanking my noble friend

771
Lord Campbell of Alloway not only for the measured way in which he has spoken but for not pressing his amendment, Amendment No. 1.
I make no apology to your Lordships for returning to this matter yet again. I listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. I am sure that he, like myself, has received a volume of correspondence from people from one end of the United Kingdom to another who are extremely concerned about the effect of this Bill on matters of conscience. I have received letters from people from all Churches in this country and from different denominations. I can assure the House that I speak this afternoon on behalf of thousands of people, churchgoers, who are very worried indeed.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I used on Report except to say this: this is not a party political matter. I have had support from all parts of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, telephoned me this morning to say how very sorry he is that he cannot be in his place this afternoon as he is not well.
I agree very much with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said: none of us supporting these amendments is against human rights or against the principles of this Bill. I am glad to say that when there was a Division on Report I had the support of three Law Lords. Although I am not a lawyer, it is a great comfort to know that legal opinion is, to say the very least, divided on the issue before the House.
I have tabled two principal amendments. Amendment No. 6 is, as has been described, a defensive measure. The amendment would operate only when someone has been taken to court. It provides a defence for that person when they are pursued in the secular courts for no other reason than their religious beliefs. Perhaps I may make it clear: Amendment No. 6 is a weaker amendment than that which I moved on Report. That amendment gave the Churches an exemption from the Bill. This amendment is a defence when someone is taken to court. Of course, I should have preferred the stronger amendment, but I accept the rules of the House and that, having divided the House on an amendment and not carried the House with me, it would not be right to return to the same amendment now.
The amendment is quite clear. It has been carefully drafted to answer some of the criticisms raised on Report, particularly on the definition of religion. On an earlier amendment the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, raised the question of how to keep out crank religions. This amendment uses wording taken directly from the Education Acts which define what is taught in religious education in state schools. Section 375(3) of the Education Act 1996 refers to the Christian and other principal religions. That was first introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988. That has been widely interpreted to mean the big six: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. The phrase "teaching and practices" is also found in legislation. I believe that if religion is respectable enough to be taught in schools it is respectable enough to be covered by this amendment and defined in that way.
The concept of religious freedom has also been raised. The freedom to live out that belief is epitomised in the word "manifestation" which is drawn from Article 9 of the convention and the United Nations declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (General Assembly Resolution 36/55 of 25th November 1981). The definition of "manifestation"—worship, observance, practice and teaching—is found in both the convention and the UN declaration. I hope that that makes quite clear why I have eliminated what can be broadly classed as crank religions. This is a defensive measure and is not as strong as the amendment I moved last time.
Amendment No. 15 follows almost word for word what the noble and learned Lord said the Bill meant when winding up the debate on Report. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon will recognise these words. I hope that because the amendment follows almost exactly what the noble and learned Lord said he will find it acceptable. One criticism that has been made this afternoon is that reference is made to Great Britain and not the United Kingdom. I recognise that that is a difficulty. I felt it right to confine it to Great Britain rather than the different arrangements in Northern Ireland.
We have been over this ground before. The House must decide what all of this is about. It is about conscience. At the end of the day the question is: who decides on the internal regulation of the Church? Clause 6 defines the Churches as public authorities. At the same time, all existing legislation such as employment legislation that covers church schools and other legislation that covers charities must be interpreted in the light of the convention.
If I have correctly understood the noble and learned Lord, he believes that the Bill enacts legislation to which we are already subject. All domestic law, however, will be interpreted in the light of the convention and the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill. I believe that the reality is that it will go much further. The Lord Chancellor said in effect that we need not worry. He did not believe that a case could be produced about which there would be cause for concern. He asked me to produce such a case.
When the convention was drawn up in 1950 who would ever have thought that anybody would talk about a homosexual marriage? After all, at that time practising homosexuality was a criminal offence. Now one has only to open a newspaper to see it written about every day. We are legislating not just for 1998 but for 2005 or 2020. I have my grandchildren in mind as I stand here. I am sure that other noble Lords will have in mind young people to whom all of this will apply. It is no use saying that everything is perfectly all right. I am not out to criticise the judges. All I say is that if regard is had to history, which in this case provides a guide, it will be seen that the law has been interpreted and changed and that process will go on. I cannot say how it will be changed; nor can the noble and learned Lord. Neither he nor anyone can give a guarantee to our successors.
In 1982 Canada did what we seek to do now and incorporated the convention. Over the past 10 years that country has had a series of cases concerning conscience

773
which has resulted in the gradual secularisation of society. Cases are pending in Holland. If there are no cases pending in Germany it is because the German constitution has ring-fenced the Churches so that they are not subject to this matter. That was something that
I tried to achieve here but lost. I believe that we are justified in being anxious. If we look at what has happened in other countries which have incorporated human rights into domestic legislation, issues of conscience have been dealt with by the secular courts. The law develops and changes. As we sit in your Lordships' House organisations are planning to challenge the Bill when it becomes law. Make no mistake about that. It may not happen this year but it will happen, as it has happened in other countries.
These two amendments provide an opportunity, first, to provide a defence mechanism for those who are challenged—but only when they have been challenged—and, secondly, to write into the legislation the kinds of safeguards which the noble and learned Lord believes are already in the Bill but not stated explicitly. This seems to me to be the very minimum that can be asked for. I should like to do a great deal more but I have not been permitted to do so. This Bill has gone through the House at a very great pace and it has been extremely difficult to keep up with it. I very much hope that when we have considered this matter today the noble and learned Lord, despite what he has said, will think again. I do not speak for myself but for thousands of people who care very deeply about their religious convictions and conscience. This is not a secular matter but a matter for religious authorities. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am glad to support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. At Report the noble Baroness moved an amendment which, although it had my name to it, I felt unable to support in the Division Lobby. That amendment would have excluded from the provisions of Clause 6 religious bodies. It went further than many in the Churches wished to go. In that debate I gave unequivocal support for human rights. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for quoting what I said on that occasion. I therefore abstained in the Division and no Bishop voted in favour of the amendment at Report. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for recognising my motives in acting as I did.
This amendment is quite different. It does not exclude or exempt religious bodies; rather, it provides on the face of the Bill assurances for which we have been looking. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, those assurances were given by the noble and learned Lord during the debate at Report. He gave us a generous and precise assurance. Since he has quoted me at some length, I hope that he will forgive me if I quote from his speeches on that occasion. He said:
"There is a very proper concern on the part of the Churches that they should continue to be able to select for key posts in schools people whose beliefs and manner of life are appropriate to the basic ethos of the school and, if necessary, to dispense with the services of employees who subsequently fall short of providing, shall we say, appropriate role models … I doubt whether there is any Member of
774
your Lordships' House who would want to stand in the way of the Churches, and others, in that regard. It is certainly not what the Government intend or envisage in the Bill-.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that statement, and for the assurance he gave a little later when he said:
"It is certainly not the intention of the Government in bringing forward this Bill or in resisting these amendments that the legislation should be used to compel any Church or person acting on behalf of a Church to administer a marriage contrary to their religious doctrines or convictions".—[Official Report, 19/1/98; cols. 1344 and 1346.]
Amendment No. 15 substantially embodies those assurances. I shall quote the amendment to show how that is so. The amendment provides:
"Nothing in this Act shall he used to compel any minister, official or other person acting on behalf of a Christian or other principal religious tradition represented in Great Britain to administer a marriage contrary to his religious doctrines or convictions.
(7B) In relation to—

(a) a church school;

(b) a school or college with a religious foundation or trust deed or, as the case may he, memorandum or articles of association,

nothing in this Act shall be used to affect its ability to select for the position of headteacher, deputy headtcachcr or other senior post people whose beliefs and manner of life arc appropriate to the basic ethos of the school and to dispense with the services of a person in the position of headteacher, deputy headteacher or other senior post whose beliefs and manner of life are not appropriate to the basic ethos of the school".
It takes a little textual analysis to show that the heart of the amendment embodies the assurances that the noble and learned Lord gave.
It is because I am seized of the importance of what the noble and learned Lord said on that occasion that I believe that those phrases should be included on the face of the Bill. There are various reasons for concern. No doubt other noble Lords will amplify them. I shall mention just two to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred. We are aware that there are hostile, anti-religious groups which would be only too glad of an opportunity to test in the courts the actions of religious bodies and people acting in accordance with their beliefs and convictions.
The Church of England, and I suppose other Churches, have already had considerable experience of litigation which they have resisted, but it is costly in terms of money and energy. It is likely that there will be groups which will be only too happy to take Churches to the British courts to prove a point. It will be costly for those who have to resist such actions.
I shall make a further point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already made. We do not know what the European convention may contain in the future. "Human rights" is an elastic phrase which might in the future be stretched to cover so-called rights that are not part of our contemporary shared value system. It is the future as well as the present of which we are thinking.
I support what the noble Baroness said about religious bodies. I, too, was going to draw attention to the Education Act 1988. I have been deeply involved in collective worship and religious education in my role as

775
education spokesman for the Church of England. I am not aware that the phrasing of the 1988 Act has so far created any difficulty. It is clear, with reference to the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that Moslems are within and Moonies are without.
I have consulted Church House and Lambeth. Both bodies are generally supportive of the amendments. Noble Lords may be aware of the letter written to The Times this morning by members of the General Synod, which also expresses great concern. It would be dangerous to claim that any one person could speak for the Church of England. Nevertheless, in a general sense, I think that on this occasion I do speak for that Church. We are looking also for protection for other Christian Churches and religious communities.
In that regard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, moved an amendment on Report. I did not understand the precise point at issue, but I am well aware, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, that the Government have already been most generous to the Church of England in bringing forward an amendment to meet our concerns about General Synod measures.
I am a little troubled that the Church of England has experienced that generosity and that, as far as I can see, the Church of Scotland has not. Both issues are constitutional—for the Church of England, embodied in the enabling Bill of 1919, which gave to the then Church Assembly powers to bring forward legislation to Parliament; for the Church of Scotland, the Constitutional Settlement of 1921. It seems to me that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, asks for less than the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I hope that, whatever the Government's attitude to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, they will be as generous to the Church of Scotland as they have been to the Church of England. I hope that the noble Baroness is prepared to press the amendment to a Division. If she does, I shall be supporting her in the Lobby.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She was right to point out that it differs in that it is protective and defensive. I speak as a member of the Catholic Church, one of the Churches involved in this matter. We are afraid of the Bill's implications. In one way or another it puts the State ahead of the Church. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done his best to show us that our fears are unfounded. It may be easy to do so at the moment because we are talking about the present. What about the future?
Who knows what and how opinions will change over the years? There may be a strong anti-Church drive in years to come. We shall have less defence if we are deemed to be a public authority than we have at present. It is the decision that we may be counted as a public authority which is at the heart of our anxieties.
776
It is difficult to describe why we are so fearful. I notice again and again that if we are to be a public authority it will be because the courts so decide. I received a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the other day. He said that it would be for the courts to decide whether it was a public authority issue. That is indicative of the fact that this is a matter of Church versus State. On Report I developed the argument that it seemed to me that an earlier Lord Chancellor would in no way have supported the Bill. I refer to Sir Thomas More.
It is worrying that despite all our efforts the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sticks to his guns. I respect him for that, but he ought to be aware of our anxieties. Perhaps to ask him to think again is asking the impossible. He is probably unwilling to change the fundamental issues in the Bill, so let us have the defensive mechanisms that we have put forward.
He helpfully explained the position in relation to the convention and said that our fears were without substance. That may be the case today, but things change. The key issue is that conscience rules today and no one can foresee the future. The Bill puts all that at risk. The defensive mechanism proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, gives encouragement. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider what has been said, and that if a Division is called we can look to your Lordships for help.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 12. As my noble friend Lord Henley made clear, we on these Benches fully support the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Young and intend to vote in support of them. We hope that others will follow us into the Lobby for that purpose.
I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon for his helpful comments in relation to the position of the Church of Scotland. The amendment I have tabled would cover not only the position of the Church of Scotland but any other religious body in a similar situation.
As I explained on the previous occasion, the Bill brings about a conflict between the Church and the state in that it seeks to undermine the constitutional settlement recognised by Parliament in the 1921 Act. At the conclusion of the previous debate, I invited the Government to think again. I know that the Church of Scotland is grateful to the Government for agreeing that the Secretary of State should meet the Moderator to discuss the issue which arises. That meeting took place on Monday this week. Unfortunately, at the conclusion of the meeting no progress had been made.
The following day, the Secretary of State wrote to the Moderator stating that the Government were unable to bring forward any amendment without undermining the purpose or integrity of the Human Rights Bill. The Moderator's response, which I understand was sent earlier today, includes the following terms:

777
"While I appreciate your having replied so promptly, I have to place on record our extreme disappointment at this response, especially as we understand that there is no dispute between us that the Bill in its present form is inconsistent with the provisions of the Church of Scotland Act. We are dismayed that the Government apparently intends that this inconsistency should remain. You state that you do not feel there is any amendment which the Government could bring forward which would meet our requests without undermining the purposes and integrity of the Human Rights Bill. Our concern is that the Bill in its present form undermines the purposes and the integrity of the constitutional settlement between Church and State, which the 1921 Act enshrines. It is a matter of particular regret to us that such a worthy measure as the Human Rights Bill, and one which the Church welcomes, should have such an effect".
That is not a Member of this House speaking on behalf of the Church; that is the Moderator for this year speaking for the Church of Scotland.
The Government, by bringing forward the Bill in its present form, have brought about this inconsistency. Despite every encouragement to do so, they have declined to bring forward an amendment which might remove the inconsistency. That is why I invite all noble Lords to support my noble friend Lady Young if and when she presses her amendment to a Division.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I have not previously spoken in the debate on human rights. Seven years ago I was one of the first counsel ever to appear at the Court of Human Rights at the European Commission, long before some other noble Lords who have spoken in the debates. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that at that time cases were about immigration and torture. The cases did not relate to matters which now arise and which the court has somehow created into human rights.
At that time, I was not particularly impressed either by the jurisdiction of the court or, with notable exceptions, some of the members of the Commission who were then administering that court. I recommended that senior English judges should be appointed and I am pleased to know that that will be the case. However, I believe that during the late 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the situation has changed. Therefore, although I am an agnostic in relation to the Bill and the value of the human rights jurisprudence, I am sceptical about whether it will alter what were and are the liberties and freedoms of British subjects. Nevertheless, I accept that it is better to incorporate the convention into United Kingdom law. It is in those circumstances that I welcome the Bill.
However, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor admitted, the Government never considered the implications in so far as they concern the Churches and their role not only as a public authority—in the Church of England that may be limited to marriage—but in education, schools and charities. I read with surprise that during the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked whether the Churches want freedom to do things contrary to public safety, contrary to public order, contrary to public health and morals or the protection of rights and freedom of others. That is absolute nonsense. Of course that is not so. It is a distortion of what was being sought in the amendment then under discussion and it would be a distortion if it were applied to this amendment.
778
The amendment seeks to ensure that the Churches, in the exercise of their duties, have some safeguards and are at less risk of litigation under the Act. It may be that there has been no such previous case, but with many years experience of the law I can say, "Never say there will never be such a case". We have a litigious community which we have inherited from the United States. Everybody is eager to sue; everyone is eager to get someone into the courts. One can see Article 14 applying to an appointment which is denied to someone because of his religion; denied because a particular school or charity belongs to a Church and requires communicant members of the Church as the head of the charity or school.
What we see is not an outrageous demand. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said on Report that it is a matter of perception. Whether or not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepts it, the perception is that the state is imposing some kind of control over Church affairs and that the Government are not looking at the reasonable apprehension of the Churches.
I speak as a Roman Catholic. I hope that the House. while it yet remains an authentic House of Parliament, will exercise today its constitutional power. I speak as a retired lawyer when I say that I hope it will ignore the lectures of other lawyers. I hope that the House will accept the amendment so that another place can look again at what the Churches—Christian, Jewish, Moslem—believe seriously affects the practice of their faith.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that this debate was about conscience. The European Convention on Human Rights and this Bill are about the protection of rights of conscience. As I said earlier, Article 9 is an extremely powerful protection of the rights of conscience and we have no such protection in our law as it exists.
Therefore, at first sight I find it surprising that the representatives and supporters of the Churches are coming to this House to ask for some sort of special treatment in the case of a Bill which gives them so much already.
I appreciate the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon but I believe that they are not justified by any remotely possible threat posed by this Bill to the rights of conscience. I do not believe that the amendments proposed in this group are necessary or desirable.
The reasons that that is so have been explained in relation to the first group of amendments by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and myself and, in his very comprehensive speech, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
On Amendment No. 15, subsection (7B) deals with the right to hire and fire senior staff of Church schools. Those rights are governed already by the race relations, sex discrimination and employment rights legislation. As far as I am aware, with the possible exception of a very limited exemption from the sex discrimination legislation, the Churches have not sought exemption

779
from any of those provisions. Why then should they feel so concerned about seeking exemption from a Human Rights Bill which will have nothing like the effect on employment practices as the three Bills which I have already mentioned?
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, invoked the memory of Sir Thomas More. He had every right to do so if it is relevant to this debate. But Sir Thomas More was a man with a very great and complex mind and his authority may be invoked on more than one side of this debate.
In his final resistance to King Henry, More stood up for the principle that, as he put it, the municipal law of England could not alter the universal law of Christendom. That is unfamiliar language now but it carries weight, and in the context of a Bill to incorporate a European Convention into English law it is strictly relevant because we cannot alter anything which is in this convention. It is not just the municipal law of this country; it is the universal law of Christendom. It can be altered only by agreement between the signatories. The only choice we face in the whole of this Bill is whether we shall have the rights under the convention, to which we are already committed, in British courts or at Strasbourg. It is that question only that we are addressing. The memory of Sir Thomas More may help us to remember that.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on her courage, in which she is never deficient, in grappling with the task of attempting to define a religion. But that task is rather more difficult than one might gather from this amendment. First, I feel a considerable misgiving at the attempt to use the authority of Parliament, which is, I may say, not a spiritual authority, to try to make a distinction between first-class and second-class religions. One can imagine what the parliaments of King Charles II would have done to the Society of Friends had they had that principle available to them. It is not a pretty thought.
The wording also seems to cause some problems. The amendment states:
"in accordance with the historic teaching and practices of a christian or other principal religious tradition represented in Great Britain".
Therefore, the courts will be asked to determine whether a religion is principal. I imagine that Hinduism and Islam will be recognised as principal religions. I do not know whether that will be the case in relation to Sikhs, Zoroastrians or Baha'is. Were I to be a judge, it is not a question that I should be particularly happy to have come before me because it is not a question in which the authority of the law is particularly well placed.
I can imagine also considerable jealousies between the religions held to be in the first division and those classified by the courts as being in the second division. It would need a system of promotion and relegation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, relied throughout on the argument, "Who would ever have thought that various particular things could come to be construed as rights". I remind the noble Baroness of the words of Edmund Burke who said:
780
"Whatever now is established, once was innovation".
People in this country have been burnt at the stake for holding the religion which the noble Baroness herself now holds. We should do injustice to the memory of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer were we to deny it. Therefore, in some ways, one may benefit from the fact that concepts of rights change.
But they change only in line with public opinion so they come to be taken as rights only at the time that it becomes acceptable to a very large part of the public that they should be so. I agree with the noble Baroness that one cannot foresee what judgments future courts will make. But courts are like railways: they run on lines. They can take any fork but they cannot go where there are not any lines.
Throughout our discussions there has been a great deal of concern about employment law. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Report called attention to the fact that there are no employment rights in the convention. I have checked that, I think, six times since the noble and learned Lord said that. I cannot see the least reason for doubting what he says.
That could be changed not by a court decision, which would be ultra vires, but only by a new agreement between all the members of the Council of Europe, further accepted, ratified and incorporated in British law by this House. Were any such development in prospect, it could not take effect in British courts were we to say no to it.
Concern has been expressed about marriage, which is a vital matter. The convention does indeed lay down a right to marry. But, as far as I can see, there are no words anywhere in the convention which lay down a right to marry according to the requirements of any particular religious faith. The requirements of a religious faith are administered according to the principles of that religion. The only requirement of the convention is a right to make a marriage recognised by law. A marriage does not have to be conducted in church to be recognised by law. We should also remember that the convention is in force and incorporated in countries which take their religion very seriously. I am not aware that any of the evil effects which have been perceived have arisen anywhere else within the Council of Europe.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 12. On Report, I asked the Government a number of questions about what would be the position of the ecclesiastical courts in England if the Bill passed through Parliament in its present form. I have to say that I received a very full and helpful reply for which I am grateful. It appears to be accepted that the decisions of the ecclesiastical courts have never before been subject to review by secular courts on their merits, whether by way of judicial review or any other judicial process, with the possible exception of an order obtained for something called "prohibition" but that certainly has not been applied for, or obtained, for 200 or 300 years. So the present position is that ecclesiastical courts are not subject to review by the secular courts.

781
However, this Bill seems to be doing just that for the first time. It is possible that there would not often be a case of overlap between human rights and anything which might be decided by way of doctrine in the Church courts. However, that could arise. If that overlap arises, who will make the decision? Will it be the ecclesiastical courts of the secular courts? I am concerned not only for the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved, about which I spoke on Report and upon which I sit, but the same also applies to the Court of Arches which is presided over by Mr. Justice Owen, a very distinguished High Court judge. What is the purpose of making the decision of one High Court judge subject, on judicial review, to another High Court judge's decision? The same applies exactly to the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved, which has not one but two judges and also three bishops. What is the point of doing that? Because, I would urge your Lordships, there really is no point, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will at least think of accepting Amendment No. 12, whatever attitude he may take to the other amendments. However, if he is unwilling to accept even Amendment No. 12, will he possibly consider what I understood him to say he would consider in relation to the Armed Forces; namely, designating the ecclesiastical courts as the appropriate court under Clause 7(1) of the Bill?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I have attached my name in support of my noble friend's paving amendment to her substantive amendments. As she said, the amendments are more modest than those she moved on Report. I believe they are better amendments because they do not attempt to take the Churches outside the general obligation to observe convention rights. Indeed, that point was made by the right reverend Prelate.
It should be plain by now that the Bill and, consequently, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, are still widely perceived as unfriendly to the religious freedoms of organised religions. I do not believe that we have far to look for the cause of that situation. If a Church is a public authority subject to the requirement to observe convention rights, it should be recognised in the Bill that it is a public authority of unique hybrid character. I say that because the Churches have their own human rights, which they have for the benefit of their members and adherents. It is these which require the special protective provision under the Bill which the amendments of my noble friend would provide.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. The headteacher of a Christian Church school becomes a Moslem, or vice versa. The public authority concerned dismisses him, and he complains to a court that the action is unlawful under Clause 6(1) of the legislation as being incompatible with his convention rights under Article 9. Indeed, Article 9 provides for his freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief and to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. Were that headteacher to take his case to Strasbourg, I believe that he would be told that the United
782
Kingdom, as a high contracting party, was not liable under Article 1 of the convention. The reason given would be that the laws of the United Kingdom secure to him adequate rights under Article 9, even if they do not allow him to exercise those rights in a situation detrimental to the religious rights of others.
I am much less certain about the position under the Bill. It seems to me that it may not be possible for a non-governmental public authority to put forward a defence to a Clause 6(1) action by replicating what I might call the defence by way of Article 1, which is available to a government in an application to Strasbourg. The dismissed headteacher will not be trying to demonstrate to the commission or the court in Strasbourg that UK laws do not secure his Article 9 rights. He will be arguing that the Church authority, in breach of Clause 6(1) of the legislation, has acted in a way which is incompatible with his individual rights to religious freedom. The result in such a case may be entirely different. It seems to me to point to a very real need to give protection to Churches by way of a defence in such a case.
It is easy to overlook the fact that religious practices, culture, disciplines and the like, which are the hallmark of a particular organised religion, add up to the religious freedom of those who belong to that organisation. The rights of organised religions to conduct themselves autonomously in the religious field are not sufficiently protected by the Bill. The position of Churches is, I believe, unique among public authorities in that they are susceptible to attacks against their own religious rights. Those rights are also human rights, so it is not a question of seeking special treatment but of asking, on behalf of religious organisations, for parity of treatment and regard.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I express my support for this group of amendments so patiently argued by my noble friend Lady Young. It may be helpful to consider what has happened in other countries where this legislation has been introduced. For example, in Germany there is not the same sort of special interest group campaigning that there is in this country. In any event, the constitutional court, which judges human rights issues, is itself very conservative. All in all, the position of the Churches and mainstream religions in Germany is a protected one. As my noble friend explained, in effect, the Churches' position is ring fenced.
The situation is different in Holland. The convention is incorporated into ordinary law to be applied by ordinary courts. There have even been extraordinary cases where individuals have sought to use human rights legislation to force religious groups to employ atheists in positions of religious leadership. Noble Lords will of course judge for themselves, but it seems to me that that is an eminently unsatisfactory situation. If it has happened in Holland, it may well happen here if the amendment is not carried and the legislation comes into force in its present form. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I think that those of my noble friends who have so far spoken this afternoon are aware that while I am a firm supporter of the Bill, on this particular issue of conscience, as I see it, my view differs from theirs. It is said that the terms of the European Convention, of legislation in this country and the present state of case law both in the United Kingdom and in Europe are such that the supporters of amendments like these have nothing to fear. My view is simply that representatives of Christian Churches, and, in the words of Amendment No. 15,
"religious tradition … in Great Britain"—
unlike my noble friend Lord Russell I think that is rather well phrased—should be explicitly protected in defence of decisions that they take that accord with their beliefs. In this conflict, actual or potential, between their rights and those of respective plaintiffs, it seems to me that the rights of the organisation should prevail and should be preserved in this statute. That being so, I find myself in support of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. If they are pressed to a Division, I shall vote for them.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I fully support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. They are essential. If one is a minister in a Church or a lay person deeply involved in a Church, one realises how essential these amendments are. I am sure that other Churches recognise that. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will listen to the Scottish Church and give more leeway there.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, told your Lordships that her mailbag had been full of mail on this subject. For what it is worth, we have not received a great volume of correspondence on this issue, perhaps 20 or 30 letters at most, and of these there was a pretty even balance between those who support a special position for the Church and those who do not. I say particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that I think we can fairly claim that the totality of our response to the concerns of the Church shows both our responsiveness and our flexibility—the opposite of rigidity.
We have discussed these issues quite fully in our first debate on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I made my general observations in that debate which are equally applicable here. I hope that I satisfied every specific concern of the Church. I think it is right to say that it is notable that not one of your Lordships has sought to challenge the correctness of the assurances which I gave both in relation to the convention and in relation to the meaning and effect of our existing statute book.
Amendment No. 3 would provide that the convention rights were to have effect for the purposes of the Bill subject to the religious provisions inserted into Clauses 2 and 7 by Amendments Nos. 6 and 15. Amendment No. 6 would provide that when convention points were raised in legal proceedings, it
784
would be a defence for a person to show that he had acted in pursuance of a manifestation of religious belief. That phrase is defined broadly to include worship, observance, conformity to a moral or ethical principle, practice, teaching and employment policies.
I acknowledge that the wording of the noble Baroness's amendment borrows to some extent from the wording of Article 9 of the convention. To the extent that it does so, the amendment merely has the effect that a religious body would be able to invoke its own rights under Article 9, which is precisely what it can do anyway. But the real significance of the amendment, and its difficulty, is that the noble Baroness has not resisted the temptation to add a few glosses of her own. The amendment seeks to push matters beyond the point at which reliance can properly be placed on Article 9, or on any other article, and to that extent we believe that it is unhelpful. The most obvious illustration of that is in the reference in the amendment to employment policies. As I have already mentioned, this is something with which the convention simply does not deal at all. Therefore we do not think it is helpful for the Bill to deal with it in the way suggested in this amendment. I have certainly acknowledged the complete propriety of the Churches appointing persons of the appropriate belief and manner of life to key positions in religious schools but we do not think that any employment policy should receive automatic protection by means of an amendment like this, even if a convention point is at issue.
Amendment No. 15 to Clause 7 would exempt from the Bill a minister of religion or similar person who refused to conduct a marriage on the ground that it was contrary to his religious conviction. It would also exempt religious schools and religious charities from the Bill in relation to the appointment or dismissal of their senior officers. I acknowledge that this amendment addresses a specific concern that the Churches have voiced. I have done my best both at Report stage and earlier today to explain why these anxieties are misplaced and why there is no need at all for a fresh statutory guarantee of this kind to be granted. The point is that the Bill preserves primary legislation, unless and until Parliament decides to alter it, and allows legislation to be passed subsequent to the enactment of this Bill which will have effect notwithstanding this Bill. The particular matters that we are discussing are surely ones which are proper subjects for specific legislation, if the need were ever to arise. As I have tried to demonstrate, I do not believe for a single second that the need will ever arise. I believe that adequate legislation is in place and I believe that we have demonstrated that today.
But, if the Bill ever needs amendment, let it be amended with due consideration to all aspects of the issue, be it marriage or Church appointments which is in question. However, no one seems to be suggesting that the law needs amendment. I submit that that approach is greatly preferable to an attempt to anticipate every conceivable outcome—and a fair number of inconceivable ones as well—by means of general waivers from the Bill.

785
I make this appeal if not to the noble Baroness at least to those in the Churches in whose interest she claims to act. Let us imagine a reader of the Human Rights Act in years to come, if this amendment succeeds and prevails. The reader would find that there were three contingencies which this Bill aimed to head off. The first is that primary legislation might be struck down by the courts. That would be well understood by our successors because of the acknowledged sovereignty of Parliament. But the second contingency that the Bill would try to head off would be that the courts of the United Kingdom might make a judgment obliging clergymen to celebrate same-sex marriages, and the third is that they might hold that an atheist or an adulterer or whatever must be appointed to be head of a Church school. The reader would be curious to know why the Act should be concerned with these two instances. He would look up the debate and find that those provisions represented the contribution of the Church to the debate on this issue. I am sure your Lordships will forgive me, but I respectfully suggest that our imaginary reader would find some lack of proportion in this and a good element of overreaching.
The point was made, "Let's have this on the face of the Bill because some people might have a go at impossible cases and the Churches will be put to the trouble and expense of defending them". I simply say this. We do not scatter our statute book with statements about cases that cannot be brought unless to correct some specific consequence which one can rationally say would otherwise follow as part of the effect of the Bill. We leave matters to gain their intended effect in accordance with the intentions of Parliament.
In theory we could try to anticipate—and who better than the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to assist us in this endeavour—every case which might conceivably come before the courts against literally any public authority, have a debate as to how we think it should be decided, and then put on the face of the Bill a multiplicity of single instances. That is simply not the way that we should legislate on matters of general principle. If your Lordships will reflect on it, it is a quite extraordinary proposition: that if one puts forward concerns which are comprehensibly demonstrated to be completely unfounded and are not subject to any attempt at rebuttal, one then says, "Never mind, let us still put these assurances on the face of the Bill as regards particular instances, although the Bill is concerned with a high general principle".
I ask the Church and the House whether they wish to send the message that those are matters with which the Churches are preoccupied in relation to this Bill, which is designed to guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms being accorded by every public authority.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The amendment would exempt from Clause 6 a court or tribunal,
786
"exercising a jurisdiction, recognised but not created by Parliament"—
I emphasise the words "not created by Parliament"—
"in matters spiritual".
It would also exempt any religious body or person acting on its behalf if the religious body exercised such a jurisdiction. I suspect that the inspiration for the noble and learned Lord's amendment is the Church of Scotland. But the amendment is intended to be of general application. Our position is as explained earlier. We think it right as a matter of principle that the Bill should bear equally on all bodies which on a reasonable view of the part they play in public life can properly be regarded as public authorities—and that emphatically includes the courts. We do not believe that the Bill will encourage the ordinary courts, or that the ordinary courts will be disposed, to interfere in purely spiritual matters. But if—and it is a big "if'—any religious body should find itself, no doubt inadvertently, acting in a manner which is incompatible with basic human rights we believe that it ought to be amenable to correction in the same way as any other organisation playing a similar role.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord passes from that point, will he agree with me quite explicitly that the proposition he has just articulated is inconsistent with the terms of the Church of Scotland Act 1921? There is therefore an inconsistency between an Act of Parliament passed by this Parliament in 1921 and a Bill which the noble and learned Lord is inviting this Parliament to pass; and yet he is not prepared to address the inconsistencies here and now as the Church wishes him to do.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the particular question whether the Church of Scotland and its courts should be exempted from the Bill will arise specifically for debate before your Lordships on Amendments Nos. 7 and 21 standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon; and the arguments specific to the Church of Scotland will be comprehensively dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
I add only one further point. In so far as the amendment reaches the courts of the Church of England, it does not achieve its aim of securing an exemption. That is because the jurisdiction of those courts was created by Parliament in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure of 1963.
For all those reasons, and for the reasons that I gave in debate on the first group of amendments, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. If she does not do so, I invite the House to reject them.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have had a good debate. I thank those many noble Lords from all parts of the House who have supported me.
I entirely support the amendments moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. I have spoken to Dr. MacDonald of the Free Churches

787
in Scotland. I believe that my noble and learned friend has not had a satisfactory answer to the important point he made at the end of his speech.
I wish to reply to two specific points. The noble Earl, Lord Russell—I always enjoy his speeches and on a number of occasions I have agreed with him—said that I had not defined religion. He will recall—if my memory serves me correctly, he was present during the debates on the 1988 and 1996 education Acts—that Parliament has defined religion. I have simply taken the same words. Therefore to say that Parliament has not defined it, and that we might be lumbered with first and second class religions is, if I may say so, a mistake on his part. It is a very unusual mistake, but on that issue I think it is a mistake.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think that he has not realised why we are worried. We are worried, first, because he did not consult the Churches. I live in a part of the world where I am surrounded by atheists, humanists, agnostics and groups of people whom I might well call cheerful pagans, but they do not ignore the Church completely. They may not agree with it but they do not ignore it.
This is a serious point. I feel that it is a slight—I hope that it is not an intended one—that the Churches were not consulted and were not referred to in the White Paper. We live in a society based on a Judaeo-Christian belief; and we are concerned that the Churches were not consulted.
I much appreciate the full statement that the noble and learned Lord has made. However, I am not satisfied by the assurances that he has given. Let us take employment rights, to which he referred. I recognise that the convention does not contain employment rights. But what he said was carefully worded. I am quite sure that he knows full well that the convention will affect the interpretation of existing employment legislation. Indeed, every judge will have various laws to consider—UK employment law; the EU employment law; and now convention obligations under the Bill. Under Clause 3 existing legislation must be interpreted so far as it is possible to do so in a way that is compatible with the convention. That is the point. He cannot give us an assurance as to what will happen in the future in relation to employment law concerning charities and matters of conscience.
The noble and learned Lord went on to say, "I do not believe that any of those dreadful things that you talk about will happen. But of course if they came to pass Parliament could legislate". Small experience of Private Members' legislation indicates that that it is not an easy proposition. There is also consideration of government time. I think that the noble and learned Lord's statement is completely unrealistic. So, far from reassuring me, the noble and learned Lord has worried me further. That is—I am surprised that anybody can find this matter funny at all. It is a very
788
serious worry. That is why I have raised the issue on three occasions. I wish to test the feeling of the House.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
& sup Their Lordships divided: Contents, 168; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Flayhoe, L.

Annaly, L.

Hemphill, L.

Ashboume, L.

Henley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Holderness, L.

Beloff, L.

HohnPatricic, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Bemers, B.

Howe, E.

Biddulph, L.

Hylton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Birmingham, Bp.

Inchcape, E.

Blaker, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Blatch, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Boardman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Brain of Wheatley, L.

Kenyon, L.

Bridgman, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brigstocke, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Leicester, Bp.

Butterworth, L.

Leigh, L.

Byford, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Cadman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Caithness, E.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Caldecote, V.

London, Bp.

Calverley, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Luke, L.

Carnock, L.

Lyell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

McConnell, L.

Chesham, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cockfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Coleridge, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Milverton, L.

Cranbome, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Falkland, V.

Nelson, E.

Fitt, L.

Norrie, L.

Fookes, B.

Northboume, L.

Gage, V.

Northesk, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Norton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Grantley, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Halsbury, E.

Oxford, Bp.

789

Oxfuird, V.

Seccombe, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Selbome, E.

Patten, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Pender, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Perth, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Stallard, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strange, B.

Rawlings, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Reading, M.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renton of Mount Hany, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Renwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Ullswater, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Vivian, L.

Rochester, L.

Wakeham, L.

Romney, E.

Waterford, M.

Rotherwick, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rowallan, L.

Wharton, B.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Wilcox, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Young, B

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hayman, B.

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addington, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Amos, B.

Rollick, L.

Anther of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hoyle, L.

BoMe, L.

Hughes, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Burlison, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carlisle, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Jacobs, L.

Chandos, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Colville of Culmss, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Craigavon, V.

Judd, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Kirkwood, L.

David, B.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Levy, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Ludford, B.

Desai, L

McCarthy, L.

Dholakia, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Dixon, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNally, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Maddock, B.

Eatwell, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ezra, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Meston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Methuen, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gilbert, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Molloy, L.

Goodhart, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Grenfell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Hamwee, B.

Newby, L

Hanworth, V.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Hardie, L.

Nicol, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Orme, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peston, L.

Haskel, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

790

Plant of Highfield, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Simon, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Taveme, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Rea, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tope, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Tordoff, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Russell, E.

Whiny, L.

Sandberg, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sandwich, E.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 130 names. The Clerks recorded 126 names.]
6.51 p.m.
Clause 2 [Interpretation of Convention rights]: [Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert
("(4) Where a court or tribunal is determining a question which has arisen under this Act in connection with a Convention right it shall be a defence for a person to show that he has acted in pursuance of a manifestation of religious belief in accordance with the historic teaching and practices of a Christian or other principal religious tradition represented in Great Britain.
(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the teaching and practices referred to in subsection (4) above do not include any teaching or practice which contravenes the criminal law.
(6) Subject to subsection (5) above, the teaching and practices referred to in subsection (4) above shall include teaching or practice in accordance with a relevant historic creed, canon, confession of faith, catechism or formulary.
(7) In this section "manifestation of religious belief" shall be taken to include actions such as worship, observance, conformity to a moral or ethical principle, practice, teaching and employment policies.").
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 3 [Legislation]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 23, after ("legislation") insert ("(save for the Church of Scotland Act 1921)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 21 and deals with the position of the Church of Scotland under the Church of Scotland Act 1921. In the light of the result of the Division that has just taken place, it is possible that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will agree that the matters covered by these two amendments merit further consideration by the Government. If he is prepared to give an undertaking to that effect, it may not be necessary for me to speak to the amendment in detail and consider whether to divide the House in the light of his reply. I see that that is not the case and I therefore turn to the merits of the matter.
As I set out in some detail at both Committee and Report stages, there is concern about the incompatibility of the Bill's provisions with the Church of Scotland Act 1921. I need not rehearse the detail because it will be well known to those of your Lordships who have followed the debate. To pick up a phrase used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor earlier this afternoon, the Church of Scotland considers the constitutional settlement acknowledged and recorded in the 1921 Act a matter of substance relevant to the history of the Church and the form of church government which it enjoys.
Since the union of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church in 1929 following the enactment of the 1921 Act, the constitutional settlement between Church and state has been recognised by successive governments of different political complexions. Indeed, I am informed that when the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to whom I referred earlier, visited No. 10 Downing Street during his annual visit at St. Andrew's tide last year and met the Prime Minister, he was impressed and pleasantly surprised at how well briefed the Prime Minister was about the contents of the 1921 Act and the constitutional settlement enshrined therein. I am told that at that meeting the Prime Minister sought to reassure the Moderator, and through him the Church of Scotland, that the present Government intended to respect that settlement. Against that background it is hardly surprising that the Moderator used the words:
"We are dismayed that the Government apparently intends that this inconsistency should remain".
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young I intervened to inquire about the proposition he articulated that it was right as a matter of principle that the Bill should cover all bodies, including Churches and Church courts, and that, if any religious body, however inadvertently, breached convention rights, it was right that the civil courts should intervene and regulate the situation. I firmly believe, and invite your Lordships to accept, that giving the civil courts the right—which goes beyond the jurisdiction they exercise at the moment to consider whether a matter is a spiritual one—to investigate how a spiritual matter has been conducted and whether Church courts, in adjudicating or legislating upon a spiritual matter, had breached a convention right as set out in the Bill would give rise to an incompatibility with the 1921 Act. It is therefore necessary for me to move this amendment and in due course a subsequent one to make it clear that, if the Government are not prepared to move, they will bring about this inconsistency. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I said earlier in your Lordships' House that I did not pretend to understand this issue, and I probably still do not. In so far as I do understand it, I believe that the issue is whether the spiritual jurisdiction of the courts in Scotland derives from the spiritual authority of the Church rather than from Parliament. My understanding is that the Church of Scotland seeks to keep that
792
separation, that the constitutional settlement of 1921 embodied it and that it is for that reason that the Church of Scotland describes itself as a free Church rather than an established Church, something which has come as a surprise to some noble Lords, not least those on these Benches.
I have debated the issue with some of my colleagues. We believe that the Church of Scotland's point is well made. We in the Church of England are perhaps a little envious of the 1921 settlement which embodies it so clearly. As I said before, I hope that the Government will be able to be generous to the Church of Scotland in their consideration of this matter.
7 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, I should say at the outset that I make no apology for dealing with this debate at rather more length than is perhaps usual at Third Reading. I propose to deal with the points referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, under reference to points made by him and the history of the Church at Report stage.
This issue was raised, as noble Lords will be aware, by the noble and learned Lord and other noble and learned Lords at Report stage. It is an issue to which the Government have given considerable thought during the period since Report and I shall revert to deal with the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon in due course. I wish to say at the outset that it is not accurate to suggest that the Government have been intransigent, have not given way and have not been willing to listen to try to accommodate the Church of Scotland. I shall return to that in due course.
We received letters on this subject from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lord Mackay of Clashfern. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I had a meeting with the Moderator of the General Assembly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, referred to the meeting with the Secretary of State and I should indicate that I was in attendance by video link—perhaps somewhat disembodied.
Following that meeting we had further discussions between Ministers and reached an understanding of what the Church of Scotland's concerns are. It is my purpose today to set out the Government's attitudes to those concerns. I wish to do this fully so that it is on the record. I hope that noble Lords and Members in the other place will appreciate that the matter has been given the full consideration it deserves.
I shall touch briefly on the historical background; secondly, I will deal with the Government's view of the practical problem which the Church faces; and, thirdly, I will go into what I might call the more theoretical implications of the amendment. At the end I shall deal with the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon.
The Church of Scotland occupies a unique position in the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom. Prior to the Act of Union the Church was, to a great extent, regulated by Acts of the Scottish Parliament.

793
Some of that legislation remains on the statute book to this day. The Act of Union, after referring to various Acts of the Scottish Parliament, provides that,
"The foresaid true Protestant religion … and its presbyterian Church, government and discipline that is to say the government of the Church by kirk sessions, presbyteries, provincial synods and general assemblies all established by the foresaid Acts of Parliament … shall remain and continue unalterable".
There can be little doubt—and it is not surprising—that the Scottish Parliament was accustomed to regulating the Church of Scotland. But the relationship did not continue to be a harmonious one. It was what the Church saw as the interference of the state in its spiritual affairs which led to the disruption to which the noble and learned Lord referred in debate. That unhappy period of dispute between Church and state ended with the Act of 1921. By passing that Act, Parliament dissociated itself from the doctrine, worship, government and discipline of the Church of Scotland while reserving the jurisdiction of the civil courts in relation to civil matters.
The effect of the 1921 Act was to end the status of the Church as the established Church of Scotland and change it instead into a national Church. The 1921 Act recognised the independent jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual. It is worth recalling exactly what was meant by that. I refer noble Lords to Article IV of the Declaratory Articles appended to the 1921 Act which provide, so far as is material for present purposes, that,
"This Church, as part of the universal Church wherein the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government in the hands of Church office-bearers, receives from him, its divine King and Head, and from him alone, the right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate, and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government and discipline in the Church".
The effect of that article was considered by the Inner House of the Court of Session in the case of Ballantyne v. Presbytery of Wigtown in 1936. I shall not trouble your Lordships with the detail of that case. Suffice it to say that the court ruled that any matter contained within Article IV of the Declaratory Articles, by virtue of being so contained, was a spiritual matter in relation to which the civil authority had no jurisdiction. Since Article IV of the Declaratory Articles mentions the government and discipline of the Church, those matters are spiritual.
For the purposes of the 1921 Act, as interpreted by the Court of Session in 1936, "spiritual matters" do not include only those matters relating to doctrine and worship, which one might have thought, on an ordinary view of the question, were included in that term, but include also the practical and administrative procedures by which the government and disciplinary procedures of the Church of Scotland are carried out.
The concern of the Church of Scotland is that if this Bill is not amended it is possible that the courts of the Church of Scotland will be held to be public authorities for the purposes of Clause 6 of the Bill and, indeed, may be held to be courts within the meaning of that clause. That in turn would mean that actions by those courts which were incompatible with a convention right would be reviewable in the Court of Session. In the Church's
794
view that would amount to a reversal of the recognition by Parliament of the independence of the Church under the 1921 Act.
That is a brief summary of the background of the present legal position of the Church of Scotland and, more particularly and more importantly, of the genuine concern which the Church has in relation to this Bill. I shall now move to the second part of my remarks to consider how much of a practical, as opposed to a theoretical, problem there is. The acts, which the Bill treats as acts of a public authority, include, as your Lordships will see from Clause 6(3)(a), on the one hand, acts of a court or tribunal. On the other hand, as Clause 6(3)(b) provides, there are included acts of a person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature. But, as is clear from Clause 6(5), acts of a private nature are not included.
The Church is concerned that its courts may be held to be public authorities within the meaning of Clause 6. As I indicated at Report, in response to a question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, it is my view that the courts of the Church of Scotland are not courts for the purposes of this Bill. I should like to take a moment to explain why.
Courts of the Church of Scotland do not, as a matter either of their constitution or practice, carry out any judicial functions on behalf of the state. Nor do they adjudicate upon a citizen's legal rights or obligations, whether common law or statutory. They operate in relation to matters which are essentially of a private nature. Unlike the courts of the Church of England—this is one of the differences—they do not have the right to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents.
During the period when, as I briefly described, the Church of Scotland was to a greater or lesser extent regulated by Acts of the Scottish and thereafter the British Parliament, it would have been easy to maintain that its courts were courts of the land exercising a different but, within their own area, an equal jurisdiction to the civil courts. But the effect of the 1921 Act, which, as I have said, recognised the independence of the Church from regulation by Parliament, was to define the Church as a non-public or private institution in the sense that its affairs were of no concern to the state. The 1921 Act effectively disestablished the Church of Scotland. It would seem to me illogical to say that the state had no interest or jurisdiction over the affairs of the Church and its courts while at the same time saying that those courts were nevertheless courts for the purposes of a public general Act. That is the Government's view on whether the courts of the Church of Scotland are courts for the purposes of this Bill.
Clause 6, when read with Clause 2, is of course designed to invite the civil courts of the United Kingdom, as far as possible, to treat as a "public authority" those bodies which the Strasbourg institutions would treat as bodies whose acts engage the responsibility of the state. However, as I said at Report, whether or not the courts of the Church of Scotland are courts for the purposes of the Bill, it is possible that they might in some circumstances be public authorities.

795
At the meeting which the Secretary of State and I had with the Moderator, who was accompanied by the Principal Clerk to the Church of Scotland, the procurator to the Church of Scotland and the solicitor to the Church of Scotland, no one in the party from the Church of Scotland was able to suggest a concrete example of a case in which a court of the Church of Scotland would clearly be acting as a public authority within the meaning of Clause 6. I may say that the meeting took some time. The matter was explored. The Church came prepared for the meeting. It was given plenty of time to come up with examples and it was significant that it was not able to do so.
Within government there have been extensive discussions of this point among officials from the Lord Chancellor's Office, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Scottish Office, the Cabinet Office, parliamentary counsel's office and my own office. Therefore, to suggest that this matter has been treated lightly is not a fair comment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. If in anything I have said either today or on previous occasions I have begun to suggest that the Government have not, since the concern was raised, treated the matter rightly, I should like to disavow the noble and learned Lord of such a view. What I have suggested—I do not think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has denied this—is that in bringing forward the Bill to the House there was no prior consultation with the Churches, it was not flagged up in the White Paper and it was not mentioned at Second Reading. So I do offer the mildest of criticisms in that matter. But I fully accept that when the matter was raised it was addressed—in a letter I received from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in private discussion with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and at the meeting. I should like to think that in mentioning that meeting earlier I paid compliment to the Government for agreeing to meet the Moderator at short notice.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. I accept that the impression I got must have been mistaken. On the question of consultation, the White Paper did not specifically mention the Churches. I accept that. But the Churches had the opportunity to comment on the White Paper, as did everyone else, prior to the Bill being introduced.
Despite these lengthy consultations with various departments within government, we, too, like the Church, are unable to find an example of a case which would be caught. The least unlikely case might be one in which Article 6.1 of the convention became relevant. Because if—it is a big "if'—a minister's relationship with the Church gives him a civil right, he would have a convention right to have any dispute concerning that civil right dealt with consistently with Article 6.
796
Article 6.1 is reproduced on page 15 of the Bill. I do not think it necessary to repeat it. However, it is possible that proceedings before a kirk session considering disciplinary action against a minister may require, for the purposes of Article 6, to be,
"a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
Questions might then arise—I emphasise that I am referring to a hypothetical situation—as to whether a kirk session was independent and impartial and, in particular, whether it was established by law. I would have some doubts as to whether a kirk session could be so described. As I have said, it seems to be reasonably clear that there was a period in the history of the Church when much of its administration and government was regulated by Acts of the Scottish Parliament. At that period it would have been easy to say that kirk sessions and indeed the assembly itself were "established by law".
However that may have been, it appears to me that the effect of the 1921 Act was to cut the connection between the general law of the land and the administration and government of the Church. That being so, it must be at least doubtful whether the kirk session and the general assembly could any longer be said to be "established by law". It is also possible that questions might be raised as to whether Church courts present a sufficient appearance of independence and impartiality.
It is not perhaps necessary for me to express any definitive view on any of these questions. I would only remark that in the 30 years since individual petition to Strasbourg became competent, no such point has been taken before the European Court of Human Rights by any Scottish minister.
However, I must continue to make these improbable assumptions for the purposes of the argument. Let me continue. If a Church body to which the Bill applies commits a wrong in convention terms, it would fall to the civil courts to right it. The convention rights are in this context part of the law of the land. The civil courts would investigate the convention issue—in the disciplinary example I have given, the criticism of the procedural unfairness levelled against the Church—in exactly the same way in which they would address any other question arising under the law of the land; for example, a complaint that someone acting on behalf of the Church had committed a delict, or tort in English terms. That would be consistent with long-standing Strasbourg jurisprudence on these questions. The civil courts' task does not, and cannot, involve trespassing on the doctrinal or spiritual interests of the Church, any more than the European Court of Human Rights would do were a complaint to be made direct to Strasbourg before the Bill comes into force.
To sum up on this part of my remarks, neither the Church nor the Government have been able to identify a real practical problem which this Bill will cause to the courts of the Church. The least unlikely problem is one related to whether the Church courts are independent and impartial tribunals established by law, within the meaning of the convention. If that problem exists, it exists now. The Bill will not solve it. The only

797
difference the Bill will make is that questions relating to that problem will be dealt with in Edinburgh rather than in Strasbourg. In relation to an earlier group of amendments, I would simply refer to the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who expressed this point more eloquently than I can. But the point is exactly the same.
I turn now to what I referred to as the theoretical threat to its independence which the Church perceives. The Church has repeatedly asserted that it would not wish to act inconsistently with the convention. The Government of course accept and welcome that as a general statement of the Church's position. But by seeking to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill the Church is asserting that, in the event of its courts acting in a manner incompatible with a convention right—perhaps because their internal organisation and procedures are inconsistent with Article 6—that matter should not be reviewable by the ordinary courts in Scotland but should only be reviewable by appeal within the system of Church courts. I would only observe that, in the case of a breach of Article 6, further consideration by other Church courts is unlikely to cure the defect.
But, as was made clear at the meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Church's position goes further than simply claiming to deal with human rights matters within its own courts. In the event of a finding by the European Court of Human Rights that the United Kingdom was in breach of its international obligations by reason of a Church court's having acted incompatibly with the convention, the Church of Scotland asserts that the United Kingdom Parliament would have no entitlement to require the Church of Scotland to change its procedures so as to make them compatible with the convention. According to the Church of Scotland, the most that Parliament or the Government could do would be to ask the Church to reconsider the matter. It would be for the Church to decide whether to change its procedures. The Church is claiming the right to continue to deny convention rights to those affected by the actings of its courts.
Perhaps I may say in passing that I inquired of the Moderator and the other representatives at the meeting as to how long this procedure would take. I understood from my researches that we would be talking about two years. In fact it would be three general assemblies before the Church could bring it into line. We are talking about three years. But even then, at the end of three years the Church might decide that it was not going to come into line with the requirement, in which case Parliament would require to consider what amendments were required to the 1921 Act.
I have already said that I have not been able to imagine a case in which such a situation would arise. But if it were to arise, the responsibility of this Government, and of any future government, would be to implement the international obligations of the United Kingdom. Those obligations, in the case of the human rights convention, consist in guaranteeing convention rights to everyone in the United Kingdom. No exception is made in the convention for persons who may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland.
798
As I have said before, the Government do not seek to subject the institutions of the Church to detailed parliamentary control. We have no wish to provoke a disruption of the kind which soured Church-state relations in the last century. We seek only to incorporate into domestic law the rights which the United Kingdom has for some 45 years undertaken to guarantee to its citizens under the European Convention on Human Rights.
I shall add one final point before I finish. Your Lordships will note that this legislation is to apply to every public authority in the United Kingdom. The Bill represents a major constitutional change in the working of institutions throughout the country. The very courts of the land are to be subject to the Bill. The only exceptions are the two Houses of Parliament acting as such.
I have tried to show that the concerns of the Church are not based on any realistic fear of interference by the civil courts with the Church courts. No one has been able to think of a real example. I have explained that, if the least unlikely example of conflict were to arise, the Bill would neither help nor hinder the arguments which the Church might present. It would enable the matter to be dealt with by a Scottish court rather than by a European court in Strasbourg. I would have thought that that would have been to the Church's advantage.
The Church's position ignores the practical implications of the United Kingdom's international obligations. It maintains that it is not for Parliament to legislate in such a way that the civil courts might be able, even in theory, to review the actions of Church courts. The logic behind these amendments is that even in the event of a finding by the European Court of Human Rights that the United Kingdom was, by reason of the actions of a Church court, in breach of its obligations under the convention, this Parliament could not put the matter right.
The Government's object in bringing this legislation forward is to enable the citizens of the country whose human rights within the meaning of the convention are being interfered with to raise that matter before the courts of this country rather than being required to take the matter to Strasbourg. Her Majesty's Government see no reason to make an exception to that general rule in respect of persons whose convention rights may have been adversely affected by institutions of the Church. Therefore, in the light of that full explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made reference to the Government's position in relation to the Church of Scotland. He said that he did not understand the argument. I say to the right reverend Prelate that, unlike the Church of England, the Church of Scotland is not an established Church. The measures of the Synod of the Church of England require to be approved or not, as the case may be, by Parliament. As I understand it, that was the effect of the Government's amendment to accommodate that particular situation. That is not the position in the Scottish Church. Its legislation is not in the same category. I hope that that will explain the Government's concession to the Church of England and that it will not be misconstrued as being partisan in favouring the Church of England.

799
At the meeting, I pursued with the Church representatives whether there was any intermediate solution they could put forward. They wanted to be excluded and that was their position. I said that I was anxious to hear from them of any intermediate solution that might meet their requirements short of excluding the Church from these provisions. I was advised that they were unable to respond because they did not have the authority of the Church to make any offers. We went to the table genuinely anxious to accommodate the Church, if at all possible. In the circumstances it has not proved possible to do so.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure will be the members who attended the meeting on behalf of the Church, for the very full explanation of the Government's position, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has now given us.
He raised a number of issues. The first is whether it is right, having regard to the history of the matter, to view it as a matter for concern. The second issue is the practical implications. I cannot stress enough the importance to the Church of Scotland of the history of that Church and the importance and significance of the constitutional settlement which was entered into in 1921. It was a settlement between two parties, the Church on the one hand and Parliament on the other.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has been present at the opening of a general assembly of the Church of Scotland. The fathers and brethren—that is, the ministers and elders, as they are referred to—stand to hear a letter from Her Majesty which is read to them by the Principal Clerk. In that letter, year in and year out, Her Majesty—no doubt acting on the advice of her Ministers—annually renews her pledge to preserve and uphold the rights and privileges of the Church of Scotland of which she is a member but in which she holds no special position as she does in the Church of England.
I have attended many assemblies over the years. I watched my father, who was a seventh-generation minister, take part in its debates. When I was in office, I myself attended two opening ceremonies. On each occasion those words of Her Majesty were greeted with acclamation. It means a great deal to the Church. In that sense it is a very practical issue.
The Church is not seeking to exempt itself from the Bill. On previous occasions when I have raised this matter I have been at pains to point out that the Church is quite happy that the provisions of the Bill should apply when it is dealing with what I might refer to as matters secular, such as the running of old folks' homes, clinics for drug addicts and the rest. Either paying for it itself or using funds gratefully received from local authorities or central government, it does work on behalf of the whole community.
There is no suggestion at all that the Church seeks to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. Its concern is limited to its impact on the provisions of the 1921 Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has
800
helpfully set out his view as to how the Church would fall to be treated in terms of Clause 6 of the Bill. His advice, as I understand it, and I am sure that I understand it very fully, is that the Church court would not be considered to be either a court or tribunal under the clause.
On a previous occasion I referred to a letter which I received from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, copies of which, I suspect, were sent to others. In the second part of it he says:
"As to the first point, the courts of the Church of Scotland would appear to be courts for the purposes of the Human Rights Bill, and accordingly to be public authorities. I think it is right that this should be so. In most respects, there is no reason to distinguish between these courts and the civil courts. Their procedures for hearing cases, for example, should comply as necessary with Article 6 in the same way that other courts' procedures should".
There seems to be a change of position on that very crucial matter. I am inclined to the view
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I was aware of the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Williams in the letter referred to. I was also aware that my views differed. The reason lies in the word "reconsidered". Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have reflected deeply on the implications of it for the Church. As I said, there have been meetings between the Government and others. The position reached, contained in the view I have expressed, is the correct one.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as a Law Officer one should never inquire into the advice given to government colleagues. However, I am happy to hear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has persuaded his colleagues. I hope that he will accept from me that, hearing these views for the first time, he has certainly not persuaded me. I was unaware that this point was raised with the representatives from the Church last Monday. If it was, it was certainly not drawn to my attention. On receiving the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I believed that the Government and I were at one in being of the view that the Church fell to be treated as courts under Clause 6. As I say, I am not persuaded to change my mind on that very crucial issue, having listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate so helpfully set out at length.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate also said that he could not imagine a case where any practical problem would arise. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is aware of the case of Logan v. Presbytery of Dumbarton, which came before a judge in the Court of Session, Lord Osborne, in April 1991. That case was brought by a minister of a parish church who sought judicial review of certain decisions of the presbytery which were of a disciplinary nature. Among the arguments that he wished to raise (had the court been prepared to entertain the proceedings) was, first, that the presbytery had failed to accept—indeed, had rejected— a plea of res adjudicata advanced on the minister's behalf—in other words, that the issue had already been decided. His second ground—this is of crucial importance to the point made by the noble and learned Lord—involved

801
claiming that the conduct of the presbytery's proceedings when dealing with the libel against him had resulted in a decision which was contrary to natural justice in a number of respects. So, as recently as three years ago a minister went to the Court of Session arguing that his rights had been breached, contrary to natural justice.
I fully accept that one cannot entirely equiparate the rules of natural justice with the convention rights as they are set out in the Bill, but they are not entirely dissimilar subjects. It is possible to imagine a case where a minister, whom a presbytery seeks to remove from office for a variety of reasons, may seek to challenge the proceedings on the basis that they had not been conducted fairly. Indeed, in his response to my noble friend Lady Young this afternoon the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was prepared to admit such a possibility, however unlikely and inadvertent.
Finally, the Lord Advocate criticises the Church for asserting that Parliament has no right to require it to abide by convention rights when dealing with matters spiritual. That is correct, but that is no more than the Church of Scotland relying on the provisions of the constitutional settlement recorded in the 1921 Act. The Church is not ignoring anything. It is not ignoring the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention or under any other treaty. It is taking account of those matters and saying that it is for it, the Church, and for it alone to decide because that was the constitutional settlement it entered into back in 1921. I stress again that that settlement has been accepted, recognised and respected by successive governments—until the present one.
This is a matter about which the Church feels very strongly and, for reasons which I am sure your Lordships will understand given my ecclesiastical background and my membership of the Church, I too feel strongly about it and I seek to test the opinion of the House.
7.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Addington, L.

Burnham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Calverley, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Carlisle, E.

812

Colville of Culross, V.

Meston, L.

Dahrendoif, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Goodhart, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Renton, L.

Hams of Greenwich, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Holdemess, L.

Rochester, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hooper, B.

Russell, E.

Howe, E.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L. [Teller]

Sandberg, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Ludford, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackay of Dnunadoon, L

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McNair, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNally, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Levy, L.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Borrie, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Chandos, V.

Monkswell, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Eatwell, L.

Puttnam, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Hanworth, V.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hardie, L.

Rowallan, L.

Haskel, L.

Serota, B.

Hayman, B.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of I airg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whiny, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.41 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in Division No. 2 the figure announced for those voting Not-Content was 131. The correct figure is 130.
Clause 4 [Declaration of incompatibility]: [Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.] Clause 6 [Acts of public authorities]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert ("and does not include any kind of religious court or any corporate religious body").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11, which was grouped with Amendment No. 1. I said at the time that I reserved my right to return to it when it came to its turn on the Marshalled List. I am a keen supporter of this Bill, as I made clear at Second Reading. However, I believe that in view of the strength of feeling in your Lordships' House on religious matters, especially the work of the religious courts, and the great number of noble Lords who supported the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young, we should think carefully about the religious courts and bodies.
As the Lord Chancellor said when he referred to the amendments in the first group, this amendment has very wide effect. I concede that. But the definition of public authorities in Clause 6 is wide, especially if one refers to subsection (3)(b) where one finds that,
"'public authority' includes … any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
That is a wide definition. Admittedly, it does not include the Houses of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament. However, before this Bill reaches another place I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider the desirability from the public point of view, in view of the support of your Lordships' House, of avoiding conflict between our secular courts and religious courts and bodies. Admittedly, my amendment is brief but it covers ground that has been referred to in a large number of much more detailed amendments this evening. But it may make for better legislation if we deal with it in the way set out in Amendment No. 11.
I do not wish to take up more time on this matter. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, who has a wonderful grasp of the matters contained in this Bill, will simply say that perhaps in all the circumstances the matter should be given further thought.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I believe that this group of amendments included Amendment No. 12. I listened carefully to the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick about certain very specialised ecclesiastical courts. He asked the noble and learned Lord to consider what appropriate court or tribunal he might determine to be suitable to oversee those particular courts. He made an offer, which was not accepted, in relation to courts martial earlier this evening. Will the noble and learned
804
Lord respond to the matters referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick? If those courts are already presided over by extremely eminent if specialist judges of the High Court, it does not follow that just any court, be it the Divisional Court or suchlike, is the appropriate tribunal to oversee them under Clause 7. My noble and learned friend did not get an answer to that, and I was very interested in the point that he made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. quite quickly. It is in very wide terms and takes us straight back to a full-blooded exemption for the Churches. It goes far beyond the more limited amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which a short time ago found favour with your Lordships' House. I pass over rather quickly the question of what effect is achieved by the insertion of the word "corporate" before "religious bodies". Religious bodies are not normally categorised according to whether they are incorporated. I doubt whether the effect would be quite what the noble Lord intends. At all events, this does not appear to be an appropriate criterion by which to determine whether a religious body is a public authority for the purposes of the Bill.
The other question of principle, which we have already debated, is whether it is right to exempt the Churches from the duty not to act incompatibly with convention rights and the liability that rests upon them, to the extent that they are properly to be regarded as public authorities, to answer for their actions. Your Lordships' House determined that matter at Report stage. I believe that the House should give the same answer today. We believe it right as a matter of principle that the Bill should bear equally on all bodies which on a reasonable view of the part that they play in public life can properly be regarded as public authorities.
All I can say by way of comfort to the noble Lord is that we firmly believe that the Bill will not in any way encourage the ordinary courts to interfere in purely religious matters. But it is the view of the Government that if a religious body should find itself, however inadvertently, acting in a manner incompatible with basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, it should be amenable to correction in the same way as any other body that plays a similar role. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply, although I do not feel that it goes far enough or is open-minded enough. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert?—
("( ) In subsection (3) "court or tribunal" does not include any court or tribunal when it is exercising a jurisdiction, recognised but not created by Parliament, in matters spiritual.
( ) In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(b) if the act is done by or on behalf of a religious body exercising a jurisdiction, recognised but not created by Parliament, in matters spiritual.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 7 (Proceedings]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Nothing in subsection (I) shall prevent an applicant from bringing an application for judicial review provided that the court considers that he has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to be brief for several reasons: first, because I believe that this is the first amendment which is of real practical importance. We have listened for several hours to amendments on doctrine, theology and general theoretical questions. This amendment deals with a practical problem. It relates to one of the only flaws in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is entitled to describe as a jewel of a Bill.
The flaw arises, as I explained in some detail in Committee, because the Government have imported into the test of legal standing to bring proceedings under the Bill a European test of victim rather than the conventional domestic law test.
The present sensible and satisfactory position under English law is to be changed. The law of standing is concerned with who can invoke the judicial process. Issues of standing can arise in private law or public law. When I moved an amendment in Committee, I endeavoured to exclude the European test of standing for private law as well as for public law. This amendment does something more modest. It seeks to exclude it only in public law proceedings for judicial review.
When one is dealing with private law claims—that is to say, tort actions for damages or damages and injunctions in relation to a public nuisance or a breach of statutory duty—someone claiming has to show that he or she was personally affected. That is similar to the European victim test. So I am not troubled about using the European victim test in a private law context, because in a private law context there is a focus on the individual. That is the central quality of what we call private law. It is concerned, above all, with the rights of private individuals and corporations. As regards judicial review, the position is entirely different.
Mr. Justice Sedley observed in a recent judgment that public law is not at base about rights, even though abuses of power may and often do invade private rights. He pointed out:
"it is about wrongs—that is to say. misuses of public power".
806
and the courts have always been alive to the fact that a person or organisation with no particular stake in the issue or outcome may, without in any sense being a mere meddler or a busybody, wish and he well-placed to call the attention of the court to an apparent misuse of public power. Mr. Justice Sedley also pointed out that our courts will not permit busybodies or mere troublemakers to apply for judicial review.
The basic English rule of standing is that the applicant for judicial review must have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. That includes cases of representative or associational standing, where an association seeks standing, either to represent a group of interested parties or to represent the public interest. So our courts have accepted that bodies such as the Child Poverty Action Group, Greenpeace. the EOC, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association or the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants all have standing to bring judicial review proceedings, regardless of whether the people whose interests they seek to represent are their members or are identified and joined as individual victims.
As it stands, Clause 7 alters that sensible English legal test of standing for cases of judicial review involving alleged breaches of convention rights by requiring the applicants to be victims within the meaning of Article 25 of the European convention. That is a test devised for the entirely different purpose of deciding who is entitled to have recourse to the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights.
The purpose of the amendment is to align the Bill with the present domestic law for standing for seeking judicial review. It would leave the victim test intact for non-judicial review proceedings in private law cases.
This is a matter of great practicality. I know that there are several Law Lords who would have been here tonight if the issue had not been raised so late in the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, wished to be here. He was sorry that he had to leave. I am grateful to the several Law Lords, serving and retired, who have been able to stay until this late hour. I am aware that the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has written to the Government expressing his opposition to this narrow and unworkable test of standing.
I shall explain why it is unworkable. I asked a Question about this and received a Written Answer which confirms the following bizarre situation: Clause 7, as it stands, will result in five different tests of legal standing in judicial review proceedings. There will be the case where there are common law principles alone in play; there will be cases where common law principles embody convention rights; there will be cases where European Community law embodies convention rights; there will be cases of judicial review on convention rights alone; and there will be cases of a combination of any of those grounds. That will lead to unnecessary, time-wasting, costly legal disputes, when our present test of standing for judicial review is satisfactory and workable.
The only justification given on the Government's behalf was in the Written Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on 9th December 1997, when he kindly explained that the reason for the Government's approach:
"have less to do with practical advantage … than with a desire to reflect in our domestic arrangements the circumstances in which cases do now go to Strasbourg".— [Official Report, 9/12/97; col. WA 15.1
Surely practical advantage should be the touchstone, rather than a desire to use an alien European test devised for an entirely different purpose. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes it to be known that he is not responsible for describing the Bill as a jewel. As the author. I must modestly take responsibility for that description. It is an accurate description. But I agree with my noble friend that the amendment would put right one blemish in it. It is of great practical effect. It deals with the increasing tendency of cases to be brought by organisations representing people of whom the applicant is one.
That has been the position in a great many of the most important cases that we have had recently. I think, for example, of the case of Bates from the Social Security Act 1990, upon which I have regaled your Lordships many times, and will not do so again. That was brought by the Child Poverty Action Group on behalf of an applicant who suffered from learning disability and might have had great difficultly in bringing the case herself.
I think of the case Ex parte B, on asylum seekers' right to benefit, which detained this House for much of the summer of 1996. That woman was destitute, in a strange country and totally ignorant of the system. Without that, she would have been unable to bring the case. I think of a case in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House on the employment rights of part-time workers in which my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne-Hill, who has been too modest to mention it, was the successful applicant. I believe that that case has done more to advance the standing of women than any other event in Parliament. in its judicial or legislative capacity, in the past five years. All those matters are in the interests of potential litigants.
When we start talking about human rights we are tempted to confine ourselves to human rights, but there is a case to be considered for the convenience of the Government. I wish to consider that case in supporting the amendment. In some quarters, fears have been expressed about a flood of appeals. I believe that those fears may be exaggerated. However, there is no doubt that when such cases are heard in British courts it will take a few years for things to shake down and for people to learn the types of cases which are practical.
In the Social Security Bill, which is before the House at present, there is a good deal about what is referred to as the sifting of appeals. The question, "Who does that?", is always difficult. However, it occurs to me that one of the real advantages of having organisations involved in the bringing of cases is that they will carry out a preliminary sift. They will tell people, "No, this case does not come
808
within the terms of the European Convention." They will tell other people, "Your case might come under the terms of the European Convention, but the chances of success are very slender." Therefore, when a case is brought to court it will have been exhaustively tested and examined and will be considered to have a reasonable chance of success. That may materially save the time of the court.
I recall Lord Taylor of Gosforth, one of the ablest people it has been my privilege to listen to in this House, speaking in a debate on legal aid. He explained with that simple clarity of which he was such a master how much the time of the court is taken up in having to deal with uninformed litigants in person. It is with that speech in mind that I ask whether this amendment is for the convenience of the Government.
8 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, for a number of years, I appeared as counsel before both the commission and the court of human rights on behalf of the United Kingdom. I was convinced then, and I have remained convinced, that it was of the greatest importance that the convention, with amendments, should become part of domestic law. If we are not to adopt too restrictive an approach to those who may approach the courts for the protection of human rights we should give effect to this amendment.
During the years, we have seen the development of judicial review because of the degree of flexibility which the courts enjoyed. It is essential that judges at all levels should have the freedom to allow to approach the court those who can show a sufficient interest. If they do not do so, I see a grave risk of the word "victim" being tortured into an artificial meaning in order to protect the rights of those who ought to be able to bring matters of great importance before the courts.
For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I firmly, if briefly—I do not wish to repeat what he said—support the amendment. I do so not only as a result of our experience in the British courts with judicial review, and not only as a result of what I saw in the Strasbourg court, but also because I believe that we should learn from the experience of what we have seen in the European Court itself. Those who may approach the European Court to challenge decisions of the Commission and the Council are strictly limited. The treaty speaks of those who have a direct and individual concern. In my view, the court at an early stage interpreted that in a very narrow way. Most of us outside the court, and some of us on the court, believed that that had been interpreted too narrowly and had prevented sufficiently interested groups of individuals challenging what the Commission and the Council had done as being unlawful.
I do not believe that we should follow that path in regard to the protection of human rights. I welcome as warmly as any of your Lordships the fact that the Government have brought the measure forward and done so early and vigorously. However, I believe that if the word "victim" remains in the Bill and the amendment is

809
rejected there is a serious risk that human rights will not be protected as they should be protected in the future. I support the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I regret that the matter has come on so late and that a number of speakers to whom reference has been made have been unable to wait. Among those is the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, to whom I spoke briefly about the matter over tea.
It must be emphasised at the outset that there is no question that, if the amendment is accepted, the litigation which results will in any way be increased or be academic. Sufficient standing will enable the applicant to appear only if he shows that he has a sufficient real interest and, in addition, the discretion of the judge listening to the application is used in his favour.
I would have submitted to your Lordships that there could be practical disadvantages in having different tests for standing in judicial review cases which involve human rights points under the Act and those which do not. As has been said, it will result in a tortured meaning ultimately being given to the word "victim" to ensure that those who have real merits are not excluded. I adopt the observation of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that benefits will be gained by allowing public interest groups in appropriate cases to make the application. Quite apart from the fact that it will ensure that the factual picture and the legal issues are put clearly before the court, it will also save what is dear to the Government's heart the cost of legal aid—because those groups bear their own costs. I would have thought that this is an eminently sensible amendment to make. Unless one is wholly technical in one's approach to the legislation, there is no reason for resisting it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I believe that Clause 7(4) is too narrow and has the defect referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, in relation to the word "victim". However, judicial review now plays an important part in the evolution of the law in our courts. The amendment would be even more acceptable if, to the words "a sufficient interest in the matter", were added the words "or if there is a sufficient public interest". That would broaden the measure still further and make it more relevant to the present practice with regard to judicial review. However, even with the amendment's present limitations, it is worthy of support.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment for the reasons that have been given and for the reasons I gave at an earlier stage of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I intervene briefly in ease—1 hope that I do not speak too pompously—lay Members of your Lordships' House believe that litigation would be increased by the acceptance of the amendment. It may be thought that one must go before the court on a judicial review before any decision can be made as to whether there is a sufficient interest. If I may respectfully say so, that would not be the case because there must be an application for leave to bring the judicial review proceedings, usually looked at by a judge and sometimes
810
by two judges, I understand. That will be the case if this amendment is accepted. The judge or the judges on the application to bring the proceedings will consider whether there is a sufficient interest, and if there is not leave will not be given.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall try, in replying to those who have spoken in the debate, to match their brevity. This is a narrow point but I agree that it is of some importance. I well understand the reasons why noble Lords champion the sufficient interest test which applies in judicial review applications. But of course the provision in this Bill in no way affects that test of standing for judicial review which has been developed by the courts and not created by statute.
As regards the proposed statutory test, I believe that the concerns expressed about applying the victim test are misplaced. I say immediately to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there is nothing in our Bill which would prevent pressure groups—interest groups—from assisting and providing representations for victims who wish to bring cases forward.
There is a flexible Strasbourg jurisprudence on the victim test which I suggest the English courts would have no difficulty applying. Although I hesitate to take up time, and indeed abstain from doing so, I could cite example after example of an expansive approach by the Strasbourg court to the victim test.
As we have said a number of times, the purpose of the Bill is to give further effect in our domestic law to our convention rights, and it is in keeping with that approach that a person should be able to rely on those rights before our courts in the same circumstances that they can rely upon them before the Strasbourg institutions, and not in different circumstances. Bringing rights home means exactly what it says—to mirror the approach taken by the Strasbourg court in interpreting convention rights.
I acknowledge that as a consequence, and despite the flexibility of the Strasbourg test, a narrower test will apply for bringing applications on convention grounds than in applications for judicial review on other grounds. But I venture to think that interest groups will plainly be able to provide assistance to victims who bring cases under the Bill, including, as I mentioned in Committee, the filing of amicus briefs. Interest groups themselves will be able to bring cases directly where they are victims of an unlawful act. I do not believe that different tests for convention and non-convention cases will cause any difficulties for the courts or prevent interest groups providing assistance to victims of unlawful acts.
As to the questions raised about giving access to the courts, I mentioned in Committee that I am giving serious consideration to Sir Peter Middleton's proposal that there should be a separate fund for public interest cases, including those involving rights under this Bill. Informed consultation with various interest groups on that matter is already well under way and I hope to publish a consultation document by the end of February.
Therefore, we consider that the wording of Clause 7 is wholly consistent with the proposition that rights should be brought home to this country from Strasbourg on the

811
same terms as they may be enjoyed there. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will give thought to withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, who at this moment is meant to be at an important public engagement and is staying here purely for the purpose of this debate.
The noble and learned Lord's experience is probably unparalleled because he was Treasury devil—that means that he was the government's chief lawyer—which position he filled with outstanding distinction. He was a distinguished judge and advocate general in the other European Court of Justice. He has had great experience of the Strasbourg case law. He has been and is a most distinguished Law Lord. Therefore, he has within him more practical experience of questions of legal standing and the interests of litigants than anyone else in this House, except those on the Cross-Benches who are serving or retired Law Lords.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been quite frank and straight with the House, as one would expect. I have too much affection and admiration for him to believe that he is deeply convinced by the argument that he puts forward on behalf of himself and his colleagues. I have heard him when he is passionate and deeply engaged. I listened carefully today. He has not said that there is any abuse of the English test or that there is anything wrong with it. He concedes that it will be narrower to adopt the European victim test than to keep to our own well-tried test. But all he can put forward by way of justification is that third parties will be able to come in with amicus briefs. That is fine, but you still have to find an individual victim before you can be a third-party amicus. He said that he believes that some of the bodies to which I referred will be able to find individual victims. But some will not and it will be very difficult for cases to go forward.
Whatever the outcome may be of seeking the opinion of the House, I am a sufficient optimist and believer in the capacity of reason to persuade, to hope that this matter will be given further thought and will be reacted to with practicality and flexibility. However, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
8.17
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contentes, 46; Not-Contents, 71.
8.26 p.m.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert
("(7A) Nothing in this Act shall be used to compel any minister, official or other person acting on behalf of a Christian or other principal religious tradition represented in Great Britain to

813
administer a marriage contrary to his religious doctrines or convictions.
(7B) In relation to

(a) a church school;

(b) a school or college with a religious foundation or trust deed or, as the case may be, memorandum or articles of association,

nothing in this Act shall he used to affect its ability to select for the position of headteacher, deputy headteacher or other senior post people whose beliefs and manner of life are appropriate to the basic ethos of the school and to dispense with the services of a person in the position of headteacher, deputy headteacher or other senior post whose beliefs and manner of life are not appropriate to the basic ethos of the school.
(7C) In relation to a charity which has as one of its aims the advancement of religion, nothing in this Act shall be used to affect its ability to select for the position of chief executive, deputy chief executive or other senior post people whose beliefs and manner of life are appropriate to the basic ethos of the charity and to dispense with the services of a person in the position of chief executive, deputy chief executive or other senior post whose beliefs and manner of life are not appropriate to the basic ethos of the charity.").
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 16
Page 5, line 6, at end insert?
("( ) The provisions of this Act do not affect any rule of law which prevents the High Court of Justiciary, the Court of Session and the Sheriff Coon from reviewing any decision of the Lord Advocate as to whether or not to prosecute a particular individual.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a matter which I have raised previously. For that reason, I hope that I can take it briefly. The protracted proceedings have not only disrupted the birthday celebrations of my wife, but I understand that they are also interfering most seriously with the birthday celebrations of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I hope that I speak for the whole House when I wish him, for what remains of the day, a very happy event.
When the matter was last before the House I expressed my concern that the Bill would, inadvertently perhaps, interfere with and disturb the relationship between the Lord Advocate on the one hand and the courts in Scotland on the other hand, as regards decisions as to whether or not to prosecute particular individuals. At that time I expressed some concern that the Government had not sought and brought before your Lordships the views of those who participate in the criminal justice system in Scotland on such an important issue.
Since then, and as I promised, I have discussed the matter with various parties. The position of the Faculty of Advocates remains the same as I previously explained; namely, that it believes there to be strong policy grounds for excluding the Lord Advocate's decisions from review. It certainly doubts whether the Court of Session is the forum in which to do so. Members of the Law Society apparently have differing views on the issue—some agree with me, while others take the view that all decisions of the Lord Advocate should be reviewable not only on convention right
814
grounds but also on the broader grounds appropriate in judicial review proceedings. However, I doubt whether many Lord Advocates would agree with that.
The position of the Court of Session is of some interest. I wrote to the Lord President, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, to ascertain whether or not he was prepared to write to me in terms which would enable me to explain to the House the view of the court. The noble and learned Lord discussed the matter with a number of the judges at one of their regular meetings. The view that he reports to me in a letter, which I know has been copied to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, is that the court considers it "inevitable" that the decisions of the Lord Advocate should be reviewed. That seems necessarily to involve an application to the courts, following the decision which the Government have taken vis-a-vis the convention.
However, in his letter, the noble and learned Lord also says:
"The idea of a court … reviewing the Lord Advocate's exercise of his powers represents a major change in the relationship between the courts and the Lord Advocate".
Indeed, in that letter, the Lord President describes the change as "startling". Therefore, it is right that your Lordships should know that there is a measure of surprise that this change is taking place without, as I understand it, any detailed discussion until I raised the matter with those involved.
In speaking to this matter previously, I have expressed concern that, if decisions are reviewable against convention rights, that might open up review on other grounds. That, too, is a view which the Lord President shares. He states in his letter,
"It also seems to me likely that, once the Lord Advocate's decisions are seen to be reviewable on one ground, it will be hard to resist the view that they should be reviewable on other grounds also".
Linked to that, of course, is the question of whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will now require to provide reasons for his decisions when those are brought before the court for review.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will respond to this amendment, but whichever it is I shall be interested to learn what the proposals are, and whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate intends to adhere to the existing convention of not giving reasons for such decisions, or whether he intends to depart from it at least in some cases to enable the courts to adjudicate on the merits or otherwise of any application brought against him.
I return to an important question which I submit is of great practical concern; namely, the question of which court should entertain such applications when remedies are sought either by accused persons or by victims. First, I wish to consider the position under Clause 7 of this Bill. This House still awaits from the Government any indication of how the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to exercise his rule-making power under the Bill to designate which courts are appropriate for particular

815
kinds of actions. Here again your Lordships may feel the views of the Lord President are of interest. On a previous occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that the natural court with which to place such a jurisdiction would be the Court of Session. On the other hand the Lord President expresses the view that it might be appropriate for both courts to have a jurisdiction, with the one court having jurisdiction in certain cases and the other in others. Understandably he declines to express too firm a view on the issue, unless it comes before him for decision in a particular case. Therefore we have a situation that the same issue as to whether a particular convention right had been breached might arise on the one hand in the Court of Session, where there is an appeal to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, or on the other hand in a High Court of Justiciary case, where no such right of appeal exists. The court in which the issue arose would be a matter of complete chance. That would presumably be determined according to whether the proceedings were raised by an accused person on the one hand, or one of his alleged victims on the other.
However, there is a further twist to the problem of which court should have jurisdiction. The Scotland Bill proposes that the post of Lord Advocate will be devolved. It is intended that he should become a member of the Scottish Executive. As such his actings and failures to act will be reviewable against convention rights, as a devolution issue, as defined in Schedule 6 to the Scotland Bill. Such devolution issues can—as I read Schedule 6 to the Bill—be raised in any court in Scotland, not only in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary but also in a Sheriff Court. When they are, the ultimate appeal court against the determination of a devolution issue will not be the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It seems to me, with respect, therefore that there is a serious incompatibility between the different routes that are available for judicial proceedings under this Bill and those set out in Schedule 6 to the Scotland Bill.
I am aware from previous discussion on this Bill that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has kindly agreed to consider such issues involving potential conflict between the two Bills in the fullness of time. As regards fairly minor and technical matters, I am more than content with such an assurance. But I believe that this is a matter of fairly fundamental importance. For that reason, I very much hope that I shall receive some commitment from the Government to bring forward a government amendment to deal at least with the issue of which court should entertain applications for those who claim to be victims, because I harbour no hope that they will favour or accept my fundamental objection to the implications for the relationship between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the court. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord moved a similar amendment on Report. Since then not only has he written to the Lord President but I have
816
had a meeting with the Lord President which I believe predated the letter which the Lord President wrote to the noble and learned Lord. In his letter the Lord President quite clearly accepts the logic of the Government's position. If this Bill is to be passed, the logic is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as with any other public authority, should be subject to the terms of the Act.
As regards the noble and learned Lord's reference to the Lord President finding the change to be startling, I should perhaps simply read out the appropriate sentence from the letter of the Lord President to the noble and learned Lord. The Lord President, having dealt with the question of the inevitability of the application of the Bill to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, states,
"But, however startling the change may be, I cannot see how it can be avoided once incorporation takes place".
I am not sure that he was necessarily accepting that the change was startling, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said. It is a question of interpretation. There is no justification for having a gap in the protection provided by the Bill. Furthermore, I have no desire to be placed in a position in which, when exercising this role in my capacity as Lord Advocate, I am seen to be above the convention. I think that is also a logical position given the position that has been taken in relation to the Church of Scotland and other bodies seeking exemption.
As regards the question of which court should hear such applications, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that Clause 7(2) indicates that the appropriate court or tribunal will be determined in accordance with rules. These rules will of course be made in due course by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In fairness to the Lord President, he indicated that there was a case for the Court of Session. There may also be a case in some situations for the High Court of Justiciary. However, the Lord President did not want to be drawn into that debate and wished specifically to reserve his position. I anticipate that that will be a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I anticipate also that, in accordance with normal procedures, soundings will be taken with the Lord President and his views will be taken into account, although of course I cannot commit my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in that regard. Having explained the reasons for being opposed to this amendment, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate sits down, I hope that he will address the issue I raised as regards the relationship of the provisions in the Scotland Bill with those in this Bill, as I believe that is a fundamental issue if the position of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is to be devolved. I am happy to say that it will not necessarily follow that the noble and learned Lord himself will go if his post is devolved. However, the position will be devolved and there could be a devolution issue on the lines of one route, which is set out in Schedule 6 to the Scotland Bill, and which

817
I suggest is incompatible with any rule-making power under Clause 7. I do not anticipate that, if the Secretary of State designated that such issues should be raised in the Court of Session and/or the High Court of Justiciary, there could be any question of his writing into the rules a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee when no such right of appeal currently exists.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, there will no doubt be many an hour available to us to discuss the provisions of the Scotland Bill when it comes to this House. I simply adopt the position of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and indicate that any inconsistencies will be addressed at the appropriate time.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am happy that the inconsistencies will be addressed. However, the practical problem is that the Bill will now pass from your Lordships' House. Unless there are amendments to it in another place, it will not be competent for me or any other noble Lord to raise an amendment to the Bill to take account of any concern that we have. Therefore I hope that before reaching a concluded view on the matter, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will consult not only with the courts but also with those such as myself who are genuinely interested in ensuring that when we have devolution the scope for unnecessary legal dispute is minimised.
I found the noble and learned Lord's construction of the Lord President's letter somewhat startling. But now is neither the time nor place to dwell on that.
I have raised the matter as fully as I can. I believe that I have discharged my duty to your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Judicial acts]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 6, line 5, leave out ("of a court").
Page 6, line 19, after ("act—) insert ("means a judicial act of a court and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage I indicated that the Government would be making a minor drafting amendment to this clause to remove a possible source of confusion. At present Clause 9 refers in subsection (1) to "a judicial act" and in subsection (3) to a "judicial act of a court". It therefore uses a slightly different expression in two places. There is a small risk that the courts might interpret "judicial act" on its own as embracing acts whose nature is judicial and not merely acts of a court. For example, a prison governor imposing a penalty on a prisoner in breach of prison regulations could be said to be doing something which is a judicial act. That is not the intention of the clause. Although we would not expect the courts to have difficulty in concluding that Clause 9 is intended to operate only in relation to judicial acts of a court or tribunal, we think that we should not leave that possibility for confusion.
Amendment No. 17 therefore removes the words "of a court" from subsection (3). Amendment No.18 adds to the list of definitions in subsection (5) to make it quite clear that "judicial act" means a judicial act of a court. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 12 [Procedure]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 8, line 7, at end insert ("and why it is appropriate to proceed by way of a remedial order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the fast-track procedure whereby incompatibilities in legislation with the convention can be dealt with by remedial order. At Report stage we welcomed the introduction by the Government of a new provision to the effect that a Minister introducing a remedial order would provide Parliament with a statement as to why he considered an order in those terms to be appropriate.
When the noble and learned Lord moved the amendment, it seemed to me appropriate that the statement should extend to the Minister giving the reason why he thought not only that the terms of the order were appropriate but that it was appropriate to make a remedial order. The statement might well contain words such as, "The Government consider that the amendment of legislation is so simple that we do not need to proceed by way of introduction of a public Bill". Alternatively, they might say, "There are a number of cases pending and it is important to clarify the point. We can do so quickly only by remedial order".
It did not seem to me to be appropriate for such a statement to contain the words—as I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree—that the Government proceed by way of remedial order because there is no parliamentary time available to proceed otherwise.
I made the point at Report. The noble and learned Lord said that he would consider it and write to me. I had hoped that having taken my point on board he would undertake to bring back the amendment, properly phrased, in another place. I received his reply today. It was the next best thing. He said that he did not think the amendment was necessary. He wrote:
"The amendment relates to clause 12(3)(b). That provides that a statement accompanying a remedial order (or draft) laid before Parliament must give 'the reasons why the person making it (or proposing to make it) considers an order in those terms appropriate'. Such reasons cover not only the reasons why it is appropriate to use the order-making powers, but also why it is appropriate to do in the terms proposed. Any doubt about whether that is the correct meaning of clause 12(3)(b) as currently drafted will, I suggest, be removed if one looks back at clause 10(2) where the word 'appropriate' is also used".
I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord's construction of the clause. Clause 12(3)(b) states,
"considers an order in those terms appropriate".
It is dealing only with the terms and not with the appropriateness of making the order.
The noble and learned Lord referred to Clause 10(2) which provides,
"If a Minister of the Crown considers that, in order to remove the incompatibility, it is appropriate to amend the legislation using the power conferred by this subsection, he may by order make such amendments to it as he considers appropriate".
I stress that the word "appropriate" is used twice.
I should have thought it reasonable to expect that if the intention was that the subsequent words should apply to both uses of the word "appropriate", the provision would have made that clear.
The noble and learned Lord addressed this point at Report. However, he does not seem to have taken the same view as he now does. At col. 407 of the Official Report of 29th January he said:
"The other change that we propose is in the government Amendment No. 56. It would require a remedial order, or draft, to be accompanied by an explanatory statement. This would contain particulars of the court case in which the declaration of incompatibility had been made, and would seek to explain what the incompatibility was. It is designed, therefore, to facilitate the consideration of remedial orders by Parliament".
If the noble and learned Lord believed at that time that the clause covered the need to make the order, he would have said so. In writing the noble and learned Lord said that he would reflect on the point further. Having heard what I have said, I hope that he will feel able to bring back the amendment in another place in a proper form.
I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is right in that this issue turns on the proper construction of Clause 12(3)(b) but in the light of Clause 10(2). Clause 10(2) provides that,
"If a Minister of the Crown considers that, in order to remove the incompatibility, it is appropriate to amend the legislation using the power conferred by this subsection, he may by order make such amendment to it as he considers appropriate".
So that is a double appropriateness test: the Minister must consider it appropriate to amend by way of remedial order, and then he may, by order, make amendments which he considers appropriate.
I should have thought that a court would construe Clause 12(3)(b), which provides that,
"A remedial order (or draft) laid before Parliament must be accompanied by a statement containing … (b) a statement of the reasons why the person making it (or proposing to make it) considers an order in those terms appropriate", to mean that the statement must give reasons both as to why the order itself is considered appropriate and why its terms are considered appropriate.
I do, however, take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that we should reflect—if I may put it in my own language—as to whether it should be made more express that a double appropriateness test applies in Clause 12(3)(b), as certainly it does in Clause 10(2). I will certainly undertake to reflect upon the matter. On that basis I invite the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, while I am considering whether to withdraw my amendment, I wish to say that
820
I shall not be able to be present for the final speeches after Third Reading. I should like to have made quite a few observations about the consultation processes that went on before the Bill was introduced and about the way in which the expressions "public authority" and "functions of a public nature" have been left so much in the air during the course of our debates. In the circumstances, I shall not do so.
I have now had a chance to consider the noble and learned Lord's remarks. I am very pleased to find his words in his letter to me as to his view of the meaning of the phrases in question on the record now. I am sure that that will be very satisfactory. I am happy to learn that he will reflect further on this whole question. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—("Human Rights Commissioner
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER

(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint a Commissioner, to be known as the Human Rights Commissioner, to perform any or all of the following functions

(a) to provide advice or other assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to persons?—

(i) bringing, or proposing to bring, proceedings under section 7; or

(ii) relying or proposing to rely upon a Convention right in any proceedings,

provided that the Human Rights Commissioner considers that such proceedings raise a question of principle of general public importance;

(b) to bring proceedings under section 7 or intervene in proceedings?—

(i) brought under section 7; or

(ii) where a Convention right is relied upon.

provided that the Human Rights Commissioner considers the bringing of such proceedings, or such intervention, to be in the furtherance of the main purposes of this Act;

(c) to undertake research and educational activities connected with the main purposes of this Act: or

(d) to review and report to the Secretary of State on the appropriate machinery to give effect within the United Kingdom to the Convention rights set out in Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination).

(2) No order may be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, last, but I hope not least, I wish to deal with an amendment of great practical importance. It is the only issue upon which those on these Benches differ from the Government in relation to this Bill other than on the question of legal standing. The issue is of great importance to us. If this amendment can be accepted during the Bill's passage, it will make a great difference to the practical effectiveness and impact of the legislation.
The amendment is modest enough. It does not require the Secretary of State to do anything at all. All that it does is give him the power—not the duty—to appoint a

821
human rights commissioner. We have deliberately referred to a "commissioner" rather than a "commission" to make the proposal more modest than it might otherwise have been.
The amendment would empower the Secretary of State to trigger all or any of four functions. The first is to provide advice and assistance to people considering bringing cases under the Bill. That is similar to the power given to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission at present. And it can be exercised only in real public interest cases. The second power is the ability to bring proceedings or intervene in proceedings under the Bill. The third, with which my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, will deal, is to undertake research and educational activities to promote the purposes of the Bill. Last, and not least, there is a power to authorise the human rights commissioner to review and report to the Secretary of State on the appropriate machinery to give effect within the United Kingdom to Article 14 of the convention, the prohibition on discrimination.
May I say at once how sorry I am that neither the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, were able to stay for the debate. In an earlier form this amendment originally stood in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. Both noble Baronesses have quite exceptional experience in this area. I was involved in the appointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, when I worked for the Home Secretary in 1974-75. She was the first chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, served as its chief executive in later years. Both have a lifelong commitment to making equality work in practice. I am very sorry that they could not be present at this hour on this occasion.
I have said most of what I would like to say in previous debates, so I can be brief. The first point relates to access to justice. One of the commissioner's most important roles would be to provide assistance and advice to those who are thinking of bringing proceedings. That operates as an extremely important filter. It helps the courts to know that cases that are brought before them are well focused, that they have been through the rigorous screening process, as happens for example with the Legal Committee of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
It is not easy, given the very limited budget that the Treasury imposes, for any case to be brought unless it has been very properly sifted and tested. It is vital to have that kind of specialised, well focused, well targeted legal advice and assistance if this Bill is to mean anything in practice to people of that kind—those who are not the fat cats, the rich, but who have genuine, real cases and need well targeted legal aid advice and assistance. I know that the Lord Chancellor has important proposals in mind for dealing with public interest cases. My own view is that it needs to be well targeted and sifted by a specialist body in the case of this Bill.
It is very important that we have effective access to justice, because everyone will have to exhaust his or her domestic remedies under the Bill before going to
822
Strasbourg. If that means having to go all the way from an industrial tribunal or county court to the House of Lords before the case can go to Strasbourg, it is important that we do not make people worse off by forcing them to do that and not providing them with adequate support. That is what happens under the EOCs, the CREs and the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland.
In his very important address to the Solicitors' Annual Conference in Cardiff the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor observed that the civil justice system should be accessible to everyone, not just the very rich and the very poor. I know that he means that, and I enthusiastically agree. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his Access to Justice report made similar points about the need for effective access to justice. That is the first major function of the amendment.
I shall not deal with education or research, but I wish to say something about reforming the existing anti-discrimination machinery. If, in West Cork, you ask, "How do I get to Skibbereen'?", a local person is likely to say, "Well, I wouldn't start from here". If I were trying to create effective machinery in the human rights and anti-discrimination area, I would not start from here. That is to say, we now have a proliferation of quangos—two EOCs, two CREs, one FEC and a disability council which has no powers at all.
I spent a couple of years of my life, I am very proud to say, trying to help to devise within the Home Office effective machinery for enforcing the anti-discrimination legislation. But the promise of the White Papers that I helped to write—on equality for women and racial discrimination—has never been fulfilled in practice. Particularly in recent years, and particularly in relation to the big Equal Opportunities Commission, the will to have strategic law enforcement has died and we have moved away from what was always intended; namely, well focused, not over-funded, well targeted law enforcement. The result is that people like Professor Bob Hepple, I, and others working in the field have come to realise that the existing anti-discrimination legislation urgently needs to be reformed in a way that will make it more cost effective with a single enforcement agency able to draw upon the expertise of different divisions specialising in gender and racial equality and other areas of inequality.
There was a commitment in the Labour Party manifesto to reform anti-discrimination legislation. It is important that the Government should be assisted in that reform by machinery to give wise advice as to how best it can be done. I regard that as a function of the human rights commissioner, acting as an honest broker and adviser on how best to reform the mess of anti-discrimination legislation which has now become a patchwork of bits and pieces with different enforcement mechanisms. For example, there is much weaker enforcement under the fair employment legislation in Britain than in Northern Ireland. Some time soon the Home Office and the Department for Employment and Education will have to apply their collective minds to what needs to be done to reform anti-discrimination law. The fact that the matter straddles two departments

823
makes the task more difficult. I believe that the human rights commissioner would, in a modest way, fulfil the important functions of effective access to justice and helping to remake the existing anti-discrimination enforcement machinery.
I am sorry to say that although in opposition we were able to reach complete agreement with the Labour Party on the main elements of the constitutional reform package, including the creation of a human rights commission or commissioner, this is the only element in the package which has not been implemented following the election. The door has not been entirely shut; the White Paper leaves it ajar to some extent. Whatever happens this evening in this House I very much hope that the door will be opened during the passage of the Bill in a way that will enable these objectives to be achieved. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in its report of December 1997 the IPPR made it plain that in its view the creation of a culture of human rights in this country depended on two pillars: prevention and enforcement. I believe it is worth quoting a paragraph from that report:
"For those who feel that the principal benefit of incorporation should not be what happens in the courts but the impact it could have on public attitudes, engendering a culture of mutual rights and responsibilities, this is a major weakness in the current institutional arrangements for the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom. A Human Rights Commission is needed to fulfil these roles".
In these debates, in some of which I have been privileged to take part, there has been much emphasis on enforcement. We have heard an impressive array of speeches from members of the legal profession. I am even more admiring of that profession than I was when the proceedings began. But I also have a sense of slight despair. The danger of a debate almost wholly dominated by brilliant members of the legal profession is that almost every aspect except the legal one is neglected. For that reason I wish to say a few words about those neglected aspects in the hope of strengthening the hand of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should he decide that it would be wise and proper to press for a human rights commissioner.
As my noble friend Lord Lester said, this amendment is framed in a minimalist way. We have moved away from the suggestion of a human rights commission, with which we began. We have fallen back, not because we wanted to, but to try to commend the issue without involving ourselves too deeply in questions of public expenditure, on this proposal which I and my colleagues believe to be essential but which is deliberately framed in a modest way.
Let me say something about the needs and the responses to those needs. The first need is to make our fellow citizens aware of the culture of human rights and human obligations. It is an issue which the colleagues of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—the
824
Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others—have addressed on many occasions, and we commend them for that.
The issue of education does not only concern the education of schoolchildren; it concerns above all the preventive factor the IPPR pointed to, which is so far missing from our deliberations and conclusions. Let me give examples. If government departments, particularly sensitive departments such as the Home Office, are to take seriously the culture of human rights and their related responsibilities, it is crucial that officials in those departments understand the impact and nature of the Bill and the case law which flows from decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
Secondly, it is crucial that those who are supposed to teach our children about human rights and responsibilities and positive attitudes towards them should have access to training in that area. Some of us who are not lawyers have found it hard enough to follow the meanderings of this debate. I invite the House to consider how much more difficult it is for someone who has not had the privilege of listening for many hours to deliberations on these issues.
Thirdly, if we are serious about our responsibilities to our fellow citizens, it is absolutely crucial that those bodies that stand at the interface between Government and the citizen, in particular the citizens advice bureaux and local government, understand the implications and impact of the Bill. I fear that there is probably not one in a hundred who has the faintest idea about what we are deliberating—not for lack of intelligence, but for lack of any access to information about it on a broad scale. I am profoundly disturbed by that because I wish the Government well on the Bill. I hope that they can bring about a change in public attitudes. But for the life of me, I do not know how they will do that without some system of reaching out to those fellow citizens and explaining to them what their rights and the rights of others are.
I do not wish to detain the House—it has been a long day of debate—but I should like to outline briefly the supply of advice and assistance along those lines at the present time. I speak as someone who once tried to introduce what was then called "political studies" into schools, only to find that it aroused the most extreme suspicions in this country. It is strange that we are a democracy but are terrified of politics. I have never understood why.
The current response of the Government falls under one heading—the new Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship. I shall read out briefly the crucial terms of reference:
"The Group will give advice on how schools can teach their pupils about the nature and practices of participation in democracy and the duties, responsibilities and rights which individuals have as citizens".
Every other word in the terms of reference, every reference by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and every reference in the press release concerns only education in schools. I telephoned a member of the advisory council who confirmed that the target of the advisory committee was children up to the age of 19 and also that it has no resources. I am all

825
for children receiving education in citizenship and all for a module in the national curriculum to that effect, towards which it is working. But I am deeply troubled about the lack of any provision of any kind for those who are over the school leaving age.
There is one other provision in this country—the so-called network of human rights units—which consists largely of university and NGO bodies, including some distinguished elements such as the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex and the Human Rights Unit at the University of Birmingham. It is an entirely voluntary network which gained a little support from the National Lottery.
It is of the most crucial importance that we prevent what otherwise might be a series of cases reaching the courts, none of which needs do so, simply because we failed to inform those responsible for administration at central government, local government and citizen level about the impact of the Bill. It is because I believe in the Bill that I feel such profound concern in relation to the failure to make provision for telling our fellow citizens about it.
I plead once again and finally with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to make the strongest possible case—I am sure that he will make a very persuasive case—to his colleagues that a small amount of public money to set up a human rights commissioner is vital to the achievement of the aims he so eloquently set out over recent days and weeks.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is absolutely right. In this country we ought not to be too proud to learn from the experience of the rest of the world.
As your Lordships know, I sit on the United Nations committee that oversees the implementation of the international covenant on civil and political rights, many of whose provisions are exactly the same as those we are discussing today. In country after country throughout the world a national commission either has been or is proposed to be set up to do exactly what the amendment foreshadows. Some of them do that better than others, but they carry out the functions mentioned by the noble Baroness.
The need for such a commission in some countries is extreme. Perhaps the most striking example—in a country which had better be nameless but is part of the former Soviet bloc—is a case we examined quite recently. That country had signed and ratified the optional protocol giving individual access by way of communication to the committee. The leading human rights non-governmental organisation was not aware that the government had ratified the optional protocol or that it could advise any of the citizens of that country that there was a right of individual access.
I know that that sounds quite extraordinary, but it is not as unusual as all that to find that there are people who do not understand that human rights of the kind we are talking about in the Bill are actually intended for them to implement and, as the noble Baroness said, for those who are in charge of the administration of all kinds of our affairs to implement on behalf of the
826
recipients of those services. There is a widespread ignorance, and I do not think this country is immune to that disease.
It is also worth noting that there is the excellent standing commission in Northern Ireland which for years now has been carrying out the most valuable service in this respect. It has advised government in report after report on wholly practical and sensible things, many of which are taken up. One would have thought that if one did not need a body of that kind government would have done it all by themselves. But they have not. They do it on the initiative of the standing commission, and the standing commission goes into the whole question of the dissemination of the rights and the dissemination of the discussion of these matters in a way that no one else does.
I therefore think that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and his colleagues are correct in continuing to press the Government for something as modest as what they are talking about this evening, because it will do things that I am perfectly certain will bring home the benefits to those who are entitled to have them under the Bill in a way which no one else will ever do.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate because it is getting late and we have other business on the Order Paper. I just want to add a word or two to what I said at the Committee stage before Christmas when we discussed a similar amendment. On that occasion I expressed my concerns about taking such a line. I should like to repeat that on this occasion. I do not know whether the Government want support from this side of the House. But all I can say is that, should the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wish to press the amendment to a Division, the Government will have the support of these Benches in that Division.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government's position on this matter has been well known for some time. In our White Paper, Bringing Rights Home, we set out that various matters needed to be considered before a final decision was taken as to whether to set up a commission or appoint a commissioner. We reached this decision after careful consultation throughout the summer and autumn months. We believe that we need to give more thought to the relationship between a possible commissioner or commission, the relationship between a new commissioner or commission and the existing rights bodies such as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. We want to ensure that if there is to be a new commission or commissioner the work would add to rather than detract from the valuable work that those bodies perform.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has tried to anticipate this concern in his proposed subsection (1)(d). We do not think that takes it any further. We think that the relationship between a human rights commissioner and other commissioners ought to be worked out before a commissioner is appointed, and not given as a function to perform after appointment.

827
Fundamentally, we wish the whole new culture of human rights to infuse the parliamentary process. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be disappointed, but we have given careful thought to the representations he has made regularly to us in the Home Office together with those from other bodies such as Charter 88 and Liberty which are very knowledgable about these matters. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said at Second Reading, if Parliament wishes to have a parliamentary committee on human rights—it is a decision for Parliament—the Government would wish it a fair wind. If that committee is to be established, we believe that it should review alternatives, think about structures and think about the possibilities for the way ahead. I take entirely the point made by the noble Baroness but my noble and learned friend indicated the areas which might be of interest to a parliamentary human rights committee—such as the taking of evidence not limited to London, such as educative functions, such as seminars for local government and other organisations. I can say that in the Home Office at least the questions of human rights—how one ought to approach legislation in the future and how one ought to approach the conduct of the department in the future—are under pressing daily consideration.
I think that in a sense we are agreed on the objectives but we disagree on the present steps to attain those generally accepted objectives. Therefore, we believe that the proper course is to see whether or not Parliament wishes to set up a parliamentary committee. I repeat that we would give it every blessing, fair wind and support.
When the Bill becomes an Act and the commencement date has been decided, there then should be a period of time for assessing exactly what ought to be done. First, should we have a commission; secondly, should it be a commissioner, which is very important indeed; what ought the remit of work to be and, just as important, what should be the relationship between any new body and existing bodies? Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not regard as churlish my declining to accede to his invitation. We have thought about it, but come to a different conclusion. I believe that what is between us is the immediate approach rather than the ultimate objective.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken and to those who have not spoken, but who have remained behind to listen to the debate. I greatly welcome the notion of a parliamentary Select Committee and hope that it happens soon. But it will not do anything for the access to justice problem that I spoke about. If we are to wait until the Bill becomes law, which will be some time before 10th December 1998—Human Rights Day—and only then to start the reform process for discrimination law, I can assure the Minister that we shall not see the reforms that are urgently needed in that law in the lifetime of this Parliament. Unless the Government start soon, that will not happen. I know full well the difficulties of dealing with
828
existing institutions and trying to re-make them. I know of the vested interests and the problems that arise. Although I welcome the spirit of what the Minister has said and understand what is written between the lines as well as in the lines, the situation is more urgent than he was conveying.
I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and his party oppose this amendment and that he would therefore vote against it. The reason why I am not surprised is that, throughout the long history of anti-discrimination law, going back to the period when a Mr. Ivor Richard, the MP for Barons Court, was one of the first supporters of the earliest anti-discrimination legislation of the 1960s, the Conservative Party, with one exception, has never been an enthusiastic supporter of anti-discrimination legislation. It opposed all the race relations Acts through the 1960s and 1970s. It opposed the enforcement mechanisms of the sex discrimination legislation. The only exception that was made, under American pressure, was as regards tackling religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party has never been an enthusiast for effective enforcement by an administrative agency of any of the anti-discrimination legislation. The best example is the wretched, pathetic, disabled Disability Council, which was born with no teeth or muscles of any kind.
So I am not surprised that there should be that opposition. Nor am I surprised that the Government are troubled about setting up new machinery to add to the existing proliferation of quangos. But one has to make a beginning at some time. If we had heard from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, something more concrete as to what is to be done about access to justice in order to support people bringing cases under the Bill, then I should have hesitated to test the opinion of the House. But we have been promised nothing specific or concrete as to what is to be done to help people to translate into practical reality the theoretical rights contained in the Bill and the convention. This is a matter on which my party feels strongly. It is the only provision of great importance which we agreed upon in opposition which has not been fulfilled in this Bill. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
9.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 77.

Division No. 5

Contents

Ackner. L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Addington, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Linklater of Butterstone. B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ludford, B.

Dholakia, L.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

McNally, L.

Goodhart, L.

Meston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Newby. L.

829

Nicholson of Winterboume, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Ogmore, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Russell, E.

Wigoder, L

Sandberg, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bassani of Brighton, L.

Levy, L.

Berkeley, L.

Luke, L.

Biddulph, L.

Lyell, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Borne, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bumham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Chandos, V.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Henley, L.

Thatcher, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hoyle, L.

Wakeham, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Whitty, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [LordChancellor.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Young, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

9.32 p.m.
Clause 21 [Interpretation, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, as this Bill comes to the end of its journey through this House and before we send it to another place, as is customary I should like to say a few words of thanks to noble and learned Lords on the Government Benches who have dealt with this Bill. In particular, I express thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has put up with
830
a great deal during the seven days when this Bill has been considered in this House. Today was probably the first day when no reference was made either to Cardinal Wolsey or the papal triple crown. Therefore, it is right that I should mention it at this stage for fear that the noble and learned Lord believes that such matters have been forgotten.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his very helpful letters both to me and my noble friend Lord Kingsland. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who has had the difficult task of dealing with some of the rather technical Scottish issues.
I repeat that we have a number of concerns and I mention just three of them. Earlier this afternoon the House passed an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young relating to the Church of England and various religious bodies. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider very carefully how to proceed before asking another place to overturn that amendment, but obviously that is a matter for another place to consider. We very much regret that the Government did not move more than they did—I appreciate that they moved a certain amount—on the fast-track procedure. I regret that, especially in the light of the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee whose advice we always followed while we were in government from the moment it was set up. It would have been helpful had the Government done the same.
My third point relates to an amendment which we considered tabling at this stage. We then decided that it would not be appropriate to raise a new matter on Third Reading. It is one which my honourable and right honourable friends will consider raising in another place. It is that the Bill should, in effect, provide for a government right of appeal to Strasbourg. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made clear today that under Strasbourg law only a citizen, and not a government or public body, can take a case to Strasbourg. We should consider seriously whether amendments can be produced whereby, if the Government are dissatisfied with a ruling of the House of Lords, they can, by ministerial certificate, provide that they shall be under no obligation to amend the law unless and until the issue has been the subject of a Strasbourg ruling.
I again thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues for the way in which they have handled the Bill and wish it well in another place.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission and therefore it is right that I should declare an interest. Having had a long day sitting here without saying a word, I feel that I now have to say something about the position of the press. Let me say at the outset that I welcome the fact that the Government have this morning made it clear that the issues I have raised surrounding this Bill, which include questions of prior constraint and financial compensation, remain under active consideration. Discussions continue, and no decisions have been reached.

831
These are matters of fundamental importance in a free society. For that reason, I wrote today to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, setting out in detail my concerns, especially on the subject of prior restraints. I have also published the letter in view of the public interest involved.
I have always made it clear that I support incorporation, but I have made no bones of the serious concerns I have about the way in which it is being done. Those concerns may be misplaced. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done his level best to reassure me. On the other hand, I may be right—and, if I am, the Bill will have enormous repercussions for the system of self-regulation that we have built up.
I do not say that as a threat, still less some form of blackmail. I say it because of what I see as the logical consequences of the Bill which grafts a statutory superstructure on to our system of self-regulation. As a result the system will no longer be a self-regulatory one. It will for the first time have a basis in statute.
The PCC was set up in 1991, principally to assist ordinary people in resolving their disputes with newspapers. It centres on a code which covers a number of areas in which the public are right to expect high ethical standards of journalism. It was also set up as a system which was designed to be independent: independent of the press; independent of government; and independent of the direction of the courts. It is that independence that both safeguards the interests of the public and upholds the freedom of the press.
Self-regulation is not perfect—and it probably never will be—but it has achieved far more than any of those who set it up in the first place probably ever expected. It has provided a swift dispute resolution procedure which works only because of the voluntary commitment of editors and the amicable way in which the commission's work is conducted. And its code—the first ever set of rules for all journalists—has also gradually raised standards among all newspapers. They are standards of accuracy and speed of correction; respect for individual privacy; safeguards for the vulnerable, such as children or those in hospital; and protection from harassment. At the heart of my concerns is the fear that the way in which the Government are incorporating the convention will change the nature of the system—and not for the better.
This Bill will almost certainly make the PCC a public authority and part of a statutory system. That is bound to have implications, and it will do so because it will put the courts in the driving seat. It is they who will be able to compel the PCC to change its structure and its powers if they deem that it is not acting compatibly with the convention. That possibility is quite simply inconsistent with the principle of self-regulation.
My main worry is what a statutory basis will do to the processes by which self-regulation operates. Those processes, which are voluntary and based on common sense, are in many ways the antithesis of statute and legal supervision.
832
If the PCC's adjudications on matters of privacy were subject to subsequent action by the courts, my task of seeking to resolve differences, get a public apology where appropriate or if necessary deliver a reprimand to an erring editor would no longer be a practical proposition. This is because voluntary co-operation by editors would open them up to subsequent action in the courts. Material freely volunteered would become part of a legal action. From day one, therefore, the newspapers' approach to any complaint of invasion of privacy would be highly cautious and legalistic—if, indeed they chose to co-operate at all.
There are other problems arising from the legal supervision of the PCC by the courts. First, the PCC has no powers of prior restraint—rightly, in my view. Such powers of prior restraint, exercised by the PCC or by the courts, would have serious implications for the role of a free press in a free society. However, the courts could force it upon us.
There is another problem. It has been suggested that the courts will seek to satisfy themselves that the PCC has "effective remedies" at its disposal, including the power to award compensation. But, again rightly in my view, the PCC has no such power and seeks none. If therefore the courts say, "Yes, the PCC should award fines", we will have to change, but that change will make a mockery of the principle of self-regulation. It is no longer the newspaper industry regulating itself; it is being given direction by the courts.
In those circumstances, the process by which we resolve 90 per cent. of the thousands of complaints we receive will be put into jeopardy. Newspapers and complainants will know that we are the first round in an expensive legal battle that could end up in the High Court with damages and costs. Newspapers will find it impossible to co-operate with us in a friendly fashion and will deal with all complaints through lawyers.
That is not the way it is meant to be. The newspaper industry set up the PCC as an independent body to resolve disputes and gave it a powerful sanction: to demand an editor print a critical adjudication in his newspaper. It set it up to provide what the Master of the Rolls described recently as a robust, common sense system of dealing with complaints. It was never intended to be a legal system.
But if the courts are able to interfere in the way that I have just described, and they will be under a duty to do so, newspapers will have an entirely different system on their hands. The PCC will not be able to resolve disputes because it will no longer work on an amicable and friendly basis. Indeed, how could it when many, particularly the rich and those set on gold-digging, would use it as a first stop on the route to court?
My concern in those circumstances is this: why should the newspaper industry continue to support the PCC? It will be part of a legal system only because the PCC exists. And in turn, the PCC will be unable to carry out the function that it was originally intended to do: to administer a code and to resolve disputes in a non-legalistic way. Therefore, we shall be of no use to ordinary people, for whom we were set up, and no use

833
to the newspaper industry which would simply be opened up to new types of legal action because of our existence.
I hope that a way will be found to continue the system, despite the changes. But it may be simply too difficult to unscramble self-regulation from law. In my view, the two do not mix. In those circumstances, the choice is not as simple as the one put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the Bill will make a good system even better. The choice is not necessarily between the PCC and a better PCC. It may be a choice between the PCC and no PCC, or at least a seriously diminished one. That would put at risk all aspects of our work, by far the bulk of it, which does not relate to privacy.
My proposal at an earlier stage of the Bill was to exclude the PCC and its activities from the supervision of the courts so that ordinary citizens could continue to complain to us without the necessity and cost of legal representation, which will be the inevitable consequence of newspapers using lawyers as part of a legal system. Nothing in the scheme of things that I propose would stop the rich, the powerful, the corrupt and those with something to hide going over our heads directly to the courts if the courts, encouraged by the Bill, develop the common law in the way that has been suggested. So be it. But at least the vast majority of ordinary citizens will still be able to use our services to resolve complaints without the cost of using the law.
As your Lordships may recall, I had also put forward proposals to deal with the problems which will arise if the rich and powerful are able to take out interlocutory injunctions against newspapers on the grounds of intrusion into privacy. Those problems are acute and the Government have still not indicated to me how they intend to deal with those points, although I suspect that Ministers are indeed aware of the issue. I do not intend to go into great detail about those matters. My views are on the record and the issue continues to give me great anxiety.
I conclude by saying that it may be that I am wrong on some of this. Certainly the full effects of this Bill will not be swiftly felt, probably not until the final years of this Parliament, but I fear—and I repeat that this is not a threat but merely the logical consequence of this legislation—that the PCC will be undermined; the vast majority of ordinary people who do not have large financial resources to take on a newspaper but who do so now through the PCC will be left with nothing but the courts and the very real risks that go with them. I really do not want that to happen.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as we are once again sitting late on the Bill, I shall not deliver the speech that I had contemplated. However, I should like to refer very briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said. In the first place, since 1991 there have been a number of offences by the press which have deeply disturbed public opinion; indeed, one cannot just waive them aside.
Secondly, I can see no reason why the Bill should undermine self-regulation. At an earlier stage, my noble and learned friend expressedly disclaimed that. I
834
respectfully agree. In so far as there is an effective system of self regulation, there need be no recourse to remedies under the Bill. The remedies are entirely in the hands of the PCC.
Thirdly, the noble Lord referred to what is undoubtedly a danger; namely, gagging writs. Your Lordships had to consider that matter while considering the defamation Bill during the last Parliament. The suggestion was made that patent law could provide a model in that respect. At one time it was a great mischief that threats of action for infringement of patent and action writs for infringement of patent were being inordinately and grossly used by rich corporations sitting on their own patents to snuff out new patents. The law countered that by making it an offence to threaten to or to issue a writ for infringement without reasonable cause.
When that was suggested during the proceedings on the defamation Bill, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the then Lord Chancellor, said that he would take the matter away and have it considered in his department, since when the silence of the grave has descended. I beg my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to take that document out of its pigeonhole, dust it down and see whether it can usefully be used not only to prevent the gagging writs of defamation but also to meet the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.
The only other comment that I wish to make is that I would like the Cross-Benchers to be associated with the tribute that was paid by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Indeed, we must also associate his Front Bench with that tribute. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, have shown a quite unusual command of their Bill and all its background. One must remember, too, that this is only a small part of the multifarious burdens which are descending upon them at present. I desired to say that because I have been critical during the proceedings on the Bill of the inflexibility of Ministers.
Your Lordships will remember Burke's famous picture of the court of Marie Antoinette and the society that sustained it which ended,
"vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness".
So we can say that inflexibility has lost half its evil by losing any measure of discourtesy. The noble and learned Lords have left us deeply in their debt.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I can bet the Bank of England to a blood orange that what I say in a few minutes about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will not be reported in the newspapers to the same extent as what he has said. But before I come to that, I shall deal with some more graceful matters.
First, I echo the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I also pay tribute to their civil servants and parliamentary counsel who have given such magnificent support to the Government and to this House. The Bill

835
is brilliantly conceived and exquisitely well executed. I congratulate the Government and especially their unnamed advisers on having produced a measure of this quality.
It is also appropriate to express the privilege I feel in having taken part in debates on the most important constitutional measure that has been introduced into Parliament in my lifetime. It will not be the last of this Government but it is the first, and it will profoundly affect all three branches of government. It is a great pleasure from these Benches to have been able to give wholehearted support to this new reforming Government and to a Lord Chancellor who is committed to important measures of democratic renewal and constitutional reform under the rule of law. His party and my party are committed to that. We have embarked on developing a modern constitution for a modern citizenship in which everyone is able to enjoy their basic human rights; in which there is greater accountability of Ministers and officials to Parliament and to the courts; in which there is subsidiarity, devolution to the nations and the regions; freedom of information and a voting system which more fairly reflects the wishes of the electors in a plural democracy. We are, in truth, privileged to be fashioning, after the ice age of no change in these areas, a true modern constitutional resettlement.
We have made a few modest improvements to the Bill during its passage thanks to the flexibility Ministers have shown. I believe that the Bill has been marred in certain respects. I hope that those defects may be removed in another place. I hope that when the Bill is considered in another place some of those vigorous, open-minded new Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs might join together in their independent minded strength to improve the Bill in some of the respects that we have urged on your Lordships.
I respectfully agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has said about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I have great respect and affection for the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. He was the Leader of this House when I came here and showed me particular kindness. He is modest enough to admit that he might be wrong. That applies, of course, to what I am about to say. However, I believe that he is part of an entirely misguided misrepresentation of the effect of this Bill on freedom of speech.
I am not entitled to say much about many things, but I am entitled to say this because I have spent my professional lifetime using the human rights convention in Strasbourg on behalf of newspapers and citizens to reach places with the convention that could not be reached by English statutes or judicial decisions. I did Spycatcher, the thalidomide case, the Harriet Harman case and a series of similar cases of that kind. Having represented newspapers in Strasbourg and in this country, it sticks in my throat when I read in newspapers that they are entitled to have the benefit of Article 10 of the convention on free speech, but they must be somehow immunised against the effects of Article 8 on privacy. There is no other democracy in the world where
836
that is the case. It is not the case in the United States, the land of the First Amendment, where there is privacy protection and the protection of free speech. It is not the case in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India or the rest of Europe. I know of no country which has in its legal system what has been advocated by some sections of the press during a campaign against these aspects of the Bill.
To use a phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in a case which I once lost in front of him, Spycatcher, I am glad that the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues have so far proved themselves to be a rock and not jellyfish. It would be easy to cave in to this press campaign.
The reason that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the Press Complaints Commission and the press which support the commission are misguided is easy to summarise. First, the right to free speech is paramount, especially when newspapers act as watchdogs in reporting news rather than simply entertaining on matters of public interest. There is an entirely consistent body of case law in Strasbourg which states that. And English courts have now followed the Strasbourg jurisprudence—even before this Bill had been incorporated. The right to privacy is an exception to the right to free speech. The two have to be balanced by the principle of proportionality. I know of no case in Strasbourg which has ever threatened the freedom of the press. That is the first point. Bringing those rights home means bringing home a balanced legal system in which our courts will be in the same position as the Strasbourg courts.
Secondly, the Bill poses no challenge of any kind to the work of the Press Complaints Commission. If the Press Complaints Commission and its backers choose to stay as they are and not be given further powers, that is their entitlement. But if they choose that unwise course, it will simply mean that they will not be able to provide effective remedies through self-regulation in cases where they otherwise could. To the extent that they do not provide effective remedies, it will be left to the courts to do so using the common law as they always have done.
That is why I agree with the Lord Chancellor who has consistently argued that it is in the interest of freedom of the press to give the PCC, as a self-regulatory body, effective powers and effective remedies. That does not mean turning the PCC into a court of law; still less does it mean giving them the power to issue injunctions. But if it can compensate victims, make recommendations and show through its procedures that it can provide effective remedies, the courts will defer to the PCC.
The PCC is a public authority. I can illustrate that by asking noble Lords this question. What would be the position if the PCC were to hand down a decision which unnecessarily infringed on free speech? Let us suppose that it gave too much preference to privacy and too little to free speech. The PCC would be breaching the convention and there would be a need for an effective remedy against the PCC acting in an unduly censorious way; and quite rightly, too. The PCC exercises public powers in the same way as the Advertising Standards Authority or any of the other regulatory bodies.

837
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the PCC are better off being a public authority than a private club because no one can bring proceedings against the PCC except by way of judicial review. Leave needs to be sought, the remedies are discretionary, discoveries in cross-examination are rare and the PCC is given all the advantages of a public authority.
During the debates, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, referred several times to the poor and the rich. He complained that somehow this would be a rich person's charter—and what about the poor'? When I heard the noble Lord say that, I longed to ask—I have not yet done so—what does the PCC really want? Is it legal aid for the poor to be able to bring privacy claims against the press? I do not think that Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Conrad Black would be terribly pleased if one gave legal aid on a widespread basis to bring privacy claims any more than to bring defamation claims. The reality is that the Bill will aid the poor as well as the rich, provided that the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues are able to deliver the public interest legal aid that we have been promised.
I do not perceive any threat whatever to the freedom of the press or, more importantly, the freedom of the public. If I may say so, I am sorry that the noble Lord has chosen to make a prepared speech of that kind rather than moving an amendment today, as it was open to him to do, to test the opinion of the House. I do not believe that the opinion of the House would at all accord with the views that he expressed. I may have sounded rather rough in my remarks and apologise if that was the case; however, it is important that we are clear about these matters.
I wish to say one final thing, and I apologise for having taken so long. We are incorporating the convention at just the right time—I echo the fears expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, at an earlier stage as to the future of the European Court of Human Rights. Thirty judges have now been elected under the new procedure to the permanent court; there are another 10 to go. All I can say, with great respect to them, is that we may have lived through the best period of the European Court of Human Rights. It may never be able to match in my lifetime the strength that it had 10 or 15 years ago. Thank heavens, this Bill will empower British judges to give effective domestic remedies to our citizens. I warmly congratulate the Government on making that possible and express delight from these Benches.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, my abiding recollection of this Bill will be attending the supervisions so ably administered by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the great satisfaction of us all. I particularly enjoyed them since I did not have to produce an essay indicating how I followed every word the noble Lord said.
I should also like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his relaxed good humour in coping with a very difficult Bill. I am delighted to see him now relaxed at the lectern instead of being swamped by the impossible full-bottom wig which, as I recall from my time as an advocate, makes life very miserable if you have to make a speech. I am
838
indebted to the noble and learned Lord for his advocacy in persuading the Treasury to treat judges who go to the court in Strasbourg properly in relation to their pension. I am sorry that he did not accept my submissions in regard to Clause 8—but then he did not accept them in regard to many other clauses.
With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, if self-regulation is effective, then he has nothing to fear. At present, it is not effective because there is no sanction—and there is no reason why there should not be a sanction. In financial services, there is the sanction of the ombudsman, who can give judgments which turn out to be expensive, and there are regulators who can impose very sizeable fines. I do not see why self-regulation should not be made effective. I believe that the spectre of the courts intervening may hasten that very desirable process. I, too, wish the Bill well.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when I arrived in this House I was told that a Lord was a new boy for his first 10 years. I have about six weeks to go. I think I may say, therefore, without fear of contradiction by events, that this is the best Bill that I have seen before this House in the time that I have been a new boy. It has also been debated in the highest traditions of this place. For that, I owe thanks to my noble kinsman, Lord Henley, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. For the quality of the Bill, for the conceptual beauty of the drafting, I owe thanks to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who reminds me of my father's remark on J.M. Keynes: "I felt I took my life in my hands every time I argued with him".
Above all, I must pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is in many ways—I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me—the "onlie begetter" of this Bill. I pay tribute to him, first, for his work as an advocate. One cannot put such a Bill through without people coming to realise that it may be of benefit to many ordinary citizens. Secondly, there is the immense patience and care that he put into the Private Member's Bill which he piloted through this House. I sat behind him as he did that and watched him face down outright opposition and conduct a careful process of negotiation with the legal Cross-Benches about the detail of the drafting. To his success then we owe a great deal of our success now. Finally, there is the patience and courtesy with which he has helped the noble and learned Lord pilot the Bill through the House. Seldom can a private Peer have achieved so much in the legislative field. I have heard the view expressed by lawyers who know far more about this than I ever will that, because of his efforts, the Bill will reach the statute book some 35 years earlier than it would otherwise have done. For that I owe thanks both to him and to the Ministers who have taken charge of it and so ably piloted it through.
This is not the time to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I will simply quote one maxim from Chief Justice Coke:
"It is not right that anyone should be wiser than the law".

839
That was originally aimed at Dukes and Earls, but it applies equally to big business, trade unions, the press and any other interest one may name.
I have one more thing to say. Occasionally it has been suggested that this Bill is in some sense an alternative to the authority of Parliament as a check on the Executive. It is not; it is a complement. Courts and Parliaments check executives in two different ways on two different kinds of problem. Both are needed. Having two does not weaken the one. It gives us hope that we shall have both together.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is right that this Bill occupies a central position in our programme of constitutional reform. By bringing rights home it will enable people in this country to enforce their convention rights against public authorities before our domestic courts. I believe that this will have a profound and beneficial effect on our system of law and government and will develop over the years a strong culture of human rights in our country.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, speaking in the debate on Second Reading, was good enough to acknowledge the importance of the Bill. He also suggested that adequate time should be set aside for considering it. Since then we have had six days in which to scrutinise the Bill in detail. That is only right. A Bill of this importance needs a thorough examination, and that is what it has had.
The Bill is based on a number of important principles. Legislation should be construed compatibly with the convention as far as possible. The sovereignty of Parliament should not be disturbed. Where the courts cannot reconcile legislation with convention rights, Parliament should be able to do so—and more quickly, if thought appropriate, than by enacting primary legislation. Public authorities should comply with convention rights or face the prospect of legal challenge. Remedies should be available for a breach of convention rights by a public authority. We have brought these principles together into what your Lordships have, I think, generally agreed is a carefully constructed Bill.
We have not been able to accept amendments that have gone to the heart of the Bill and I am conscious that some noble Lords thought us inflexible—one being the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, I am grateful for the rich contribution that he made to our debates on the Bill and for the observations which he made a few minutes ago. I pay tribute also to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who has been unstinting in his principled and generous support for the Bill, even setting aside his general concerns about the use of Henry VIII clauses to embrace the remedial order provisions. From his distinguished heredity he has provided a much needed sense of historical perspective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, remarked at the last stage of the Bill on the frequency with which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, managed to catch my eye—and rightly so, because he has for many years championed the cause of human rights. He has spoken with the highest authority on many of the issues raised
840
by your Lordships, drawing where necessary on his personal experience—greater probably than that of any other lawyer—of appearing both for and against the Government in cases before the European Court of Human Rights. We are fortunate to have his knowledge and experience at our disposal. The Government introduced the Bill, but most of the credit for keeping the cause of a human rights Bill alive over many long years goes to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
I make just one observation. Late one evening the noble Lord was perhaps concerned that we appeared to be retreating from the position that the Bill fully brings rights home. I commented only briefly—it was at the end of a long day—and I say a little more now. The Bill provides for all legislation, past and future, to be interpreted as far as possible in a way which is compatible with the convention rights. The convention rights are the magnetic north and the needle of judicial interpretation will swing towards them.
The noble Lord knows, and I am sure accepts, that the courts are not to set aside primary legislation under the Bill, but the principle of statutory construction is a strong alternative. It will be unlawful for public authorities to act in a way which is incompatible with the convention rights and that also is a strong and far-reaching provision. Taken together, those measures provide for the convention rights to have a great effect in our domestic law. I go further; in 99 per cent. of the cases that will arise, there will be no need for judicial declarations of incompatibility.
What the Bill does not do is make the convention rights themselves directly a part of our domestic law in the same way as, for example, the civil wrongs of negligence, trespass or libel are part of our domestic law. Claims in those areas are all actionable in tort in cases between private individuals. But, as the noble Lord knows, we have not provided for the convention rights to be directly justiciable in actions between private individuals. We have sought to protect the human rights of individuals against the abuse of power by the state, broadly defined, rather than to protect them against each other. That is the only practical difference between the full incorporation of the convention rights into our domestic law and the actual effect of the Bill. I hope that we can put to one side what is really a theological dispute in relation to the meaning of the word "incorporation" and concentrate on what the Bill was designed to achieve, which is a real enhancement of the human rights of people in this country.
Another issue of concern to some noble Lords was the possible impact of the Bill on the freedom of the press and, in particular, on the Press Complaints Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, made a number of points to which I should like to come, though I endorse the robust observations of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, commented on the idea of the Press Complaints Commission awarding compensation; not fining newspapers, I emphasise—"fine" is an abuse of language—but awarding compensation to individuals who have been wronged in terms of the PCC's own code but who at present have

841
no entitlement to compensation under that code. He was opposed to the PCC having a power to award compensation. In our view, if the PCC had a power to award compensation against a newspaper for unjustifiably invading someone's privacy—unjustifiably because the newspaper is serving no public interest in doing so—that individual is more likely to seek a resolution from the PCC than if no such power is available. So a power to award compensation would reduce the likelihood of an aggrieved person seeking redress from the courts. To the extent that a person might go to court because he is not satisfied with the remedy he has been given, or because he does not think the PCC is capable of giving a sufficient remedy, then the existence of a power on the part of the PCC to award compensation would, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Lester, gave, be highly relevant to the court's discretionary considerations.
That said, we have engaged in a dialogue, and we will continue to do so, about the likely effect of the Bill on the PCC or on newspapers generally. The issues have been debated in Committee and both the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn have had meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. Both I and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn have stressed our readiness to meet media organisations to deal with the Bill.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was concerned at what he saw as the increased likelihood of injunctions against the press. I have said before—and I repeat again—that if the domestic courts develop a law of privacy, we have little doubt that they will carefully balance the Article 10 interest in freedom of expression and the Article 8 interest in private and family life, not least at the pre-publication stage if any injunction was being sought. If the PCC develops and strengthens its code, in my view, the granting of injunctions would rarely, if ever, occur.
It may be worth reminding your Lordships—I certainly remind the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—of the remarks of the European Court of Human Rights in the Spycatcher case in 1991, and I agree with every word of this:
"the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication even for a short period"—
I emphasise "even for a short period"—
"may well deprive it of all its value and interests".
I have to say that this Government do give a very, very high value indeed to freedom of the press, in just the same way as our courts do and as the European Court of Human Rights does.
I have always made it absolutely clear that the Government want to see the Press Complaints Commission take greater powers for itself. The point is that the weaker the self-regulation, the more exposed the press is to judicial action by judges in their own independent sphere. So the point about the PCC taking greater powers is that that would keep these cases out of the courts and within a strong and balanced system of self-regulation. where they ought to be.
842
As I have said many times before, I hope that the press itself will lay down proper standards and procedures to protect the public from illegitimate intrusions into their privacy. A press properly regulating itself is the best protection of freedom of expression. If you can trust the press to judge its own failings responsibly there should be no need for the intervention of the courts. I therefore welcome a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said. Of course, all these issues remain under active consideration by government. Final decisions have not yet been reached. I can say that the Government eagerly await what we hope will come from the noble Lord's proposals for the improvement of self-regulation of the press by the PCC.
We have naturally sought to preserve the central elements of the Bill, which in any event have been much praised. But we have listened to the points made in debate and have been able to take some of them up and to improve the Bill. For example, the circumstances in which the High Court of Justiciary can make declarations of incompatibility under Clause 4 has been widened. Clause 7 has been amended in relation to the jurisdiction of tribunals so that we can ensure that individuals will be able to rely on their convention rights against public authorities in any legal proceedings. Clause 9 has been amended in order to provide an enforceable right to compensation for a breach of Article 5 of the convention resulting from a judicial act.
Your Lordships' concerns about remedial orders have been reflected in a number of amendments providing additional restrictions and requirements in Clauses 10 to 12. The labours of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as judicial shop steward emeritus have borne fruit in amendments to the provisions for judicial pensions under Clause 18. In short, this Chamber has done its revising work well and a Bill which began as good has become even better.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Management of Crown Lands) Order 1998
10.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order which, I suspect, a few of us will be debating is made under Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Section 69 allows a Minister to authorise another person or persons to exercise the Minister's statutory responsibilities. The order would allow the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to enter into a contract with a new body to carry out his day-to-day responsibilities for the management of the historic royal palaces.
The Secretary of State, announced in another place on 15th January his intention to apply to Her Majesty the Queen for the granting of a charter to establish the

843
historic royal palaces trust with whom, subject to the agreement of Parliament, he would contract to carry out his responsibilities under the Crown Lands Act 1851.
The Crown Lands Act 1851 places statutory responsibility on the Secretary of State for the management of the historic royal palaces. These palaces are currently managed by the Historic Royal Palaces Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and comprise the Tower of London, Hampton Court Palace, Kensington Palace state apartments, with the court dress collection and orangery, the Banqueting House in Whitehall and Kew Palace, with Queen Charlotte's Cottage.
The Government value the historic royal palaces highly. They are woven into our history and are an important part of our heritage. Historic Royal Palaces was one of the first executive agencies. It has been a particular success in its conservation and presentation of the palaces to the public, while at the same time reducing its call on the taxpayer for financial support. Care for the buildings has gone hand-in-hand with care for visitors and both have benefited.
It is due to the expertise and commitment of the agency's management and staff that agency status has seen investment of around £60 million in the conservation and improvement of the historic palaces while increasing gross annual turnover from £15 million to £50 million. At the same time the need for support by the taxpayer has reduced from, in real terms, some £12 million in 1989 to £7.5 million this year and, subject to the changes we are proposing, about £4 million in 1998-99. Yet the status and dignity of these great buildings have in no way been compromised. Over 20 major improvements in the past eight years have transformed the quality of the visitor's experience: these range from the re-presentation of the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London to the immaculate restoration of the King's Privy Garden at Hampton Court Palace.
The Government want to build on that success and have considered carefully how that could be done without compromising the unique royal and historic status of the palaces and the Government's ultimate responsibility and accountability for them. The Government have concluded that establishment of the agency as a non-departmental public body, with charitable status, will be beneficial for several reasons.
The first is the establishment of a body of trustees which will guide and oversee the work of the trust. We have seen already the benefits under agency status of having senior managers with clear remits on which to focus. A body of expert trustees, with a wide range of experience, will be able to focus at a more strategic level on the specific needs and development of the historic palaces. We hope to announce shortly the names of the chairman and the other trustees. They will all be of a suitable calibre, with relevant experience and expertise in the management and conservation of historic buildings, finance, business, fine art and tourism. The appointment of the chairman will be made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Secretary of State. The appointment of three trustees by the Queen will bring to the board of trustees the Royal Household's
844
expertise in the care of the Royal Collection (much of which is housed in the historic royal palaces) and in the maintenance of the occupied royal palaces.
As a charity, the new body will have a greater degree of independence and should be more attractive to sponsors and grant-giving bodies. Sponsorship will be approached cautiously and handled sensitively to ensure that the quality and status of the palaces are not compromised. The trust will also be freed from some of the restrictions of the government accounting framework. However, the key requirements of regularity and propriety will continue to apply, including audit by, and access for, the National Audit Office; and the chief executive will continue to be liable to be called before the Public Accounts Committee. But the trust will be able to plan expenditure more flexibly across the annual boundary, which is a particular benefit in the planning of long-term capital and conservation programmes. It will be able to adopt accounting procedures more suitable to its needs and, finally, be able to reinvest any surpluses in the improvement of the palaces. A combination of these changes will, we believe, allow support from the Exchequer to be brought quickly to an end.
I can assure your Lordships that change in status will not lead in any way to over-commercialisation of the historic palaces. Their status, the care with which they are maintained and improved and the quality of the visitor experience are what make the historic royal palaces such popular attractions. To compromise that in any way would be entirely wrong and, indeed, would detract from what makes them so particularly attractive to visitors. But as I have explained, we see some financial benefits accruing.
The agency's success to date could not have been achieved without the expertise and commitment of its management and staff. They are crucial to its progress. Staff should transfer to the new body on their existing terms and conditions of employment. However, one change will be necessary. Because we expect the new trust rapidly to end its call on voted funds, it will not be possible for staff to remain members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. We are therefore establishing new pension arrangements, with the advice of the Government Actuary's Department, which will provide broadly comparable benefits. The Secretary of State will ensure that public funds are made available to the trust to establish the pension arrangements on a firm long-term basis. Discussions have begun with staff on the details of the change in status and especially on the new pension arrangements, and these discussions will continue.
The historic royal palaces are owned by the sovereign in trust for the nation. That will not change under these proposals: we are not talking of sale or privatisation. Statutory responsibility will remain with the Secretary of State, who will continue to be responsible and accountable to Parliament for the care and presentation of the palaces.
We are instead talking about a new structure for the day-to-day management of the historic palaces which the Government believe will allow the organisation to develop in the best interests both of the palaces and their visitors from home and overseas.
The allocation of funding of up to £4 million in 1998-99, the first year of the trust's existence, will allow it to start out on a firm footing by helping to meet the cost of some outstanding commitments such as fire protection work throughout the palaces. The order has been the subject of debate and approval in another place. If it is approved by your Lordships' House the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will then sign the order which will pave the way for him to enter into a contract for the care and maintenance of the historic royal palaces once the new body has been established by the granting by the Queen of a royal charter. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
10.36 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for comprehensively explaining the draft order. The measure is entirely in line with our policies when we were in government. The Historic Royal Palaces Agency was one of the first bodies of the Next Steps programme. Furthermore, the setting up of the royal palaces as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) is also in line with the then Conservative Government policy.
The National Heritage Act 1993 set up as an NDPB some of our greatest national institutions like the Victoria & Albert Museum and Kew Gardens. We are happy to see the Government loyally pursuing our policies. However, any matter concerning the royal palaces, which are currently managed by the agency, not the palaces that remain in use, directly or indirectly impinging on the royal household, should be approached with sensitivity. Understandably, the general public make little distinction between the management and ownership of these royal properties. Great buildings such as the Tower of London and Hampton Court Palace which are known to, and cherished by, the public must continue to be run to the highest standard.
We support in principle the changes outlined by the noble Lord. However, we have some questions. First, given the importance of these buildings it is essential that those who serve as trustees are of the highest possible quality, especially as the chairman will be chosen by the Queen on the advice of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister tell us how the post was advertised, and similarly for the other trustees? Will a financial element be involved? Will representatives of the business community sit on the board? Public relations experts on the board will no doubt enable it to build on the commercial improvements that have been made, attracting more visitors to the palaces.
Secondly, is it not crucial that students should be able to continue to gain wide knowledge of our British heritage? It is essential that they continue to have similar
846
or better access to these buildings and gardens. I hope that the noble Lord can give an assurance that as part of their remit the trustees will ensure that young people continue to have access to these buildings and that appropriate guidelines are drawn up.
Thirdly, we are pleased that there will be no material change in the pension arrangements for those employed by the new agency. But what sum will be involved? The Secretary of State said that money from public funds would start off the pension scheme and bring any benefit to the level of the Civil Service pension scheme.
Those who work in the royal palaces and households in whatever capacity have great pride in so doing, which we respect. We must ensure that the individuals whose pension arrangements will be affected are treated appropriately. They are right to seek and have a right to be given some reassurance about their pensions. If there are to be any material changes in the pension provisions of the current staff of the agency that should be stated publicly. What discussion has there been with staff representatives about the pension arrangements since the announcement a fortnight ago?
Finally, I touch on a few financial aspects. The proposed change is to make the establishment self-financing and relieve the Exchequer of responsibility for next year's sum of £4 million. Will the Minister give details of projected increases in revenue? Are they based on increased visitor numbers and increased entry charges? Will the Government give assurances that for 1998-99 they will guarantee a smooth financial transition?
The Minister said today:
"The trust will be able to plan expenditure more flexibly across the annual boundary which is a particular benefit in planning long term capital and conservation programmes."
That is not much good if government expenditure plans do not revert to the three-year cycle. Will the Minister give assurances that that practice is going to be resumed? I accept that the grant-in-aid of the royal palaces is only about 18 per cent. of their income—a much lower proportion than that of the national museums. It is very difficult, however, to plan ahead, when the institution ignores the entity of the grant-in-aid over the medium term, especially when working on large capital programmes such as the Tower of London at a total cost of £30 million.
Is the virtuosity of the Government in respect of the status of the royal palaces just a tacit admission that there will be no additional funding for the clients of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the medium term. Furthermore, the Government have allowed the Millennium Dome to absorb up to £400 million of lottery money and are diverting lottery money away from capital projects. Therefore they cannot tell the royal palaces to rely on the lottery.
As a consequence, the royal palaces must raise funds through sponsors and the private sector. Hence they have to be enabled to do so through this change of status. We have no quarrel with, and indeed had an excellent record in promoting, sponsorship and voluntary giving. We are, however, concerned about the type of fundraising activities that may appear opportune

847
to the trustees. We certainly do not want controversy over this order of the kind that arose concerning the royal yacht. It is important, given that there will be a shortfall under the proposed new arrangements, that no vulgar commercialisation should take place. That would be completely unacceptable. We do not want to see an Anne Boleyn scratch card competing with a Diana scratch card to fund the reflooding of the moat of the Tower. Will the Minister give assurances that, notwithstanding the independence of the trustees,
"the change in status will not lead to commercialisation of the historic palaces, nor take them downmarket"
and that that will apply to their fundraising approach? I should be most grateful for a response to those points.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her welcome for the order. As she rightly acknowledges, this is not a party political matter, and has been accepted by all sides. I shall try to answer the points that she made as rapidly as I can. First, the noble Baroness asked about the selection of trustees, and whether the posts were to be advertised. Bearing in mind that the trustees have to be in post by 1st April, it will not be possible to advertise; however, we have carried out wide consultation. We have set up a powerful panel with independent members to consider those who should be appointed as trustees. We have a strong short list which it has considered. Appointments will be made on the basis that I have indicated. When talking about the qualifications for which we are looking, I can do no better than quote the draft royal charter:
"Persons having knowledge or experience of the palaces and their heritage, the conservation of historic buildings, pictures and works of art, the management and presentation of historic buildings, the promotion of tourism and marketing, finance and business, and the management of industrial relations, or any other experience which may be useful to the trust in discharging its functions".
I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Baroness.
The second point she raised was about access for young people. It is an object of the trustees to educate and inform. I confirm that the current chief executive has made the commitment that the reduced rate for school parties will continue on the current basis. That is an indication of the importance of the noble Baroness's point.
Thirdly, she asked about changes in terms and conditions. There will be no such changes. As regards the cost of the pension arrangements, discussions with the government actuary are continuing. Within the past two weeks, management have met staff representatives from several unions. The discussions continue and it is our intention that the pension arrangements should be broadly comparable to those now available.
The noble Baroness asked me about a number of financial aspects. There is a detailed five-year business plan, but I shall not take up the time of the House by setting it out. However, the advantage of the new status will be the added flexibility in dealing with capital and greater opportunity for charitable donations and sponsorship. As I indicated, the ability to use surpluses
848
for future expenditure and capital expenditure makes the noble Baroness's question about the three-year cycle irrelevant.
As regards applications for lottery funds, we will not be asking the historic royal palaces to rely on them. However, they can apply and we shall encourage them to do so.
Finally, the noble Baroness was concerned about the fund-raising activities of the historic royal palaces under the new trust. I entirely agree that vulgar commercialisation should not take place, and that is firmly embedded in the plans for the new trust. I repeat that the change in status will not lead to commercialisation of the historic palaces nor take them downmarket. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Baroness. I commend the order to the House.

Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) (National Health Service Trusts) Order 1997
10.47 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to introduce the proposals which require National Health Service trusts to hold their board meetings in public. The order seeks to ensure that National Health Service trusts in England, Wales and Scotland are added to the schedule of bodies to which the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 applies. NHS trusts will then join local authorities, parish councils, education committees and health authorities on the schedule.
The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act sets out the provisions. The five main provisions are: any meeting of a body shall be open to the public; the public shall be given at least three days' notice of time and place of the meeting; agendas and papers shall be provided; newspapers shall be enabled to report the meeting and be given the agenda and papers; committee proceedings shall be treated as proceedings of the body in question and public access be given to them.
The Act includes important provisions for the discussion of confidential business. It enables bodies to exclude the public from a meeting or a part of a meeting:
"whenever publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted".
Such an exclusion needs to be made by a formal resolution of the board taken in public.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has already told chairmen of NHS trusts that he does not expect that provision to be abused. Public board meetings should enable those attending to see the real decision-making process and not a performance rehearsed earlier behind closed doors. Use of closed sessions should be limited to those areas of board business where real harm to individuals might result.

849
Those occasions will be infrequent and limited to discussions on patient or personnel matters where individuals might be identified or, occasionally, to legal or some operational matters where there are strong grounds which must be tested on each occasion.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health wrote to all trust chairmen last summer, advising them that they should begin to open up their board meetings. A substantial minority of trusts already hold their board meetings in public. Others welcome the proposed order. They share the belief that by embracing openness in that way, the public will be able to understand the opportunities and constraints confronting their local health services and contribute to their development. This order is a key part of the strategy to ensure that the NHS is more open and accountable locally to the people who use its services.
I can also inform your Lordships that that commitment to openness has been endorsed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in its fourth report and it has endorsed our intention to amend the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act to apply to NHS trusts as set out in the order before us. This order is necessary and long overdue and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Haskel.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order and for the clear way in which he has explained its purpose and effect. I say immediately that I have no difficulty with the principle of the order. Moreover, I have no difficulty with the principle of the 1960 Act which governs it. It would be quite surprising if I had, in view of the fact that that particular Act of Parliament was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by no less a person than my noble friend Lady Thatcher not long after she was first elected to Parliament. Unfortunately, my noble friend is not in her place tonight to give us her views on the appropriateness of this order, but for my part I believe that it is entirely right that the proceedings of NHS trusts should be open, as a general rule, to the public and reportable by the press. I say "as a general rule" because, as the Minister made clear, exceptions should be made if such publicity is likely to prove prejudicial to the public interest.
The Minster referred to guidance issued by the Secretary of State as to the circumstances in which a board may feel that proceedings should be conducted in private. Will the Minister clarify the status of that guidance? Am I right in thinking that in law it will be a matter for a particular trust board, entirely at its discretion, to determine whether a set of circumstances are or are not of a sufficiently confidential nature and, therefore, whether the public should be excluded from the proceedings? I have not had sight of the Secretary of State's guidance, but will the Minister confirm that the provisions of the 1960 Act have been or will be explained to those chairmen in full so that it is quite clear to them what they are legally empowered to do?
850
Discussions relating to individual patients or personnel are obvious instances when a closed session might be appropriate. But what of business which is confidential by virtue of its commercial sensitivity? What of matters which may give rise to a preliminary discussion in the board about something which, if wrongly reported, could cause unnecessary alarm and despondency among the general public?
Clause 1 of the 1960 Act gives to the public body considerable latitude on the types of matter which might be considered confidential and, as far as I can determine, virtual carte blanche to exclude the public by reason of such confidential business. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that interpretation because it seems to me that it is important that that provision is properly understood.
My second question relates to a matter of detail. I thought I heard the Minister say that, where a trust board meeting was open to the public, agendas and papers had to be provided to any members of the public attending. I have read the Act, which refers in Section 1(4)(b) to the right of a newspaper to be furnished with a copy of the agenda and supporting papers upon request and upon payment of postage. However, is there an equivalent requirement in relation to members of the public? Similarly, I also thought I heard the noble Lord say that three days' public notice must be given of the time and the place of a board meeting. Will he confirm that that requirement is without prejudice to the ability of a board, if it so chooses, to convene a meeting at shorter notice?
My next question relates to the territorial coverage of the order. I note that it covers England, Wales and Scotland, but do the Government have any plans to extend the scope of the measure to Northern Ireland? I realise that the 1960 Act could not be the vehicle for that, but perhaps there is another legislative route available.
As the Minister said, for a number of NHS trusts this order merely serves to rubber stamp current practice in that the public are already admitted to a good many trust board meetings. However, as I stressed earlier, it is important that trust boards should be allowed to exercise the full measure of discretion afforded to them under the 1960 Act. If they do not have such discretion, or rather if they are encouraged not to exercise it, the danger is that the real business of the trust board will be conducted outside the boardroom. That would not be in the interests of the trust nor, indeed, of the local population. Subject to those points, we on this side of the House support the measure as a useful further step in promoting transparency and accountability in the NHS.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for welcoming the order. He asked about the way in which the resolution is taken for the board to meet in closed session. The resolution has to be taken by the board in public; in other words, the board has to give its reasons in public as to why it is going to move into closed session. Therefore, there is some protection for the public in that way.

851
The noble Earl also asked about the three days' notice and whether there are rules for convening such a meeting at short notice. I shall have to write to him about that because I do not have such details with me this evening. He also raised the matter of agendas. Agendas and papers will be provided to those members of the public who ask for them, in the same way as they are supplied to newspapers.
On the question of the status of the guidance, I can say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to all the chairmen of NHS trusts to explain the provisions of the 1960 Act. However, I am not sure of the terms in which he has written, but we can perhaps send the noble Earl a copy of the letter that was sent to enable him to see the nature of those terms.
I thank the noble Earl for explaining the historical significance of this public bodies Act; indeed, it is something that I had not realised.
As regards Northern Ireland, I understand that there is a different system of health management in the Province. That is why it may not be appropriate for this order to be extended to cover Northern Ireland. However, I shall write to the noble Earl regarding the precise reasons why the order does not extend to Northern Ireland.
I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his comments. It is always useful and instructive to have the benefit of his experience. I commend the order to the House.

Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1998
11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to see how packed the House is at this hour of night for what is a most significant and controversial piece of legislation which I am about to submit to your Lordships and about which I propose to say only three things.
First, this is merely an extension to some long-standing arrangements which we have enjoyed on a mutual basis with members of NATO and with certain Commonwealth countries. We propose to extend these exemptions from certain British laws to troops of countries that are signing up to the Partnership for Peace who will be training here, just as they are extending these immunities to our troops who are training or are stationed in their countries.
The second part of the order to which I draw your Lordships' attention is the removal of a minor anomaly in paragraph 7 of the 1965 order which places certain civilians who are in support of military forces here on the same basis as members of those forces. Thirdly, this order is an interim order and will be followed—I hope in not too many months—by a comprehensive order. We need a comprehensive order because many of the pieces of legislation which are referred to in the 1965 order have themselves been amended and therefore we shall need to tidy up what is really rather a mess. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Gilbert.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister has threatened me with a fate worse than death if consideration of this order lasts more than five minutes. I should not care to risk that and therefore in front—as he has said—of the serried ranks of noble Lords I say on behalf of these Benches that we welcome this order.

Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  Argentina: Arms Embargo Exception
  Argentina: Arms Embargo Exception
  Intelligence and Security Services: Nationality Rules
  Intelligence and Security Services: Nationality Rules
  Government Departments in Central London: Parking Spaces
  Government Departments in Central London: Parking Spaces
  Cotswold Way National Trail
  Cotswold Way National Trail
  Byways: Vehicle Management
  Byways: Vehicle Management
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Beef and Sheep Producers: Support Package
  Beef and Sheep Producers: Support Package
  Welfare to Work Scheme Costs
  Welfare to Work Scheme Costs
  Hyundai Plant, Dunfermline
  Hyundai Plant, Dunfermline
  Scotland Bill: Notes on Clauses
  Scotland Bill: Notes on Clauses
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Zimbabwe: Aid
  Zimbabwe: Aid
  Uganda: Aid
  Uganda: Aid
  Library Services
  Library Services
  Ministers' "Partners": Official Status
  Ministers' "Partners": Official Status
  Stamp Duty on Stock Transfers
  Stamp Duty on Stock Transfers
  Petrol Stations: Liquor Licences
  Petrol Stations: Liquor Licences
  Juveniles: Secure Remand Places
  Juveniles: Secure Remand Places
  Maternity Allowance Payments
  Maternity Allowance Payments