Sitting of 9 February 1998

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

    Joint Military Action (United States)
    Mr. Cohen: When he last met his United States counterpart to discuss procedures for joint military action. [26097]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I met United States Defence Secretary Cohen at a long-standing engagement in Germany this weekend. We discussed a number of issues, including the situation in Iraq and Bosnia.
    Mr. Cohen: Were the following two questions discussed? First, why is a war that kills hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent Iraqis morally worth while? Secondly, is a war that leaves Saddam Hussein in place, perhaps to cause more trouble later, morally worth the life of a single British or American soldier?
    Mr. Robertson: First, I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces who cannot be here because he underwent a small operation on Friday; he is now at home and recovering well.
    2
    All that we ask of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime is that they comply fully with the United Nations Security Council resolutions that they accepted at the end of the Gulf war. We simply want them to allow unconditional, unrestricted access by the weapons inspectors to sites that they think may have information about—or actual—weapons of mass destruction. Force is simply there as an option of last resort—and an option of last resort without which it is quite clear that Saddam would not be interested in complying with his international obligations. If there is a confrontation it is not between Great Britain and the United States and Iraq but between Iraq and the United Nations, and it is the UN's credibility that is now at stake.
    Mr. Wilkinson: What are the exact arrangements for defining the rules of engagement of British troops in the Iraqi theatre, and what are the command and control arrangements? Would British forces in that theatre come directly under the command of an American general officer or flag officer, or would the British take their orders directly from Northwood?
    Mr. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman would predict, and as I know he will accept is reasonable, I have no intention of being drawn into any details about military action that might have to be taken if all the diplomatic options were exhausted. The use of force and the deployment of our forces in the Gulf today are simply the mechanisms by which we hope Saddam will realise that he must comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The arrangements for that force, if that force has to be used, will not be speculated on from the Dispatch Box. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime should be left under no illusions that if we have to deploy, there will be a fairly firm response to what he is doing.
    Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if military action is to be used in the near future, it is rather important to set out our objectives quite clearly? Every effort, however difficult, should be made to avoid civilian casualties which would not only be wrong in themselves but would give added political ammunition to

    3
    the murderous dictator in Iraq. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that, if we abandoned any threat of the use of military action, it would mean that Saddam Hussein had won a victory and that there would be no question of his allowing unrestricted access to weapons? If he knew that no action would be taken against him, why should he show any flexibility whatever?
    Mr. Robertson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend: he is absolutely right. The aim of any military action that we took if diplomacy were to fail, would be to oblige Saddam to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. Not just the safety, security and stability of Saddam's neighbours in the middle east—a volatile and important part of the world—but the credibility of the United Nations are at stake. If that credibility were to be destroyed or undermined by a Saddam victory at this point, what future would there be for international world order?
    In recent days, the House has already heard of some of the horrifying weapons that Saddam Hussein has used and may still have in hiding, but the House will wish to know that I am today making available new information on Iraq's chemical weapons capability at the time of the Gulf war. That concerns recently received intelligence that Iraq may have possessed large quantities of a chemical weapons agent known as Agent 15 since the 1980s. Agent 15 is a mental incapacitant, exposure to which is likely to lead to weakness, dizziness, disorientation and loss of co-ordination, among other symptoms. We remain of the view that there is no confirmed evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq during the Gulf war, but I am making this public in line with our undertaking to Gulf veterans to make available any information that we possess that is of potential relevance to Gulf veterans' health issues.
    Rather than read a full statement of that information now, I shall seek permission to have it published in the Official Report. In addition, copies will be available in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House this afternoon. My noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is making similar arrangements in another place.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Speaking as one who was in the front line last time, may I ask for the Secretary of State's personal assurance that no similar action will be contemplated without the same sort of coalition of opinion at home and support in the Arab world and in the United Nations at large?
    Mr. Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is complete unanimity in the UN Security Council and indeed among the widespread allies of this country and of the United States of America that what Saddam Hussein is doing at present is unacceptable, that he must comply with UN Security Council resolutions in relation to weapons of mass destruction, and that he must allow unrestricted, unfettered and immediate access by the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq weapons inspectors to all sites that they believe may be involved
    4
    in the production or use of weapons of mass destruction. On that there is absolute unanimity. I agree with what Prince Sultan, Saudi Arabia's Minister of Defence and Civil Aviation, said yesterday:
    "We say to Saddam Hussein to abide by the United Nations resolutions to protect his people and put an end to their seven-year-long suffering."
    Mr. Dalyell: Who sold Agent 15 to the Iraqis?
    Mr. Robertson: I do not know who sold Agent 15 to the Iraqis. My hon. Friend will have noticed that I became Secretary of State for Defence on 3 May last year, since when we have put in place a number of investigations and research projects into those elements that might have affected our veterans who fought in the Gulf war in 1990. What I am bothered about is that we now have information that, among all the other horrifying weapons that Saddam has used in the past, and among all the weapons that we know he had and may well have destroyed but is probably still hiding, is now another agent, Agent 15, the like of which should make most of us wonder why on earth there is any equivocation in forcing him to comply with his obligations.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if it had not been for joint military action in August 1990, the risk is that Saudi Arabia would have been invaded, and that, if it had not been for joint military action in January 1991, the likelihood is that Kuwait would still be occupied? Does he share my surprise that those who argue against the use of force or the threat of the use of force offer no alternative sanction by which to compel Saddam Hussein to accept the obligations in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, which embody the terms of the peace settlement to which he agreed?
    Mr. Robertson: I am not surprised at all. I cannot understand those who say that force was not required on the last occasion. I am absolutely certain that had we not been forced to use force during the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein would still be in possession of Kuwait and may well have extended his ambitions to many other countries in the region.
    Ten years ago this year, I went to Diyarbaká and Mardin in Turkey, near the border with Iraq and Syria. I met some Kurdish citizens of Iraq who had crossed the border to flee the chemical bombs filled with sarin deadly gas which Saddam had rained down on the small town of Halabja. Their stories and their faces will live with me for ever.
    If a man like Saddam could use such dreadful, horrifying weapons against his own people, I could not sleep comfortably at night knowing that he would retain that capability and threaten his neighbours and, indeed, the wider middle east.
    Ms Abbott: The Secretary of State keeps calling the United Nations in aid when referring to the possibility of a military strike against Iraq. Is it not the case that there is no unanimity in the United Nations for a military strike, still less any support for it in the Arab world? Does not that give him pause for thought?
    Mr. Robertson: There is total unanimity in the United Nations Security Council and in the Arab world that

    5
    Saddam must comply with the Security Council resolutions. There is total agreement among all states that he must allow the UNSCOM inspectors in, and that there must continue to be a regime of inspection to ensure that he does not hold weapons ready to be deployed against his neighbours in the first instance.
    The route of diplomacy is still open—there is still time for Saddam to comply with the Security Council resolutions. However, as we move towards the point where diplomacy is seen to fail—if that is the case—I have no doubt that his neighbours and the wider world will recognise that there are few options left.
    Sir George Young: We welcome the new information about nerve agents to which the Secretary of State referred, and join him in wishing a speedy recovery to the Minister for the Armed Forces following his operation.
    Our armed forces face the possibility of conflict with Iraq. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Opposition strongly support the Government's robust approach—even if all their supporters cannot. The responsibility for any action rests with Saddam Hussein. There is a principle at stake—the credibility of collective action against unacceptable dictatorship.
    I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the interaction of the strategic defence review with the mobilisation that is under way. He must be anxious to ensure that there is no threat to the morale of our armed forces, and no distraction from the task in hand for officials and Ministers, through the strategic defence review. Will he assure the House that, if necessary, he will suspend the review until the crisis has passed?
    Mr. Robertson: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's good wishes for my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. I also welcome his support for the credibility of military force as an option of last resort if diplomacy fails and we are not able to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply with the Security Council resolutions.
    Morale among our forces is good. Despite what has happened to them over the years, and despite the current overstretch that they are feeling—and we are trying to deal with that—they are ready and willing to serve their country wherever they are sent. Those who serve on Invincible, Nottingham and Coventry, on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels and in the RAF Tornados being deployed from Bruggen today have a determination and dedication to uphold the international rule of law.
    The strategic defence review is designed to build on our current experience and that which we have gained over the past few years, so that we can configure our armed forces better to deal with the problems and the risks that they might face. That is being done in a more open and consensual way than has been the case in any previous defence review. That adds to the sense of spirit that is displayed every day by the armed forces of the Crown, in which I have such great pride.
    Ms Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only the credibility of the United Nations but possibly its future role, particularly in world peacekeeping, is being called into question by Saddam Hussein's behaviour? Does he agree that Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the Security Council resolutions will only encourage other dictators to behave in the same fashion and to follow
    6
    Hussein's example—by placing more importance on the building of presidential palaces than on the welfare of their people or on world peace?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks with power and she speaks rightly of the situation. There is something tragically ironic in the fact that Saddam is willing to use his people—especially children—as propaganda tools, showing off their misery to the world, whereas, since the end of the Gulf war, he has spent $1 billion in building a reputed 45 presidential palaces. Children are being allowed to starve when he could buy food by selling oil, and his people are denied medications and medical treatment when he could import as many medical supplies as he wanted. He pretends that the outside world, rather than his own desperate regime, is the enemy of his people.
    Following is the information:
    Iraq has still not fully disclosed the extent of its programme to acquire chemical and biological weapons: it has consistently sought to obstruct the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) from carrying out the mandates of Security Council Resolutions 687 and 699. In particular, it has sought to deceive UNSCOM about the scale of its production of the highly toxic nerve agent VX and the use of chemical warfare agents during the Iran/lraq war. Iraq has also yet to admit to producing plague bacteria as part of its biological warfare programme.
    The MOD has recently received intelligence, believed to be reliable, which indicates that, at the time of the Gulf War, Iraq may have possessed large quantities of a chemical warfare mental incapacitant agent known as Agent 15.
    Our knowledge of Agent 15 itself is limited. Agent 15 is one of a large group of chemicals called glycollates (esters of glycollic acid). The best known is usually referred to by the initials BZ. The physiological effects of these compounds are typical of anticholinergic agents, which block cholinergic nerve transmission in the central and peripheral nervous system.
    On the basis of animal studies with BZ and other related materials which were carried out some years ago, we believe that the immediate effects of Agent 15 would include: dilated pupils, flushed faces, dry mouth, tachycardia, increase in skin and body temperature, weakness, dizziness, disorientation, visual hallucinations, confusions, loss of time sense, loss of co-ordination and stupor.
    We have known since 1985 that Iraq was investigating CW agents of this type, but the first indication of a specific interest in Agent 15 came in a brief reference contained in an Iraqi document, which we became aware of in August 1995 and which stated that Iraq was carrying out laboratory research on this agent. The first indications that Iraq had possessed large stocks of Agent 15 came late last year, since when my Department has conducted an assessment of the relevant scientific and background information.
    MOD remains of the view that there is no confirmed evidence of the use of CW by Iraq during the Gulf War. We are nevertheless considering how best to investigate Agent 15 further, with a view to gaining a better understanding of its long term effects. This will be taken into account in our ongoing work to address Gulf veterans' health concerns.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the current strategic importance and future need for aircraft carriers in the Royal Navy. [26098]
    Mr. George Robertson: The future requirement for aircraft carriers is being considered as part of the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Heath: My question may be particularly apposite because of the current deployment of HMS Illustrious and

    7
    HMS Invincible and the aircrew from Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the carrier fleet provides the essential platform for extending the reach of British peacekeeping capacity? Will he therefore ensure that that view is reflected as the defence review continues?
    Mr. Robertson: The simple answer to that question is yes. We are certainly examining the case for a future generation of carriers, although we must also weigh and balance the implications that that would have for the rest of our armed forces and for the Budget. The work will of course take into account the role being played in the Gulf by Royal Navy aircraft carriers. The requirement to provide platforms to support fixed-wing aircraft beyond the life of carriers in the Invincible class is a serious and a big issue that will have to be weighed and balanced by any Government, and is therefore a crucial part of our considerations in the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Hutton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the important role played by our existing carrier fleet in maintaining Britain's effective amphibious capability? Will he also confirm that that key capability is one that we will want to retain into the next decade?
    Mr. Robertson: I recognise the very strong constituency interest that my hon. Friend represents and the power with which he expresses his view. The roles of our armed forces are being examined in the most thorough and detailed—but still open—manner that we have seen for many years. His point is taken and will be given due consideration.
    Mr. Soames: Even allowing for the fact that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will have been heavily got at by the Fleet Air Arm, does not the Secretary of State agree—as he already has done, again—that the presence so speedily of Illustrious and Invincible in the Gulf, to reinforce the coalition's determination to ensure that Saddam Hussein is compelled to honour his obligations, is a very powerful ideal for the future of the carrier fleet? Will he tell the House what he has in mind for the aircraft that will go on future carriers? Is he thinking of retaining jump jet type aircraft, or will he be more conventional, as the Americans have been?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point about our carriers in the Gulf. It is appropriate especially to recognise the service of HMS Invincible, its crew and the RAF staff who are also on board. They have been at sea since 2 September last year. They are now in the Gulf and will be relieved by HMS Illustrious when it gets to that part of the world. Their sacrifice and service is something for which we are profoundly grateful, and their families' sacrifice in being without them for such a long time should also be put on the record.
    The hon. Gentleman of course recognises that the decision on a future generation of carriers cannot be separated from the future of the RAF jets. Clearly, that configuration and the balance that has to be struck in that respect are a central part of the defence review. It is one of the critical decisions that we will have to take during that review.

    Defence-related Industries (Chelmsford)
    Mr. Burns: If he will make a statement on defence contracts that have been placed by his Department with defence-related industries in the Chelmsford local authority area; and what is the total value of those contracts since 1 May 1997. [26099]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): A total of 271 contracts have been placed by the Ministry of Defence directly with defence-related industries in the Chelmsford area since May 1997. The total value of these contracts is £6.76 million. These figures do not include any contracts which may have been placed by defence agencies as this information could not be compiled without incurring disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Burns: I thank the Minister for that reply. My constituents will be extremely heartened by those figures, given that the constituency contains a significant number of defence-related industries. Will the Minister confirm and reassure my constituents further that where it is feasible and economically possible, the Government will continue the practice of placing the vast majority of defence contracts with British companies to safeguard British jobs?
    Mr. Spellar: I am very much aware of the excellent defence companies in the Chelmsford area. The defence review is examining the establishment of systems of working in partnership with the defence industry. This would be to the benefit of British industry, would provide a service and supplies to our armed forces consistent with our value-for-money policy, and ensure that we are internationally competitive.
    When I visited defence industry companies in Chelmsford, I was impressed by their diversification into civilian areas which has helped to sustain the industry there. We are looking at the examples that they have provided to be incorporated into our defence diversification paper which will be published in March.
    Mr. Key: I join the Minister in congratulating the defence-related companies in Chelmsford, among which is Marconi. When will the Minister be in a position to make an announcement about the future of the next generation military satellite communications system of which Marconi is of course potentially an important part?
    Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are involved in that with our European partners, and we hope to be making an announcement shortly as to the outcome.

    Armed Forces Personnel (Educational Attainment)
    Mr. Boswell: If he will make a statement on recent changes in the level of educational attainment by armed forces personnel. [26100]
    Mr. Spellar: Service in the armed forces offers many thousands of young men and women the opportunity to obtain educational, professional and trade-related skills and qualifications which will serve them in good stead through life. While there has been no significant change

    9
    in the recent levels of educational achievement, all three services continue to promote a varied and comprehensive range of training and education opportunities for their personnel.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that over the years the armed forces have built an enviable record in the education, training and motivation of young adults coming from widely varying prior levels of attainment? Does he feel that it might even be appropriate to consider sharing some of their experience with both his and their civilian counterparts, and that there may be something for the rest of the education sector to learn from what they have achieved?
    Mr. Spellar: On behalf of the services, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to their work. We have one of the best-trained work forces in the country, if not the world. We are also looking at undertaking more work with youngsters and, from September 1998, the Army foundation college at Harrogate will accept school leavers. There has been a great deal of extremely good work, particularly in educational techniques. If they can be applied elsewhere, it will be a tribute to the work carried out in the forces over a number of years.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will Ministers ensure that consideration is given to any new proposals in respect of the relative periods that the Royal Irish Regiment spends on operational duties, training and leave so that soldiers who have spent 28 years on continuous operational duties are better able to benefit from the educational opportunities available to other regiments?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes. Tours of duty are being considered as a key part of the strategic defence review and we shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's comments in the light of that.

    Royal Naval College
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What estimate he has made of the cost of the dilapidations at the royal naval college. [26101]
    Mr. George Robertson: A sum of £11.1 million to cover the backlog of repairs at the royal naval college has been agreed with the Greenwich Foundation by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and my Department.
    Negotiations are proceeding on the quantum of other elements of a dilapidations settlement, which could add some £5 million to that amount.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the buildings are some of the most illustrious and distinguished of our architectural heritage and, to use his words, it would be "tragically ironic" if at the time of the millennium they were little more than a derelict site? It is vital that negotiations should be completed, a timetable announced and proper funding arrangements set in place so that those buildings can play a part at the millennium. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has pickpocketed the national lottery for his own purposes, to pay back and make sure that there is a fair settlement at Greenwich.
    Mr. Robertson: There are great issues involved, so I shall be as gentle as I possibly can with the right
    10
    hon. Lady. After all, I am trying to make sense of the arrangements that I inherited from the previous Administration in respect of that valuable site. Of course, the right hon. Lady was one of the two Secretaries of State involved in those arrangements. I make no criticism—[Interruption]—of that particular fact, but the issues are complex, and several parties with differing interests are involved in the negotiations. The new arrangements need to be secure to safeguard the magnificent site at Greenwich. It is worth reflecting that it will be only the second change in occupation in the 300-year-long history of the royal naval college site at Greenwich. If the right hon. Lady had listened to my reply to her question, she would have heard that I have already made available £11.1 million—not money left behind by the previous Government—to make sure that one of our great national treasures is maintained in the form in which it should be maintained. We shall continue to work hard on all the arrangements to ensure that by the millennium there is another great attraction in Greenwich to mark the turn of the century.

    United Kingdom Land Command
    Mr. Bayley: If he will make a statement about the future district structure of United Kingdom Land Command. [26102]
    Mr. Spellar: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army's Land Command has set in hand a study of the future structure of his command in the United Kingdom, the recommendations of which will be considered as part of the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Bayley: I am aware of the study as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has answered with great openness a series of written questions on the matter. I ask my hon. Friend to pass on to him my thanks for that and my wishes for a speedy recovery. Can my hon. Friend give me two assurances: first, that there will be no change in the structure of Land Command before the issue is referred to Ministers for decision, and secondly, given that the second divisional headquarters is at Imphal barracks in York, that the appropriate Minister will meet a deputation from the City of York to discuss the Land Command structure before the ministerial decision is made?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest and for the detailed representations that he has made. As he has said, Ministers will decide on the issue as part of the strategic defence review. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be pleased to receive my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) in a deputation on that important issue when he returns.
    Mr. Brazier: I also wish the Minister for the Armed Forces a speedy recovery. Are Ministers taking account of the fact that, until a few years ago, our forces in Britain were traditionally organised in a mixture of regular and territorial brigades commanded by operational headquarters? Is it best for them to be organised as they are now in a series of mixed brigades commanded by largely civilianised headquarters? Does the Minister

    11
    believe that any of the brigades would be deployable in their current shape? Are those not proper subjects for review?
    Mr. Spellar: They are very much proper subjects for review. That is why the Commander-in-Chief of the Army's Land Command is undertaking that review. We look forward to receiving his considerations. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will also want to put his views.

    Iraq
    Ann Clwyd: What assessment he has made of the military threat posed by Iraq. [26103]
    Mr. George Robertson: Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq has twice launched attacks on its neighbours. It still possesses large ground and air forces capable of operating beyond its borders. We assess that Saddam Hussein has ambitions to rebuild a weapons of mass destruction capability and retains some of the elements needed for that, including chemical and biological agents and prohibited missiles or their components. The work of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq is crucial in denying him that capability to threaten the stability of the region.
    Ann Clwyd: Given that military action is hardly likely to remove the main problem—Saddam Hussein and his closest associates—would my right hon. Friend support bringing Saddam Hussein before an international criminal court to be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide? Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices with the Turkish Government, who are preparing to seal their borders? In the event of a refugee crisis, any Kurds attempting to flee to another country would once again have only Iran to turn to.
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend has been brave and consistent in her long opposition to Saddam Hussein and his regime. She has constantly supported the Kurds, against whom Saddam Hussein has already deployed sarin bombs—terrifying weapons of mass destruction—in 1988. Her words have some authority. We must ask whether it would be possible to indict Saddam or bring him before a court, as is currently being suggested. By one means or another, his people must be the final court of judgment on what he has done to them and their country.
    As to the possibility of the Turkish armed forces taking action on their border, we have to bear it in mind that, although the large majority of Kurds in northern Iraq are peaceful and have no wish to be aggressive against their Turkish neighbour, there are elements in the PKK and other groups whose sole intention is to destabilise and attack the Government of Turkey. I hope that the Turkish Government will use their discretion and wisdom when the world community is focusing on the iniquities of Saddam and will be as generous and humanitarian to the Kurds as they have been in the past.
    Mr. Blunt: If military force has to be deployed against Iraq, will the Secretary of State ensure that the military objectives set for our forces and those of the United States and other members of any coalition are linked to clear political objectives?
    Mr. Robertson: They are; the aim of military action will be to oblige Saddam to comply with the United
    12
    Nations Security Council resolutions. That is the object of the diplomacy and the efforts that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and many others. If it comes to the bit, if that diplomacy fails and if we have to use force, that is what the objective will be.
    Dr. Iddon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Gulf operation is code-named Operation Bolton? How usual is it to use place names? Does he agree that such use might be seen by some to be controversial? Might it not be better to stick to code names such as Desert Storm?
    Mr. Robertson: The name Bolton for the operation going on in the Gulf was chosen at random from a list of possible operation names. If that same random process had resulted in the operation being called Operation Hamilton, I know that my constituents would have been very proud to have been associated with an effort to resume international law and order and comply with UN Security Council resolutions. I know that my hon. Friend's constituents will share the same sense of pride in our service men and service women, who are standing up at this moment and putting their lives on the line for what we and they know is right.

    Firing Ranges
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the plans announced on 23 January 1998 to reorganise the firing ranges. [26104]
    Mr. Spellar: The rationalisation of the land ranges operated by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency announced on 23 January is the outcome of the second stage of a review to address the problems of overcapacity and under-utilisation. Subject to consultation with trade unions and MOD customers, the main changes proposed are that Pendine and Shoeburyness ranges would be maintained for access to their unique facilities on a trials campaign only basis, and as much work as possible would be undertaken at Eskmeals.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the anger and fury of the 200 employees at Shoeburyness who face redundancy following the Minister's letter, which overturned a decision made as recently as March to plan for the closure of Eskmeals—apparently for no reason which we can think of other than that the area is represented by a Cabinet Minister? As Eskmeals is the only range which does not provide facilities that others can provide, what on earth is the reason for retaining it in a declining market when there is a shortage of work? Now that the Minister has decided, for no apparent reason, to keep open the three ranges, would not the best way in which to proceed be to let the market decide and let customers go to ranges that they think are most helpful?
    Mr. Spellar: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there is a declining market, which forms the backdrop against which the decision is taken. I consider it slightly unfortunate that he should impugn the professional integrity of officials at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, who gave us the technical advice, based on their evaluation of costs and effectiveness of the various ranges, that that decision should be taken. In spite of representations made to us by

    13
    hon. Members representing all three constituencies concerned, it would have been slightly perverse of us to overturn that technical advice.
    We are of course aware of the impact that the decision will have on other areas. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are in discussion with local councils on how best to redevelop the site so that we can return economic activity and regeneration to the area as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that the Pendine facility in my constituency is set to lose 80 per cent. of its work force following the announcement, yet no land is being made available for alternative employment use? Will he assure me that he will supply trade unions and local authorities, which have set up a steering group to try to combat the plan, with all relevant information? Once they have developed an alternative strategy, will he or the Minister for Defence Procurement receive a delegation from that steering group?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We acknowledge the considerably greater difficulties that Pendine faces, especially due to the substantial amount of unexploded ordnance on that land. I very much welcome the work that is being undertaken by the Pendine steering group and local organisations. We should certainly very much welcome representations and a delegation from them in order that we can explore Pendine's future strategy.

    Eurofighter
    Mrs. Lait: When the RAF expects to take delivery of its first operational Eurofighter. [26105]
    Mr. George Robertson: The first Eurofighter aircraft is scheduled for delivery to the Royal Air Force in June 2002.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, which will be a great relief to the RAF—at long last it is to get the Eurofighter. Does he agree that some of the delay has been due to the inefficient and old-fashioned ways of designing the plane that were built into the contract? Can he assure me that such contracts with our European partners will in future be let more effectively and efficiently, using modern company organisational techniques?
    Mr. Robertson: I am glad of the hon. Lady's welcome for Eurofighter. It took only eight months for this Government to sign the Eurofighter contract, thereby safeguarding 14,000 jobs and the RAF's capability. It took the previous Government 15 years to get to the point at which we took over, so most of the relief was felt on 1 May last year.
    The hon. Lady rightly speaks of some of the problems associated with multinational enterprises developing this sort of equipment. The record is not all that bad. Since 1986, when the full development phase began, costs have increased by a little more than £1 billion—bearing in mind the fact that the aircraft's role had to be reassessed in the light of the ending of the cold war. This has not been one of those tales of misery to which we have grown used.
    14
    Secondly, we have learnt some of the lessons. The first decision on Eurofighter was taken in 1982 and the plane will be delivered in 2002. That is clearly intolerable for an equipment project of this kind. It is one of the aspects with which we are getting to grips in the strategic defence review.
    Thirdly, apart from the United States, nations on their own will probably never again be able to design a single-purpose piece of equipment such as this for their own needs, so there must be—especially European—co-operation for the future. We also have development projects with the United States. We must ensure that development phases are shorter and prices are lower; we must be more successful than in the past.
    Mr. Borrow: Are not the workers at British Aerospace in Lancashire who have worked so hard on the project to be congratulated? Does my right hon. Friend remember, as I do, the comments of Conservative Members 12 months ago, before the election, who claimed that a Labour Government would not go ahead with the Eurofighter project? Does not the fact that the contract has been signed show that the British people can rely on Labour's defence policy?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is here representing a seat that is a Labour gain partly because of the record of the former Government in the north-east of England—the area which my hon. Friend represents and which will benefit so much. [HON. MEMBERS: "North-west."] Certainly, the north-west will benefit considerably from the Eurofighter project. I am extremely glad that we were able to tie up the deal and to procure for the Royal Air Force the agile, multi-role aircraft that it so desperately needs. In doing so, we have safeguarded vital British technology and vital British jobs—and the base from which my hon. Friend can look forward to a long parliamentary career.

    Ships (Twinning)
    Mr. Waterson: What is his policy towards the twinning of HM ships with towns; and if he will make a statement. [26106]
    Mr. Spellar: It is the policy of the Royal Navy that every ship should be affiliated to a town or district and that such an association should be positively fostered. An affiliation of that sort is of great benefit to the ship's company concerned.
    Mr. Waterson: Is the Minister aware of the great affection that my constituents formed for HMS Juno during a long period of twinning, which ended only with the decommissioning of that vessel? Is he also aware that I had a supportive response from Admiral Sir Peter Abbott when I wrote to him about finding another vessel with which to twin Eastbourne? As a Minister, will the hon. Gentleman do what he can to push that process along?
    Mr. Spellar: We are pleased to receive representations for twinning or for the association of names with particular towns. As I said, the services very much welcome that, as do the towns, and such association definitely contributes to morale and to the profile of

    15
    defence within the community. Representations on the matter are always welcome and, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, we shall start the appropriate process.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Brady: What steps he is taking to work towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons. [26107]
    Mr. George Robertson: As we made clear in our manifesto, we are committed to the global elimination of nuclear weapons. We shall press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for that interesting response. While unstable and undemocratic regimes such as that in Iraq continue to hold weapons of mass destruction, is it not vital that we should retain an independent nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Robertson: This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to retain Trident, and we shall.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS
    The President of the Council was asked—
    HOUSE OF COMMONS

      Prime Minister's Question Time
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If she will reintroduce twice-weekly Prime Minister's questions. [26130]
      The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): No, we have no plans to do so.
      Mrs. Bottomley: The whole House will have been enormously sympathetic when it heard through the usual channels today that the Prime Minister is worried that not enough time is being spent explaining and presenting the Government's policies. Does not the right hon. Lady have an opportunity to assist not only the Prime Minister but the House, by suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should leave the No. 10 bunker and come to the House twice a week where, free from spin doctors, he can present and explain his Government's case and even answer questions from the Opposition since, after all, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament?
      Mrs. Taylor: Of course the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament and he spends exactly the same time answering at Prime Minister' s Question Time as his predecessor did.
      Mr. Skinner: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that, as one who did not favour the change from two days a week to one for Prime Minister's Question Time, I have done a little research? I have found that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), otherwise known as "Golden Virginia" has just said, my right hon. Friend has answered more questions since he has been Prime Minister. What is more, because he has not been absent from Question Time as the
      16
      previous two Prime Ministers were, he has been present to answer questions more often than was the case when the Tories were in power.
      Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Prime Minister has not been absent from Question Time. Under the old arrangement, he would have answered questions last week for only 15 minutes because he was in America on Thursday.
      Mr. Bercow: As the right hon. Lady talks with glowing pride about the Prime Minister's answers to questions, I feel sure that she will be happy to tell the House the wording of at least one of the Prime Minister's answers since 1 May last year.
      Mrs. Taylor: I am indeed full of pride at the answers that the Prime Minister gives. I do not think that the quality of the questions matches those answers.

      Arab World
      Mr. Dalyell: If she will establish a Select Committee to examine relations with the Arab world. [26131]
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: No. The subject falls within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and, to a lesser extent, the Select Committee on International Development.
      Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question of which I have given her notice in the hope of her considered reply? Given that Boutros-Boutros Ghali said yesterday that the proposed action against Iraq was illegal, as did Pérez de Cuéllar, and that Mark Weller of the Cambridge Centre of International Studies has written in The Times that preventive action of the type contemplated is unlawful, should the Government not have an obligation to set out in the Library the precise legal basis on which they are acting, because it is open to doubt in the view of the international lawyers whose names I have given to No. 10 Downing street? Indeed, lead letters in this morning's newspapers cast the gravest doubt on the legality of what the Anglo-American force is supposed to be doing.
      Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises points that he has brought to the House's attention on other occasions during the past week or two; they are obviously issues about which he feels very strongly. However, as I have told him and the House, the House will be kept fully informed of any developments. I told him last Thursday at business questions that we have not ruled out the possibility of a debate. There will be Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions tomorrow, and I cannot add anything further at this stage.
      Madam Speaker: Order. The question was about Select Committees and should have been answered as such.
      Mr. Soames: May I press the President of the Council on the question of a Select Committee? The relationship between the United Kingdom and the middle east is most tortuous and difficult, so is this not a good opportunity for a Select Committee specifically to examine the

      17
      extraordinary inconsistencies between Britain's policy on Iraq—whereby Saddam Hussein will be made to disgorge those United Nations resolutions of which he is in clear breach—and her approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as the Arabs rightly believe that there is a double standard? Would that not be a good subject for a Select Committee to study?
      Mrs. Taylor: I have said that I do not intend to establish a Select Committee specifically to examine relations with the Arab world. The content of any Select Committee investigation is, of course, a matter for the Select Committee itself.
      The Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee was asked—

      New Parliamentary Building
      Mr. Wilkinson: What is the (a) current and (b) planned provision in the House of Commons estimates for the cost of constructing the new parliamentary building. [26136]
      Dr. Lewis Moonie (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): Outturn expenditure on the new parliamentary building is forecast at £35 million for 1997–98. The House of Commons Commission has approved an estimate that includes £95 million for Portcullis house in 1998–99. The total cost forecast is now £250 million, as set out in the written answer given by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) on 10 December 1997, Official Report, column 578.
      Mr. Wilkinson: Is not this a disgraceful waste of public money? The plusher the offices of Members of Parliament become, the less inclined hon. Members are to attend either the Chamber or Committees of the House. Would not the money be much better spent on something useful, such as ensuring that the Jubilee line comes into service on time?
      Dr. Moonie: The building is expensive because of its situation and because it is a project on which everyone will have their eyes when it is completed. I make no apology for the building's level of finish; when I look along the Thames and see some of the monstrosities that have been allowed to grow up in the past 20 or 30 years, I am happy with the standards that are being applied.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not high time that Members of Parliament had individual offices that did not contravene the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 and that had normal light—something that many of them still do not have—and that Members of Parliament were able
      18
      to attend to their constituency and parliamentary interests in a professional and civilised manner without being made to feel like rats in the wainscot?
      Dr. Moonie: I should like to see the wainscot that could accommodate me, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the increased cost of the new building is being spent to ensure that it meets modern security standards and statutory health and safety requirements.
      The President of the Council was asked—

      Sitting Hours
      Mr. Bradshaw: If she will make a statement on progress towards reform of the hours of the parliamentary day. [26138]
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Modernisation Committee is currently considering proposals to reform sitting hours and hopes to report soon.
      Mr. Bradshaw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware of the growing concern among new Members—and some long-standing Members—about the time that it is taking to reform some aspects of the way in which the House is run? One of the most difficult aspects to understand is why we still have to have hours that run along the lines of those of a gentlemen's club.
      Mrs. Taylor: The Modernisation Committee started its work by considering the legislative programme, which was believed to be the appropriate priority. We are moving on to other issues, but my hon. Friend should realise that not all hon. Members share his view on the desirability of changing our working hours in the way that he suggests. Hon. Members have a wide range of opinions and it is right that the Modernisation Committee should take account of the different views. It is not a matter of old Members versus new Members, or Labour Members versus Conservative Members: the working patterns of Members of Parliament are very different and we must try to accommodate everyone.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for that balanced and fair answer, and for the work that she has done with the Modernisation Committee. May I urge her to consider all those issues with caution and to refuse to be over-influenced by hon. Members who have been here for a very short time?
      Mrs. Taylor: We must balance the interests and needs of Members, but many new Members have made us look anew at the way we run our affairs in Parliament. That must be beneficial, although we must eventually come up with practical changes that will receive the agreement of the whole House.

Employment of Children Bill
3.30 pm
Mr. Chris Pond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that may be causing confusion to several hon. Members. It relates to my private Member's Bill on the employment of children, whose Second Reading will be debated on Friday.
The Order Paper for Thursday 5 February listed the Employment of Children Bill as item No. 3, instead of item No. 1, as it should have been. Several hon. Members will have made constituency arrangements to ensure that they can be present for that important debate, and I seek your guidance on the best way to set the record straight and to ensure that no confusion arises, especially among the 160 Members who signed early-day motion 712 in support of the Bill.
Madam Speaker: That seems to me to be a good deal of PR for the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill. He knows that the listing was a misprint, which has already been corrected.

Opposition Day
[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Child Support Agency
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move,
  That this House, believing that both parents have responsibility for the financial and emotional welfare of their children during the whole of their childhood, that the taxpayer should only be called upon to provide income-related benefits to support children financially when neither parent has sufficient resources to provide that support, that it is in the best interests of children if the system of child support encourages their parents to agree voluntarily and then put into practice a financial arrangement for the maintenance of those children which is fair to those children, both parents and the taxpayer, and that the Child Support Agency has failed to meet these objectives, supports the repeal of the rigidly formula-based Child Support Act and its replacement by a system of child support which encourages parental responsibility, enhances work incentives, takes due account of the cost to the taxpayer, includes an effective right of appeal, and is flexible enough to produce a fair outcome for families whatever their circumstances.
  I am delighted to have the opportunity to move this motion today, because it is of interest across the House. All right hon. and hon. Members receive frequent correspondence about the Child Support Agency and the Child Support Act 1991, and I am sure that there will be great interest in the debate. Parents should be responsible for the financial and emotional welfare of their children throughout their childhood. That is—indeed, it must be—the starting point of any system of child support.
  I shall begin by saying what the debate is not about. It is not about allowing fathers to desert their wives and children to run off with a new lover. It is not about reducing the financial burden on parents by loading more of it on to the taxpayer. However, it is about producing a system of child support that is flexible enough to be fair to parents with care, to absent parents, to the taxpayer, and, most importantly, to the children.
  The principle that parents should be responsible for the financial and emotional welfare of their children throughout their childhood is widely shared across all parties in the House and among the public outside. Indeed, it is because the authors of the Child Support Act 1991 claimed that it was based on that principle that it originally won widespread acceptance in the House, from my party as well as the other two parties. We accepted that the objectives stated for the Act were worthy, even if there was much wrong with the detailed implementation.
  However, the Act has failed to meet its objectives. It has failed to meet the needs of absent parents and of parents with care, and, above all, it has failed to meet the needs of children. The Child Support Act is beyond repair, and is now as friendless as it is unfriendly.
  Let me demonstrate how the CSA fails to fulfil its objectives and give some examples of its failure in practice. In the second half of my speech, I intend to describe the system of child support that we should implement.

  21
  The Act's basic failing is that it rests on a rigid formula. It is supposed to treat people living in equal circumstances equally, but any formula will treat equally only those people for whom the circumstances that the formula takes into account are equal. It cannot take into account all the possible circumstances that may arise. As a result, the formula may produce identical settlements for people whose circumstances are very different.
  We are all human. We are all individuals. We are all different from one another. What is more, each couple is different; each relationship between two people is unique. No formula-based system can be entirely fair in the myriad different circumstances in which people find themselves. Let me give an example of how the formula used by the CSA has been found wanting.
  Let us consider a man still living with his ex-wife, perhaps renting her a spare room in his house, whose children are living with them while the man is paying for most of the family's food and clothing as well as its housing. If the ex-wife appeals to the CSA for maintenance, the agency will ask which is the parent with care. It is the wife, because she receives the child benefit, and she is therefore due maintenance.
  What happens if the father argues that, as the children are living in his house, he must at least have shared care? After all, he is paying for their food and clothing. The CSA would say, "No, you do not have shared care, because there is not even one day, let alone 104, on which the child or children leave the mother's house to go to the father's house." How absurd. Yet that is the decision that the CSA makes in such cases.
  What happened when the failures of the formula began to show up? The previous Government gradually amended it to take account of more and more of the circumstances that could arise. It became more and more complex, and therefore more and more difficult to administer. Still it did not meet all the circumstances that came to light. Then the Government decided to allow a few departures from it. Even then, only certain laid-down departures were allowed. Still the system throws up unfair results, and still Members of Parliament receive thousands upon thousands of letters detailing the unfairnesses of the Act.
  Not least because of the complexities of the formula, the CSA has found it harder and harder to administer the Act. Let me give a further example of what that leads to.
  A mother with care in my constituency made an application for maintenance through the CSA. An inquiry form was issued to the absent parent in January 1995. Incomplete information was provided, so no assessment could be made. Eventually, an interim assessment was imposed in March 1997. On receipt of it, the absent parent decided to co-operate, and a new assessment was completed in April 1997. By that time, the two elder sons were no longer eligible to be included in the assessment, so the mother will never receive all the money that she should have had towards the cost of bringing up her children. In that situation, it is nothing less than mad that the budget for the agency is being cut and the number of staff is expected to fall sharply, while the case load is expected to rise by 50 per cent. during the next four years. How can it be expected to cope?
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I have sat on the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for many years, and in the past three
  22
  years we have produced three special reports on the CSA that have detailed the terrible afflictions caused when the benefits have not been paid—in some cases, people have had to wait up to three years for that benefit. In all its history, the ombudsman's Committee has never before produced three separate reports on the same Government Department.
  Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such a valid point, which helps to support our case.
  I should like to detail some of the other failings of the CSA. In the majority of cases, parents with care on income support stand to gain nothing from the receipt of child maintenance through the CSA, because, for each pound of maintenance received, another pound is deducted from their benefits. Indeed, it can be even worse, because, if the parent with care loses all his or her income support when it is replaced by a maintenance payment, he or she is liable to lose other passported benefits. They may end up even worse off than if they had never applied for maintenance in the first place.
  Instead of child assistance, the CSA has created Treasury assistance. It should come as no great surprise to find that thousands of parents with care have reacted to such difficulties by refusing to co-operate with the CSA.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are extenuating circumstances to explain why parents with care are not co-operating with the CSA? In the case of one of my constituents, I received a statement of assessment on 13 January, and my constituent received a statement directly on 14 and 15 January. Three different statements were sent in three days. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that parents often do not co-operate because they cannot understand the procedures?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Rendel: Judging from the reaction in the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of us have received reports of such cases. He is absolutely right, and I am grateful for his intervention.
  As a result of such problems, one 16-year-old woman, now four months pregnant, has heard that she will not be able claim any benefits if she does not reveal the name of the father of her child to the CSA. He is a married man, and she is frightened what his wife might do if she found out. If that 16-year-old cannot claim benefits, she—and most importantly, her child—will be the ones who suffer.
  It is also important to consider the strain that second families are put under. Very often, the financial position of such families suffers as a result of the maintenance demands placed on one of the parents for his or her first family. Indeed, that now seems to be one of the main causes of family break-up—in this case, the break-up of the second family.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making a cogent speech, and is doing the House a great service. When second families are put at risk that is particularly tragic, because they are often trying to make a fist of it for the second time, when first time round was a disaster—in some cases, through no

  23
  fault of their own. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a question of principle is at the heart of the problem, because the CSA has the power to overturn court orders? Does he accept that that is essentially wrong, because we have always believed in the ultimate rule of law?
  Mr. Rendel: I am grateful for that intervention, which leads me on to another observation I intended to make. A great deal of bitterness is caused by unfair assessment, which all too often causes the absent parents to cut all contact with the children of their first families. That is on the assumption, of course, that there was enough money left to such absent parents from their assessments to enable them to maintain contact in the first place.
  Under the current system, families with children are no better off as a result of receiving maintenance. That system's decisions can be financially crippling for second families, and often do nothing to reduce child poverty; and it acts as a clawback mechanism for the Treasury rather than a support system for the child. The CSA has failed in its objectives, and it must go.
  I am pleased to see that the Government appear to have moved a considerable distance in our direction. One might have expected them to insist in their amendment that the CSA must remain, and that the Act is a good one—after all, that is the principle on which they fought the general election. However, they seem to be moving toward the position long held by the Liberal Democrats, which is that the Act must go. I hope that their announcement this summer will prove that they have finally come to that conclusion.
  What should be done to ensure that the principle that parents should take proper responsibility for their children is carried out in practice? Many parents, if given the right encouragement, will be capable of reaching suitable voluntary agreements for the sake of their children. If enough resources were put into an effective mediation system, the number of such agreements would hugely reduce the need for state interference.
  Liberals have believed for more than 100 years that it is the duty of the state to help people to help themselves—not self-help alone, as it is not right that the vulnerable should be expected to fend for themselves; nor is it right that we should simply have big government, as the state should not place unreasonable demands on how people choose to live their own lives. However, it is the duty of the state to mediate in parental disputes, and to ensure the best possible outcome for the children.
  For those cases where a voluntary agreement cannot be reached—doubtless there will be many—there should be a system involving some outside body, whether that is a family court, a tribunal or some other body. It would look at the exact family circumstances and come to a decision that was fair to all concerned—one in which all parties felt that they had had a chance to have their say.
  The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that the voluntary principle will work now, when it did not work before the introduction of the CSA? When Labour left office, maintenance payments were being made for about 57 per cent. of families on benefit; but when the CSA took over, that figure had fallen to
  24
  23 or 24 per cent. If the voluntary principle was so strong, why did it not work before the CSA, and why would it work if we abolished the CSA?
  Mr. Rendel: I am not in any sense advocating that we return to the system used before the CSA. What I said was that many parents are capable of coming to voluntary agreements; they did so before the CSA, and many had perfectly fair and sensible agreements at that time. It is possible that we could encourage an increase in the number of voluntary agreements through an increase in mediation services.
  However, we also need a fallback system involving some court or tribunal capable of seeking money from absent parents who are not paying. What was wrong with the old system was that there was little or no power of enforcement. It was not a problem of not having an Act or a formula in place, but one of inadequate enforcement.
  In conclusion, we need a system that takes account of the following principles: that there should be fairness in making financial decisions and encouragement of voluntary agreements and of mediation in settling disputes; that children and not only the Treasury should benefit from maintenance payments; that parental responsibility should be encouraged; that the needs of children and their parents should be judged on a case-by-case basis; and that the cost of access by both parents to their child or children should be taken into account.
  Such a system offers a humane, not a mathematical, solution, and it can never be governed by an algebraic formula. The Liberal Democrats believe that children deserve no less than that, and that is why the CSA must go.
  3.48 pm
  The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that all children have the right to the support of both parents wherever they may live, that the previous Government failed to set up an effective system of child support through the Child Support Agency because the CSA was introduced in a hasty and ill thought out manner, that the current child support formula is complex, difficult for parents to understand, and slow, inaccurate and expensive to deliver, that the result is that the CSA has failed to increase the proportion of parents who pay regular maintenance for their children and that 70 per cent. of parents with care are refusing to co-operate with the CSA and 60 per cent. of non-resident parents either pay no maintenance or only pay sporadically, and that the receipt of regular maintenance is an important part of the Government's strategy of tackling child poverty; and welcomes the fact that the Government is looking closely at all areas of the child support system to ensure that it is consistent, fair and efficient and that it expects to bring forward its proposals by the summer".
  I and about four other hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon have sat through every debate on the Child Support Agency since the measure began to wind its way through the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) not only participated in many debates, but initiated them, and was often kind enough to let me participate in them. There was not one debate in the House in which I participated when the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) was not present. I must also mention my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).

  25
  There is, however, a real difference between this afternoon's debate and previous debates that we have had on the subject in the House. The most striking difference lies in the way in which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) has moved the motion this afternoon and has made his case for reform, and in the support that he has received from his hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). That is in stark contrast to the behaviour of Liberal Democrat spokesmen in the previous Parliament, who seemed to over-emphasise the importance of an immediate headline rather than contributing to a debate that might lead to a substantial improvement in the lives of many of our constituents. I welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Newbury not only sought today's debate, but introduced it to the House.
  Some hon. Members may not know that the hon. Member for Northavon has a history, and it is relevant to tell the House a little about it. At one stage during the 1979 Parliaments, the House of Commons was faced with an official report from the Government that showed that not only did the trickle-down theory work in this country, but that our poorest constituents were on the receiving end of an economic Niagara falls, and that wealth was being bestowed on them in a way that most of us failed to comprehend.
  It was in the Select Committee on Social Security that, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise), who is not in her seat at present, we sought to test the Government's view. We turned to someone who was then modestly called Professor Webb to help us in our calculations. His abilities were such that he found that, where the Government added things, they should have taken them away. He found that, far from the poor getting richer, the poor had, sadly, become poorer during that Government's stewardship. He therefore comes to these debates in the House of Commons with a proven track record of advancing a cause, and I look forward to hearing him sum up for the Liberal Democrats this afternoon.
  The second and equally important distinction in the nature of our debates on the CSA arises largely from the number of Labour Members present. In previous Parliaments, the Labour Front-Bench team was rarely supported by more than two, three or four Back Benchers. Both sides of the House are now showing a real interest in the question how best the CSA should be reformed and how we can do better for those of our constituents whom it affects. I rejoice in the fact that a large number of the suggestions from Opposition Members, and certainly from Labour Members, have been taken into careful account by my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, who is conducting our review of the CSA.
  It is important that we do not become too lax during the debate. There is a crunch question that we have to face, and, with all the good will in the world, I do not think that the hon. Member for Newbury faced it as squarely as he might. At some stage, we shall have to choose whether we use the complicated formula we now have or whether we move to something much simpler—possibly a simple tax rate. The hon. Gentleman said that we now had a "rigid formula". The formula is anything but rigid. It has been built up as a result of representations from hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  26
  We shall soon have to decide whether to follow the voluntary principle that was suggested by the hon. Member for Newbury, under which people have rules that they easily understand when reaching their own agreements on these matters, although sometimes such agreements might have to be enforced; or the alternative of continuing in the way in which previous Parliaments of which I have been a Member have proceeded, in the belief that the House has the wisdom to legislate for the complex lives of many of our constituents.
  Dr. Peter Brand: Does the Minister agree that making a formula more complex does not make it any less rigid? The current formula is incomprehensible to most people, but it is rigidly applied by those who pretend they understand it, and they often give different reasons for reaching a particular result.
  Mr. Field: I could not agree more. If we attempt to create a formula that takes into account all the conditions in which our constituents might find themselves, it will be difficult to work. Some might call it flexible, but others would call it inflexible.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Why not use the system of family courts that operates in Australia? They go through financial matters, such as a husband's wage, with the divorcees, so that the divorce is squared up and the children are sorted out. If the husband gets another family, he returns to the family court, not a criminal court, and matters are again sorted out.
  Mr. Field: I always pay careful attention to my hon. Friend, because, like me, he attended all the debates in previous Parliaments on this issue. We have a choice. Should we move towards reform for which legislation can be enacted in the foreseeable future, or should we tie reform to a change in the courts system, which would take some time to debate, agree, enact and put into operation? In the light of that operation, we could make changes in the child support arrangements. We must keep an open mind. I merely wish to pose questions and outline the choices.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest as a lawyer. Over the first 20 or so years of my practising career, we were able to reach many agreements in divorce cases. The problem was that the courts did not initiate enforcement: the participants had to do that, and that was one of the flaws in the system. Why cannot we go back to such a system? It is far better to get people to agree on payments that they will meet than to try to force them to make payments that they cannot afford.
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend has the opportunity to put his ideas to my noble Friend in the other place. I am sure that he has done that but wishes to record his views so that his constituents know about his participation in our affairs.
  I should like to put on record our appreciation of the Child Support Agency staff. It is far too easy for us to pretend that errors are the fault of the staff. It is as if, like Pontius Pilate, we wash ourselves of all responsibility, and, with clean hands, blame the staff for misjudgments. The hon. Member for Newbury had a point to make, so I

  27
  do not blame him for standing at one side of the mirror. However, we should also stand at the other side and examine the CSA's record, which is somewhat more impressive than the checklist presented by the hon. Gentleman.
  I shall deal with four aspects of the CSA's work, and compare the year before it came into operation with information and projections for the forthcoming financial year, when the case load will have risen from 210,000 to 850,000 families. The maintenance that will be arranged has increased from £140 million to £754 million. Benefit savings will have increased from £313 million to £630 million. Running costs will have halved, with the amount falling from 52p per pound to 27p per pound of maintenance collected.
  None of those figures is acceptable, but there is something to be said on behalf of the staff, who do not have the freedom to carry out the job as they wish, but are governed by legislation that was passed by the House. If any criticism is to be made, it has to be directed at us, not at the staff.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I absolutely agree with that. I was one of the people who took part in the original discussions in 1991, and much of the blame cannot be attributed to the staff.
  The Minister helpfully informed the debate by giving some of the outcomes. The outcome that astonishes me—and I do not use the word casually—is in his amendment. It says that 70 per cent. of parents with care are refusing to co-operate. I for one have always operated on the assumption that the figure was about half that. It is useful for that information to be put in the Government's amendment, but will the Minister say how that figure comes about, because I am staggered by it?
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman obviously invites me to be honest, and I clearly must be careful at this stage. In our infinite wisdom as politicians, we are slowly going back to the previous system, where we had liable relative officers in local offices. When people who were separated from their partners or husbands came in to claim benefit, they were interviewed by a liable relative officer, who took down the necessary details.
  To its credit, the CSA has been undertaking two experiments, as part of which it issues the maintenance assessment form at the point of claiming. However, as part of the second experiment, the CSA helps claimants to fill in that form. If that is done, the staggering figure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) picked up on is reversed: 70 per cent. of claimants participate and wish to do so, as opposed to 70 per cent.—as is true in the rest of the country, where the experiment is not taking place—deciding not to co-operate. Again, that aspect has to be faced.
  Under the liable relative officer system, less than 3 per cent. of people claiming benefit because they had been deserted by husbands or partners claimed good cause. The figure is now up to 70 per cent. It is impossible to accept that all those claims are justified. It has gone around on the grapevine that one way in which to avoid the CSA, continue to gain benefit and possibly pick up maintenance is to claim good cause in one's favour.
  28
  That whole issue needs to be dealt with immensely sensitively, because some women will claim good cause for all the right reasons—as some of us know from our constituents. What is important is that, when the CSA does not leave a mother six months to decide what her story might be, the ratio that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was quick to pick up on is reversed. I expect that the practice, which is so successful in this experiment, will soon be extended nationwide.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I first say that we should express our appreciation to the Minister for his work, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, in focusing on the CSA?
  My right hon. Friend referred to the work of the department. I do not criticise the junior staff, but the parliamentary ombudsman could not handle the number of cases of maladministration that were referred to him, and we had to appoint an independent case examiner to judge on issues of maladministration, so that someone in the department is responsible for the mistakes, which could cost the taxpayer money. Although I accept some of my right hon. Friend's points, we should record the fact that there is some maladministration—often of great magnitude—within the CSA.
  Mr. Field: It is because we have taken so seriously the point that my hon. Friend puts so well that the Government will, before the summer, introduce proposals for reform that we can then debate. Given the mistakes that we have made in the past, it is important to table the proposals for this House and those elsewhere to debate before we actually decide what the next stage of reform should be. That process may take a few extra months, but I am sure that, if we approach reform in that way, it will significantly increase our chances of success.
  On the issue of mistakes, it is worth recording why the CSA has such difficulty in operating more effectively. First, the measure was made retrospective—which might have some significance when we debate the reform proposals later this year. It is the only occasion during a CSA debate when I was staggered by an announcement. Even if, at some stage, we wanted to make the provision retrospective, surely the sensible way to advance would have been to apply it to new cases, and then, when that was successfully done, apply it retrospectively.
  Secondly—this underlines the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton—there are problems with administration—or maladministration, as he called it—because of the deadly complications of the formula. I want to give the House a piece of information. If we separate the time spent on working out the original assessment and then on review from the time spent on enforcing the decisions, it becomes clear that more than 90 per cent. of the time of every member of staff is taken up trying to grapple with the formula, either to compute the original assessment or to check what it should be at every new stage. That might suggest that there is a case for seriously considering how the formula should be reformed.
  Some of my hon. Friends who are present today have previously asked how departures can be enforced. It is clear from what I have said that there is a limited number of staff to enforce any changes, because so much time is spent on the original calculations. Even worse, under the

  29
  current formula, we could not move to a casework system that would enable one CSA officer to deal with a case. The formula and its ramifications are so complicated that it is impossible, with our resources, to train a member of staff so that he can be on top of the whole of the portfolio.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is properly and conscientiously sharing his concerns with us. I want to pursue a point raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Is the Minister considering a reassessment of the considerations that enter into play, especially the life style of the second family or families? I shall give a simple example—we could all give hundreds.
  I think that the public would find it difficult to accept that it is fair that a constituent and his second wife, who are living in a one-bedroomed flat on straitened means, are asked to pay £250 a week, when the previous wife is living in a five-bedroomed, three-bathroomed, listed building with horses, stables, paddocks and so on, entirely supported by an extremely affluent second partner. Such cases discredit the system and the willingness of people to participate. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that he shares our view that we must reappraise that balance of considerations.
  Mr. Field: I certainly do share it. I am hoping that, when we debate the reform package, the House will be able to adopt a reform or formula—or however we choose to do it—so that most staff time is spent trying to enforce agreements that have been made and helping people to collect information, rather than to digest the forms that we inflict upon them.
  I end by briefly listing for the House the reform objectives on which I hope that we can agree. I do not want the list to be conclusive, and I hope that today's debate will add to the list. Moreover—as the process is on-going, and will not finish merely because this debate will end at 7 pm—I hope also that people will feel free to approach and to share their ideas with either me, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), or my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, so that we are clear about our objectives as we devise the means of achieving them.
  Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I am grateful for the support that the Minister is giving to our motion. In summing up, will he deal with the biggest single injustice that our constituents undoubtedly feel—it has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House—which is that there is no opportunity to be heard? There is no hearing, and no opportunity to put the case or to compare the evidence. That is the biggest single fault in the current system.
  Mr. Field: I shall not deal with it in my summing up, but I shall certainly make careful note of it, so that it is part of our internal discussions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also will try to pursue the matter.
  As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the support that I am giving to his motion, I should sound a slight note of warning. I had hoped that I was participating in building a consensus across the
  30
  House on how we should proceed—given that quite a few hon. Members should be standing here in sackcloth and ashes for our past errors and for the damage that we have inflicted on some of our constituents' lives.
  Although there is a natural tendency for a minority party to say that all hon. Members are bending before its will, it is important in the longer run—not only on this issue but on all the other issues that the Government will be addressing shortly—that the House feels that the reform programme is a shared one, rather than one that belongs to any one sect or party.
  As I said, I want to conclude by examining the objectives for reform. It is quite clear from the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury—as I hope that it will be from the comments of every speaker in this debate—that hon. Members are as committed to the principle enshrined in the CSA as we have ever been: a child's right to be supported—which is our first aim—is crucial. Conversely, the second objective of our reform programme is to achieve a reverse and decline in the number of families on benefit who lack regular maintenance payments.
  Thirdly—by achieving our second objective—we will be laying the basis, mostly for mothers but occasionally for fathers, to make greater choices in how they live their lives and in the mix that they will have from benefit and from benefit and work. That choice can be available only if adequate and regular maintenance payments are made.
  Fourthly—although I listed it as first when I was in opposition, because I had always thought that it was overlooked—we have a responsibility to taxpayers. Although we want our reforms to be successful, for all the reasons I have just given, the cost of supporting separated families on benefit was approaching 5p on the standard rate of tax. Taxpayers also have to be taken into account in considering our reforms. The pleas on effectiveness of the system that we heard in interventions in this debate will help in achieving that objective.
  The fifth objective that I hope our reforms will achieve is to move up the political agenda—quietly and without dispute—the entire matter of access. For far too long, the agreement has been that no problems will be made about maintenance, and that the benefit cheque will continue to arrive, but the quid pro quo is that fathers should not see their children.
  Of course, one does not make access dependent on maintenance—indeed, there will be some cases in which the court will have to decide, given the record of some of those fathers and, very occasionally, some of those mothers—but, when we talk about the needs of children, we are talking not only about their financial needs, but about the full responsibility that parents have for their children. Parents sometimes tell me that it is all very well to say that, but that the children get deeply distressed when they see their father. That is the price that children have to pay for the break-up of a marriage or a relationship.
  At the end of the day, one has to consider whether it is right to spare children some of the grief, as one parent comes and goes in their lives, or whether the children should never see the absent parent, and never have that parent ask how they are doing at school or bring them a Christmas or birthday present. Surely we need to widen the debate so that it deals not only with finances, although they are important, but with the full responsibility that parents should have for their children.

  31
  Finally, I hope that one of the objectives of the reform is that we have a system that the staff can understand.
  I commend the amendment to the House.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome the debate. The sensitivities and difficulties aroused by the nature of the subject have been reflected in the thoughtful speeches and interventions that we have heard so far and by the fact that this is one of the rare occasions when the House is quiet, because hon. Members genuinely want to listen to the debate rather than score party political points by yah-hooing across the Chamber. That is refreshing, and I trust that the rest of the contributions will be as intelligent and of such a high calibre.
  The motion restates the principles that lie at the very heart of the Child Support Agency. The fundamental principle is that both parents should be responsible for their children. Of course, that principle goes back to the beginning of the process that led to the establishment of the CSA through the Child Support Act 1991. It is vital that we focus on the various principles behind the CSA, principles on which all parties are agreed. We must consider how best to translate them into an effective working of the CSA.
  The Liberal Democrats' motion has, to a certain extent, missed the point of the CSA. It proposes to encourage parents to reach an amicable agreement when they split up. Where that is possible, I entirely agree that that should be the case. In a perfect world, there should be a voluntary agreement in all divorce settlements or when partners split up. However, that is not the purpose of the CSA as, sadly, this is not a perfect world and, far too often—in fact, I suspect, possibly in a majority of cases—there cannot be a voluntary agreement.
  When there is a divorce, when partners split up, or even when there is no relationship in the sense that we usually use that term, but when a child has been born as the result of an incident—that is rather indelicate, but I am not sure of the correct parliamentary term—there is going to be great difficulty in getting the various parties to reach an agreement that is acceptable to all. The situation is exacerbated when there are children involved and especially when one parent wants to keep away from the other. The CSA was set up to tackle such difficulties.
  In the latter half of this century, there have been significant changes in the society in which we live. The traditional family unit and the finality of marriage have been eroded. Thus there has been a phenomenal increase in the number of marriages that end in divorce. However, a fact that is more important to the debate is the great increase in the number of children who are born outside marriage and the number of lone mothers who have been abandoned by the father of their child, or, less commonly, fathers who have been abandoned by the mother of their child. One of the fundamental purposes of the CSA was to safeguard the well-being of children in those circumstances.
  Too many fathers simply abandon their children, adding to the number of lone mothers and turning away from their responsibilities. The lone mothers then become
  32
  dependent on the state for benefit, when the fathers should be making a financial contribution to the upkeep of their children. The CSA was created to address that problem and to provide a universal system of establishing child maintenance so that, whoever the absent parent was and whatever his or her means, there would be a consistent system.
  Before the Child Support Act 1991, there were a great many problems in the way in which maintenance was established. In many cases, no maintenance was paid. By the end of the old system, 75 per cent. of lone parents were not receiving regular child support for their children. The system of child maintenance was clearly not working. It was fragmented; not only did it involve several different levels of courts, but it often worked in conjunction with offices of the Department of Social Security.
  The system was often too slow in dealing with cases and it was judged to have been inconsistent. It was not possible to predict with any certainty what the absent parent's liability might be, as it was down to each court to establish the level of child maintenance. Therefore, someone in one part of the country earning £150 per week could be forced to pay £50 in maintenance, whereas someone on the other side of the country on the same income could be paying only £5 a week. Such discrepancies were unacceptable and the CSA was set up to address the problems of inconsistency.
  As is recognised by the Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and, no doubt, hon. Members who will speak in the debate, the CSA had a difficult start. It was dealing with people who were often at a crisis point in their lives, when decisions were made on the basis of emotion rather than reason. There were various problems. Many of those who had been married found that the CSA was focusing on them when they were prepared to pay and—in most cases erroneously—felt that irresponsible fathers were being allowed to escape scot-free.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: That is exactly what happened. When the CSA was first set up, it went for the fathers it could get. It did not go for the fathers it could not get, because the money that it could take off the fathers was needed to run the agency. The previous Government set up the CSA with no money. It had to find some, so it had to pick up the fathers it could find.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I take issue with part of what he said. Of course, when the CSA started, it took up the cases of fathers who were seeking to make arrangements. It also sought to track down absent parents who were trying to evade their responsibilities. It is more difficult to find such parents and encourage them to take part in the process. Of course there was an impression, particularly among fathers who were co-operating, that the CSA was going for the easy target, but I do not believe that the facts sustain that argument.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an anomaly when the absent parent is making a contribution to the parent with care who has entered a new relationship? The absent parent still has to pay for the parent with care when she has another husband. Many people criticise that evil.
  Mr. Burns: I fully understand and appreciate that point. From my constituency cases, I know of the deep

  33
  resentment that such a situation can cause. The Minister said that the issue was under review. I shall come back to it in a wider context. The principle of what the hon. Gentleman has said is right. A great deal of resentment has been caused because many people feel that the situation is unfair, for the reasons that he outlined.
  The Child Support Agency had a difficult start. There were problems with the different treatment given to those who co-operated and absent fathers. Many people also found that the formula was too rigid and did not take individual circumstances sufficiently into consideration.
  The initial problems that became apparent were addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in the Child Support Act 1995, which introduced a raft of new measures to improve the functioning of the CSA. Provisions were also made in regulations to ensure that absent parents were not paying more than they could afford. A ceiling of 30 per cent. of net income was introduced for assessments. In addition, a special allowance was made for travel-to-work costs for absent parents who lived more than 15 miles from their workplace. Further allowance was made for the housing of a new partner or stepchildren. The 1995 Act introduced new measures to enable departure from the formula, to take into consideration special circumstances that were not included in the calculations.
  The changes dealt with many of the problems that had manifested themselves in the first years of the agency's operation.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1995 Act failed to address one of the basic flaws, because there was no element of seeking consensus? Without consensus, people will not participate. The system is perceived as mechanical.
  Mr. Burns: In an ideal world, consensus is the best way forward, but it was impossible to reach consensus in too many cases under the old system, which was failing because people felt that they could avoid their financial responsibilities. That does not encourage consensus. When a statutory body was being set up and the system was being put on a more consistent statutory basis, it would have been difficult to expect consensus, particularly in the early years after such a dramatic change in the system for child maintenance calculations.
  Although the 1995 Act improved the technicalities of the CSA, there was still the problem of the loss of confidence in the agency. Before developing that theme, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the staff of the CSA, who do tremendous work under tremendous pressure for very little thanks. It is too easy constantly to criticise the staff and forget their day-to-day work.
  The loss of confidence in the agency because of its initial problems was compounded by opposition to it in certain sectors of the community. As the breakdown of a relationship is not unnaturally very traumatic, delicate and difficult, it is inevitable, and only human nature, that people want to be able to lash out at someone or something. I am in no way criticising anyone; such a desire is human nature and a natural reaction.
  There was a further problem, which still needs to looked into. If a couple are unmarried and the mother does not name the father of the child, she can simply claim benefit and the father has to pay nothing. To a great
  34
  extent, that led to the negative perception of the CSA as a body that did not meet the aims and aspirations of its establishment.
  That illustrates how child maintenance will often be an extremely difficult issue to resolve further. It arises at a difficult point in people's lives. That makes it paramount to approach the issue with great delicacy and sensitivity. It is important that the CSA's principles are not only maintained but put into practice in the most effective way and, most important, are the best possible for the children, who are involved at a very difficult time in everybody's lives.
  Improvements have been made, but there is room for more, as the Minister said. The agency's working can be improved by focusing on administration—making it more streamlined, making the assessment process quicker and making the appeals system more effective. The administration also needs to be improved in the pursuit of absent parents who are unwilling to pay.
  Beyond that, more profound questions can be asked of the CSA, which the motion raises. The trend towards the increase of family breakdown is an important factor in the society in which we live. The CSA—and other approaches to the subject of child maintenance—can be a powerful tool in controlling the way in which society behaves. It can be used to provide behavioural incentives, which can in turn be used to strengthen not only parental responsibility but the very structure of the family.
  The CSA formula was introduced to guarantee consistency in the assessment of maintenance, and it was originally intended to have enough flexibility to manage all situations. However, given opposition to it, there are clearly some problems with the formula and the way in which the system operates, which must be taken into account. I am sure that the Minister will not overlook that during the next few months, before he publishes the findings of the review.
  The motion and Labour's amendment take us no further in the debate. I understand that that need not necessarily be expected from the Government at this point in the proceedings, because they are carrying out a review. However, much of the Liberal Democrat motion restates the principles. I should have liked more fleshing out of ideas on how to replace the CSA. I think that the hon. Member for Newbury described a special court system. It is well and good to bandy around phrases, but one needs to know exactly how such a system would work and to be able to pinpoint how it would improve the present system.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: No, I want to finish.
  One of the luxuries of opposition is that we, too, can afford to review our policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and other colleagues and I have no wish to be ostriches with our heads in the sand. We are in the process of reviewing the Child Support Agency, which we set up, in an attempt to come up with ideas for improving a system of child maintenance that protects the taxpayer, the parent looking after the child, and the child itself.
  I was concerned to read a story on the front page of The Sunday Times two or three weeks ago suggesting that the decision had been taken to abolish the CSA. Although the

  35
  Government dismissed the report as untrue, I heard the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on the "Today" programme this morning saying that there had been subsequent developments. He went on to outline how the Government have changed their mind yet again. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will be able to tell us whether any decisions have been taken—
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.
  Mr. Burns: I am being tempted into my old ways. The Minister's point is that decisions cannot be taken while a review is still in progress—logically that is right. I will not tread on any toes this evening, except to say that decisions on welfare reform have been taken in recent months even though that review has not been concluded either.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: This is a vital debate on a vital issue. If, over the past two decades, Britain has become a more insecure society—there are many reasons for that, not least economic ones—what has been happening to our families has certainly been a major contributory factor, and if our children have become poorer, the same factor, among others, lies behind that increased poverty.
  It is easy to attack the CSA; easy, as constituency Members, to champion the cause of those who have been maltreated. It is much more difficult to design and champion a reform that works and ensures that both parents pay for their children. Sometimes it is easier for the House of Commons to champion the men who have been maltreated than to speak up for the children and mothers who have been maltreated by an inadequate system of child maintenance down the centuries. Sometimes we should listen not just to the victims of maladministration who come to our surgeries but to the muted voices of the children and mothers who have never received any maintenance.
  There have of course always been children living with just one parent—often because of the death of a father. Today a new social revolution is under way, meaning that a great many children will spend all or some of their childhood living with just one parent, usually, although not always, the mother. The other parent—the so-called absent parent—is still the parent of the child, however. The Liberal Democrat spokesman talked of the reluctance of a mother to name the father. We can help the argument along by including the right of the child to know who both parents are.
  Those changes, for example divorce, have affected men and women, but they impinge most on children. Although we have to study the relationships between the genders, let us focus firmly on children, as the Minister did.
  The divorce rate has increased dramatically; there are now about 13.1 divorces per 1,000 married couples in England and Wales. In 1966, the figure was just 3.2 per 1,000. Most parents who divorce have children under 16—currently about 56 per cent. The risk of a new-born child's mum and dad divorcing before he or she reaches 16 is 1:4 and every year, 160,000 children under 16 witness the divorce of their parents.
  36
  In addition, more of our children are born outside wedlock—about 36 per cent., which is more than one third. We must analyse carefully what is happening. I think that most of those children are born to cohabiting parents. When we study the data on single mothers, we have to realise that they are usually the product of a cohabitation breakdown, not merely a single mother who has never lived with the father of her child. Of course, the circumstances of conception are such that the father might disappear, so a number of children only ever live with the mother.
  We are dealing with complex circumstances, which are made more complex by the factors about which we have heard. People remarry or, to use an ugly expression, re-partner. Many families are second or step-families and therefore many men and some women have a responsibility for two sets of children. However, they have that responsibility and, even in our consumer society, it is simply not on for people to give up one responsibility as they take on a new one.
  About 1.7 million of our children now live in one-parent families—the figure was just 600,000 in 1971. Most of those families, although not all, are on income support. The group most likely to be on income support are children living with single rather than divorced or separated mothers.
  The reform agenda concerns the Child Support Agency and some wider social policy issues. When the Government produce their reform agenda, I hope that there will be a maintenance disregard. If it is truly a child support policy, we cannot tell children and their mothers—the parents with care—that they have a duty to co-operate with the CSA, which may cause them some problems, but that if they are on income support, they will not get an extra penny in maintenance. Wiser Governments than previous Governments here—I was about to say than our own, but I did not mean that—in different parts of the world, have recognised the importance of the disregard; the Australian example comes to mind. The taxpayer must be taken into consideration because taxpayers are not some theoretical construct, but include many two-parent families on quite low wages who are being asked to contribute to the community chest, because some fathers will not pay for their own children. Let us face it: that is what we are talking about. Therefore, it is right and proper that the mother and child should benefit, too, through a maintenance disregard.
  Secondly, we must have a simpler formula, and we have come to recognise that. However, that will mean rougher justice and I predict that those who are calling for a simpler formula will say in a few years' time that it is not merely simple but crude and does not take account of the complexities of their constituents' cases. It will be rougher justice, but it is worth going for.
  Thirdly, we need a CSA with a human face. Many of our constituents complain that they can never talk to the same official twice. Every person dealing with the CSA, whether the mother or the father, should be able to talk to a named official—a Mr. or Ms Brown—about their case. They may also have to talk to a colleague, but people have a right to deal with a human being at the end of the telephone.
  Fourthly, we have to pursue the hard targets. Understandably, people in full-time employment—in the public or civil service or with a big company—are rightly

  37
  pursued, but they get angry when they know of other people who easily evade the system. One constituent told me that she knew exactly where her former husband, who should have been paying maintenance, was. The CSA simply wrote to the address and someone, presumably the father, returned the letter with "Not known at this address" written on it. The CSA then told the mother—and me as her Member of Parliament—that he was not known at that address. We could be more rigorous than that and we need some clever and tough-minded detective work in pursuit of the hard targets. When that work results in a father being forced to pay maintenance and complaining to his Member of Parliament, let us be on the side of the mother of the child and not always on his side.
  If we are to relate the policy to our ideas about welfare to work and if we are to tell mothers that they should think about their careers, training and all the rest, we must consider whether we can guarantee maintenance for the mother leaving income support and going into work. If a mother can manage to go into work and wants to do so, having calculated the cost of child care, but is banking on the £30 of child maintenance, there is no point in her starting work if two weeks later the father reneges on the deal for several weeks or for ever. It is a difficult question, but I urge Ministers to consider whether they could guarantee that maintenance, so that the responsibility for chasing it is the Government's and the risks are not all shouldered by the mother.
  I recognise that this is a sensitive area—the Minister was right to remind the House of that, because many mothers are the victims of violence. Nevertheless, there is some sense in bringing closer together the assessment of income support for the mother and child and the CSA process. At the moment, someone may apply for income support and the CSA process may come into operation only some weeks or months later. If we are to mean it when we talk the language of rights and responsibilities, perhaps we should explain right from the start to the parent seeking income support that there is an entitlement but also an obligation to say who the father is and that we shall handle it as sensitively as possible. Right from the start, it should be clear that the income of that family is partly the responsibility of the father and not merely that of the taxpayer. I appreciate the sensitivities involved, but they should not enable the most irresponsible and thuggish men in our society to be the ones who never pay for their children. There is a real ethical dilemma there for us.
  Although the reform agenda is largely about the CSA, hon. Members would be foolish not to consider some of the wider issues, which have been touched upon. We are not just living in a society in which most children—I am sure that it is most in these circumstances—receive no maintenance from their father. We are also talking about the most fraught and difficult emotional circumstances, when a proportion of the children concerned—some research suggests that it might be about a quarter-no longer have any contact with their father following the breakdown of their parents' relationship.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: That is an interesting point. Is not one of the greatest problems the fact that sometimes children are used as pawns—I hope that Ministers will consider this in their review—in the sense that a mother may withdraw contact with them from the father, who is forced to pay
  38
  more maintenance by the CSA and who will be angry and concerned that he cannot have access to his children? That is a glaring hole and it needs to be considered, as it is not all one way.
  Mr. Wicks: Sadly, adults do not behave like adults in such circumstances, and children are pawns in the game. The other day, I read in a newspaper of a case in which the child said, "Mummy wants me to hate daddy and daddy wants me to hate mummy." Adults can behave very badly.
  I am not saying that, to balance access with maintenance, there should be one court; it is right and proper that there should be two systems. If the father has a history of violence, a court may say that he should not have access to the children for a period, but that he should pay maintenance. I understand why a father would be angry about such a settlement but, in terms of family law and social policy, that is sometimes right.
  Over the past 10 years, Governments have focused in cases of family breakdown on cash—maintenance—but we should also focus on care. The more difficult and important issue is how, when there is family breakdown and fracture, we enable children wherever possible to be brought up by both their mother and father, which is not only a question of maintenance.
  We should also take into account family law and court practice. Other hon. Members will have heard constituents, often the fathers, saying, "There's a court order that I should see my child every week, but when I go to the house the child is not there or the mother will not let me in." They are advised, "You can go back to court, but it will cost you several hundred pounds." We should consider family law issues in relation to the social policy of child maintenance.
  We must ask about causation. There is no easy agenda, but I do not believe that Britain has to be top of the European divorce league. We should not have to spend £4 billion to meet the public costs of divorce while we are spending so little on guidance and counselling for couples who face difficulties. I am not saying that the divorce rate can easily be reduced, but I refuse to believe that it has to be so high. Preventive medicine is better than conventional medicine, and Ministers should consider prevention in this area. That has implications for our schools and how we teach our children about relationships, their lives, confidence and sex. Why, every year, do 100,000 teenagers conceive unplanned and unwanted babies, which leads to a horrifically high abortion rate and the creation of a large number of fragile families? We must not forget the preventive agenda.
  Politics is a macho pursuit, so we often talk more about the strong economy than about the strong family but, over the past decade or so, family insecurities have become as important as economic insecurities in creating poverty and disadvantage for families and society. We need to strike the right balance between rights and duties.
  Becoming a mother or father should bring not only rights—to child benefit, decent education and decent health care—but duties. We must change the climate, and tell people that, when they become mothers or fathers, they have a duty in all circumstances to care for and maintain their children. That is an obvious and almost trite point, but increasingly in recent years—for reasons on which we can agree or disagree—many parents,

  39
  usually fathers, have taken on the irresponsible role of not providing for their children. We face a big battle, and I hope that the House is united in trying to win the fight.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is always a privilege and pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks). His record on this matter is well known and his speeches always repay careful study. I agree with him on some of the issues that he raised, but I hope that he will join me and other Liberal Democrats in regretting the fact that the rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies was dropped as a "Health of the Nation" target in the recent Green Paper. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to put some quiet pressure on his ministerial colleagues, I shall certainly join him, as that was a retrograde step in child support policy.
  I pay tribute to the Minister for Welfare Reform. He had a distinguished career during the previous Parliament as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, and I hope that he does not now feel that the many hours that he spent chairing the Committee's investigations into the Child Support Agency were wasted. The amendments that he tabled were not always successful because of the Conservative majority against him—I now know how he felt, as I am totally friendless on the new Select Committee. The work that he did then was valuable, and I am sure that when my colleagues on the new Select Committee turn their attention to the CSA, they will want to act as constructively as he did in working with the Government of the day, accepting the principle behind the agency and suggesting improvements to its operation.
  This debate on the CSA has been less strident than some of the ones I remember. The Minister has, for the first time that I can remember, seduced the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—if I had known that he would not be here now, I would have said this earlier—into being constructive.
  It is important that the House responds to the depth of the problems caused by the Child Support Act 1991. Mea culpa—like the Minister, I was one of the guilty people who were then Members of Parliament, although, in retrospect, I think that we faced mission impossible. Like all hon. Members, I see the results of the Act in my weekly surgery. Last Friday, a postman from Duns, who earns £190 a week, showed me a demand note for £22,000. Such debts are unrealistic and will have to be written off. The interim assessments act as a shock tactic, but the psychology has completely failed and I am not surprised at some of the new non-compliance rates.
  I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said when he eloquently introduced our motion. The system is too complex and too rigidly applied. The speed at which the 1991 legislation was implemented meant that it would almost inevitably fail. I also agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, North. If the new system is to have any chance of success, it is most important that it deals—and is seen to be dealing—squarely with the "can pay, won't pay" merchants.
  I shall, perhaps rather bravely, make some personal suggestions that we should consider in what I assume, from what the Minister said, will be a Green Paper—the
  40
  consultation will flow after publication. The arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and in the motion are valid and must be addressed during the consultation.
  I doubt that we shall persuade the Government to go as far as we want, so I shall run with what they say rather than with our more radical suggestions. I believe that given that the Government are set on creating a new system that uses a flat-rate formula, it must have two characteristics. First, the flat-rate system must be almost moronically simple—it must be transparent, so that everyone can understand it. Secondly, the rate must be set relatively low. If we introduce both those elements, we can then say that there should be no exemptions whatever.
  I suggest that the liability should be set at 3 per cent. of earnings—it makes no difference whether it is net or gross—for the first child and 7 per cent. of earnings top-sliced for the second child, with no exemptions. That would indeed be rough justice, but it could be implemented.
  Dr. Brand: I wish to ask my hon. Friend for a definition of "moronically simple". If by that he means something that I can understand, I would accept such a system, because that would meet the definition. The present system certainly does not.
  Mr. Kirkwood: My hon. Friend is only a general practitioner, but I think that he might have no problem with a 3 per cent. and 7 per cent. system.
  It is impossible for the CSA to continue to operate by trying to mirror the complex work that the Inland Revenue does in terms of working out weekly what people are due. We must carefully consider the period of assessment. I cannot understand why people are not assessed one year in arrears. The CSA could then take account of Inland Revenue figures and P60s, and stop having to alter assessments to include overtime changes, part-time working and short-time working. It should consider people's income from the previous year and base the 3 per cent. or 7 per cent. for one, two or more children on that figure with no exemptions. If we did that, the system would work.
  We must look specifically at the position of the self-employed, because it is currently a complete nightmare. The system seems to perm any number from several, and people receive letters from the CSA on consecutive days which give different figures. The circumstances of some small businesses run by the self-employed are incapable of fair, consistent or coherent assessment under the present regulations and the Green Paper must contain a special section on the self-employed.
  On the subject of retrospection, we must learn the lesson of the mistakes that we made last time, and the Minister was right to point that out. Some of us were perplexed at the time, but we did not realise how significant the degree of indirect retrospection was. We must have a cut-off date. I do not care what it is, but it must be clear and the new system must operate from that date, with no going back. We must look forward. An axe must fall and the new process must start on that date. That does not mean that people with assessed liabilities should get off scot-free. The poll tax has not set a good precedent for much but, as with local authorities and the poll tax, the CSA should be given a residual power under the new

  41
  system to define outstanding arrears and assign the debt to a debt collection agency. Even if the amount assigned were less than the actual amount outstanding, some money would be collected from the defaulters. In that way, those who had played the game and paid their money would not feel that they had been done down twice. The system must deal with the "can pay, won't pay" merchants, because they will always be with us.
  I shall not dwell on the issue of disregards, but the hon. Member for Croydon, North is right on the subject. The Select Committee recently visited Wisconsin, which has effectively no unemployment and a 100 per cent. pass-through system, as it is called. Non-custodial parents are happy to make payments that go straight to benefit their children and our new system must have a similar element. We must also encourage custodial parents—usually women-to get involved in the process, even if we have to pay them bonuses instead of penalising them if they do not get involved. I am more convinced of that than ever now that I have read the Government's amendment. I assume that the 70 per cent. figure for non-co-operation is derived from the CSA report. Some 30 per cent. of custodial parents fall into a middle category, neither totally complying nor totally non-complying. That big chunk of 30 per cent. needs to be worked on, preferably with carrots rather than sticks. We have not had enough carrots in the past.
  The time before 2000 when the new, rebadged CSA will be introduced is essential to try to minimise the damage of the current system. The CSA was protected from some of the worst effects of the change programme in the past, and the previous Government rightly added extra civil servants to its numbers to prevent it from grinding to a halt. However, I am now worried that the change programme will affect the CSA badly. It is now taking its share of the cuts, which causes great concern about the next 18 months to two years. The departmental spending review will be published at about the same time as the Green Paper and I hope that we can count on Ministers to fight the case for the proper staffing of the CSA so that it can respond to our constituents' needs. Our constituents are driven crazy with frustration because they cannot get through on the telephone. It is bad enough that they have to speak to different members of staff every time, but it is much worse if they cannot get through at all.
  I wish to enter the competition set by Baroness Hollis, who has done valuable work on the issue of the CSA. She has asked for names for the new body that will replace the CSA. I claim the bottle of champagne by suggesting that the new name should be the "Liable Relatives Unit".
  5.5 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: I wish to add to the comments that I made in the useful debate that we had on 20 June 1997. I am glad that the review of the CSA is progressing, and I am pleased that the Labour Government have already taken steps to improve the efficiency of the agency and to make it more responsive. I also wish to add my thanks to those members of staff who have courteously replied to the many letters that I have sent to them. However, there is a lot still to do. Response times to telephone calls and letters are still too long. One of my constituents told me on Friday about trying to telephone the CSA more than 40 times last week, but not getting through once. That is not good enough.
  42
  I urge the Government to finish the review as soon as possible. South Swindon wants a new start for the CSA now. I am glad that the Government's amendment states that the report will be out by the summer. I urge the review to produce rules that are simple to understand, but that allow some flexibility. No two families' circumstances are identical. Some hon. Members have argued in this debate that the answer is one simple, rigid formula—for example, £x per week per child or y per cent. of the parent's income. A simple formula is attractive, but rigidly applied, it would bring rough justice. The cases that I have seen raise concerns about the rigid application of any formula, if fairness and common sense are to be part of the new system. I know of parents who exchanged tens of thousands of pounds when they separated, yet the CSA fails to take that into account. Common sense would justify a departure in such cases from even the simple formulae described to allow for such large transfers of money.
  Support for the children involved and for both parents must be part of the process. For the constituents whom I see—and I recognise that I see those for whom the CSA has failed—support is entirely lacking. The only visible support comes from the title of the agency, which has become sadly ironic. I urge the Government to recognise in the review that not only the rules, but the agency itself need changing. Its history is so rotten that amending the system will not inspire confidence from those it has let down. We need a fresh start, new rules and new attitudes which are flexible and supportive of parents. It is also paramount that we keep the interests of children at heart.
  I mentioned attitudes. The language used by the CSA is an important part of that. It uses the term "absent parent", which is neither constructive nor accurate in respect of many of the parents whom I meet. One of my constituents is a father whose son is the most important thing in his life. He does not live with his son, but spends as long as his contact time allows with him and supports him in every way that he can, yet the CSA describes him as an absent parent. The term gives neither that man nor many of my other constituents the respect that they deserve. It does not convey to their children what I hope we as a society want to convey. I am delighted that the Government's amendment uses the term "non-resident parent". I congratulate the Government on that change of language and ask that it be used by the CSA throughout its work.
  On attitudes, the public and politicians sometimes say that all the CSA's problems are due to mean fathers who take no responsibility for their children. I recognise that roughly one third of non-resident parents do not comply at all with assessments and that a further third comply only partially. I accept that that proves that the system is failing. There are irresponsible fathers, but that is not the whole story. They are not the source of all the CSA's problems. Most fathers whom I meet are willing to co-operate and want to support their children, but are confused by the agency's complex rules, bled dry by their unreasonableness and inflexibility and deeply offended by being described as absent parents. I urge those discussing the agency's problems to put blame where it is due, but not to generalise it by including those who are not guilty.
  I await the Government's review with eagerness. I urge them to make a fresh start with a simple new formula, but to accept that some flexibility is needed because no two individuals' circumstances are the same. My constituents

  43
  want a change in attitudes and language. We need an improvement in responsiveness so that people stuck in the system can get the answers that they need. Rather than failing increasing numbers of children and parents, a new system needs to ensure that the interests of children are paramount.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: There seems to be near-unanimity in the House about the problems of the Child Support Agency, and about what may need to be done. As a new Member, I am shocked and upset by the cases that I have got caught up with. They illustrate a wide variety of problems, often including the sort of situation to which the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) referred.
  Too often, fathers who are willing to pay and who have been paying have become easy targets. They get caught up in the mill. One also finds the reverse situation, where mothers who are supposed to be paying have got caught in the mill. I had a case where a mother had virtually lost her job, quite unjustly, as a result of administrative inconvenience.
  Case officers are essential. I fear that they may be impossibly expensive, but at present, as other hon. Members have said, any difficult case involves different people, telephones going unanswered, and a complete administrative mess. That is a waste of time. I like the idea that, as the Inland Revenue has the records, and as its records are supposed to get better as self-assessment settles down, it might end up as the body that dispenses money when certain other reforms have come through. The revised CSA may have more of a counselling job, trying to decide under simplified rules what is fair, and sorting out the mess from the past.
  I have found many instances of what I would call anti-men attitudes. That is probably changing, and I do not wish to say it tritely, but the culture that has existed since the CSA was set up has not been completely fair to one side or the other. In particular, a case in which a wife takes the children and leaves her husband, and the husband is denied access, is very different morally from the reverse situation, or from cases of real father irresponsibility.
  I broadly agree with the Government's suggestions that we need something simple to avoid getting into the sort of minefield that exists now, but I agree with the hon. Member for South Swindon that cases vary enormously. Returning to my case officer point, there is a need to assess situations on their merits, as lawyers do in working out divorce settlements.
  In my experience, the self-employed present almost impossible problems, and not only in respect of pursuing fathers who are shirking paying up. I have encountered tragic cases of near-suicide when self-employed people have been driven to give up work or been assessed ridiculously. I hope that the Inland Revenue may be the key to the solution once the discipline of self-assessment becomes established.
  I echo the sympathy for CSA officers. They must be utterly fed up with Members of Parliament writing furious letters about constituents who have been left in a terrible way by the CSA. I agree that its replies are remarkably
  44
  courteous and detailed. I sometimes think that, if the same efficiency had been displayed in the first place, some of the problems might not have arisen.
  It is too early to judge the outcome of the review. Like my colleagues, I was surprised to read reports that a Minister in the other House had decided to abolish the CSA. Such a decision cannot be made without knowing how we are going to deal with the CSA's problems. There should be more focus on what the courts can offer. They cannot alone solve the problem of making recalcitrant parents pay up or of collecting the money, but the fact that the majority of cases now voluntarily go to the courts for settlement rather than to the CSA suggests that the old mechanism of the courts is better.
  I echo the wish to get a move on. I appreciate that it is difficult territory, but all hon. Members know of heart-rending cases that one fears must be unnecessary. I hope that we can, as everyone wants, speedily reach a collective decision on major reforms and simplifications. As to whether that involves a new body altogether or a major radical reform of the existing body, I have no instant answer, but change is necessary, and communication is at the heart of any continuing effective role that a body such as the CSA should have.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. James Plaskitt: I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on such an important issue, and the serious and constructive tone in which it is being conducted.
  Child Support Agency cases quickly emerged as a major element of my work as a newly elected Member. I am sure that that is also the experience of all recently elected colleagues. In the first few months of being in office, I collected no fewer than 50 serious and complex CSA cases. I could quickly come to the conclusion that there is something badly amiss with the CSA as it currently works.
  I believe that we agree that the principle of ensuring that absent parents meet their responsibilities cannot be faulted, but it has also become clear that, in many instances, the CSA does not help to realise that outcome. In some cases, its intervention has frustrated an agreement that might otherwise have emerged.
  In many respects, the basic approach adopted by the CSA is flawed. It shows all the signs of being, in the first instance, the product of some rushed decisions and perhaps inadequate research.
  Despite all the difficulties and the reports of non-co-operation that we sometimes receive at our surgeries, I doubt that the problems are the fault of the staff who work in CSA offices. Most do their best in impossible circumstances. To start with, they have had to cope with a flawed structure, a difficulty now compounded by the heavy work load with which many are trying to wrestle, and the inadequate resources that support them. It has been a chilling experience to see month after month at my surgery so many individuals who have been placed under intolerable stress as a result of having to deal, with the CSA.
  From my experience, many former partners are willing to accept their shared responsibilities, and would be able to reach a mutually agreed arrangement, but the CSA stands in their way. In those cases where the non-resident parent is unwilling to meet his or her responsibilities, the CSA is often ill equipped to track that person down.

  45
  It is worth taking a closer look at cases to find out specifically where the CSA has gone wrong. I spent some time analysing in detail the 50 significant cases which have been forwarded to me. That analysis reveals that the biggest single problem to emerge in 37 per cent. of cases is faults in the assessment of maintenance made by the CSA in the first place.
  That general category of difficulty then divides according to four sub-headings. The first relates to incorrect information about the absent parent's earnings. Often, detailed evidence has been lodged with the CSA about the earnings of the other party, but for some reason the CSA fails to take that into account, or cannot do so. Despite the clear evidence in its receipt, we cannot succeed in getting a reassessment made.
  Secondly, the CSA also appears to disregard various forms of unearned income. In one case with which I am familiar, rental income from owned property was not taken into account. Despite the fact that it clearly affected the person's ability to pay, it was somehow excluded from the assessment.
  Thirdly, I have also come across assessments that have not been adjusted after changes of circumstances have been reported to the CSA. Often, the necessary reassessment is not made for a long time. In other cases, assessments have been set at an unrealistic level.
  Fourthly, there is supposed to be a formula according to which the absent parent is left with a certain percentage of income after payment to the CSA, but, because of the many other administrative problems that I have outlined, many parents find that their disposable income level falls below the threshold set by the CSA. They are simply unable to make the assessment payments decided by the CSA.
  The second main category of problem, which affects 19 per cent. of my case load, is the time taken to complete an assessment. In some cases, that delay has lasted three years, and in many for more than one year. I am beginning to find that, sadly, longer-standing delays are not dealt with by CSA officers, possibly because they are so busy trying to speed up work on current requests to ensure that delays do not occur in the first instance. That chokes attempts to deal with those longer-standing problems.
  The third main difficulty is the inability of the CSA to take into account relevant new information that can materially affect the original assessment. In addition to those problems, a list of other difficulties has become apparent from my casework. They include failure to provide an interview to someone who needs to present their case to an officer; failure to respond to requests for information; administrative errors; failure to stop attachment of earnings orders long after they have expired; the build-up of arrears without any explanation of how they have arisen; and, in more than one case in my experience so far, the loss of files.
  As a result of those problems, the CSA is increasingly seen as lacking credibility by those who must deal with it. That becomes a problem in itself, and encourages many to find ways of avoiding their obligations.
  I have discovered that a sub-culture has built up among absent fathers. Gradually, a knowledge is growing of various devices, schemes—even scams—to keep the CSA away, sometimes almost indefinitely. Most of those tactics and ruses are picked up in conversation at the works
  46
  canteen, but for those who can afford it, the information is provided by solicitors, who give advice on how to get round certain obligations. Either way, that practice undermines the credibility of the CSA, leaves too many children disadvantaged, and causes too much distress among many parents.
  It is, of course, relatively easy to portray the quantifiable nature of the problems, but what sticks in my mind is the unquantifiable ones—particularly the individuals I see at my surgery who are evidently under immense stress as a result of their struggles with the CSA. I see mothers who struggle to cope with bringing up children while the absent fathers deploy any number of means to avoid paying.
  One popular avoidance tactic that I keep coming across involves the absent father taking out the largest possible mortgage upon leaving a relationship, because those repayments are taken into account when an assessment of his contributions is made. At the same time, the child care costs met by the single mother are not taken into account on her behalf. Equally, I see fathers who are genuinely willing to support their children, but who are asked to do so at a level that destroys their lives and undermines any chance of starting again or sustaining a second family in a new relationship.
  I should like to share with the House one case to illustrate the problems involved. My constituent, Mr. B, had his initial assessment by the CSA in May 1994. It was revised in April 1995, and further review documents were sent out and completed in April 1996, when his ex-wife was also assessed. The CSA stopped his maintenance assessment in February 1997 on the ground that his ex-wife had not co-operated. The CSA then admitted that that decision was incorrect, as his ex-wife had co-operated and returned her forms.
  At that point, Mr. B requested that the status of one of his sons should be investigated: he suspected that he should no longer have to pay for him, since he believed that his son was no longer in full-time education. Mr. B was told via the telephone that the CSA did not undertake that type of inquiry, but, later, he received a letter from it giving the results of its investigation into his son's educational status. In October 1997, his case was closed again, and on the basis of that my constituent took out a mortgage to buy a house. The following month, he was told by the CSA that his case had been closed down again in error, and at this point I intervened. I received an explanation from Faith Boardman, whose letter contained the following observation:
  "I was most concerned about"
  Mr. B's
  "case being incorrectly closed given the similar scenario which occurred last year."
  My constituent requested a review of payments to offset the arrears that had accumulated as a result of the failed closure of his case, and, on 4 February this year, he received no fewer than 12 paying-in slips from the CSA. Not surprisingly, we are still trying to sort out his case.
  It is clear that the present system has become unsustainable. The CSA structures are, in many ways, fatally flawed, and when its failure to interact with the tax and benefits system is factored in, the landscape becomes littered with inconsistencies, perverse incentives and too many ruined lives.

  47
  I am therefore pleased that we are at last embarking on a far-reaching reform of the CSA. As we proceed, we must be entirely clear about our basic objectives: first and foremost must be support for children by their parents, but I hope that we shall also seek a regular and reliable flow of maintenance and fair, effective, clear and affordable outcomes for everyone involved. The solution requires a radical rethink, and I am pleased to hear that that is how Ministers are approaching the problem as they prepare the long-awaited Green Paper.
  5.31 pm
  Mrs. Jackie Ballard: I am disappointed that, so far, few women Members of Parliament have been able to speak in the debate, as the Child Support Act is one of those matters that many members of the public feel would have been treated differently had the House been more representative of gender balance in the past.
  The break-up of a relationship is distressing for everyone, and especially traumatic when children are involved. As we have heard, even normally sensible and caring adults may use children as weapons in their continuing war, either by denying access or by withholding maintenance payments. What is needed is mediation, not confrontation.
  The Child Support Agency is hated by many people because it seldom helps to get extra money to children; it is administratively slow because it works under such a huge burden; it seems to make more than its fair share of mistakes; and, most important, it adds more confrontation and pain to an already difficult situation. As one constituent said to me:
  "the CSA has led to ever-increasing arguments and the collapse of any civility between myself and my ex-husband."
  That cannot be in the interests of the children of the marriage.
  The existence of the CSA and the volume of casework it produces for Members of Parliament should have convinced us all—if we needed convincing—of the value of retaining the link between us and our constituents.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: No PR, then.
  Mrs. Ballard: That is not an argument against proportional representation, but one in favour of retaining the constituency link, which is possible with many PR systems. How else would those who have no personal experience of maintenance wrangles or marital break-up learn about the problems in the execution of an Act that initially had all-party support?
  All hon. Members know of examples of delay and distress caused by the formula, which does not allow for individual circumstances. One of my constituents—a young man whose relationship broke up even before the birth of his child—wanted to be a good father, and had to go to court to get access to his child. However, although he is happy to pay maintenance, his current assessment does not allow for the legal costs he incurred in getting that access to his child to enable him to be a good father. That cannot be in the child's interests, and it might have deterred a less determined father from pursuing his case.
  48
  There are also cases in which, because of the legislation, the agency refuses or is unable to get involved, either because the parent with whom the child lives is working and not on benefit and so is not a high priority, or because there is an existing court order in place.
  One constituent, whom I cannot name, wanted me to draw the House's attention to her plight. She left a husband who was violent and abusive, both to her and to her children. She has a nine-year-old court order for maintenance payments. Fearing for her own and her children's safety, she moved to another part of the country and has made a new life. However, an order that is nine years old requires the payment of far less maintenance than she should currently be getting. She does not want to go back to court, because her ex-husband might discover where she now lives; but the CSA cannot take up her case, because there is a court order in existence.
  Another constituent—a working mother on incapacity benefit—was not considered a priority by the agency because she is working. She has been tempted to give up her job in order to get the agency to help her to obtain maintenance for her children. There are many such instances of the CSA inadvertently encouraging work to welfare.
  When I spoke in the Adjournment debate in June, I outlined my four-point plan for reforming the system. I did not want to bore the House by doing the same today, so I wrote to all my constituents on whose behalf I had taken up CSA casework, and asked them what they thought should be put in place. What follows are their positive suggestions for reform of the CSA.
  First, as has already been mentioned, my constituents say that we should not stigmatise people by using the terms "absent parent" or "parent with care". Secondly, we should make the system genuinely about child support. Thirdly, they feel that people should be able to get face-to-face interviews, as of right, at local offices, to have the opportunity to be heard.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I have a great relationship with the CSA in my part of the country. The staff work on many cases, but always grant a face-to-face confrontational debate with any client who has a grievance. However, I now hear that that office is in danger of closing, despite its being the last on Merseyside where one can go to make a face-to-face inquiry. That is happening all over the country.
  In the interim period between now and the CSA being wound up and a new system being introduced—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I take it that this is an intervention?
  Mr. Fearn: Yes. My final point is, would my hon. Friend agree that closing offices at this stage is not a good thing?
  Mrs. Ballard: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Given the demands on the Child Support Agency, it would not appear sensible to be closing offices and losing staff. I am sure that the Minister will respond on that point.
  The fourth in my constituents' list of suggestions is that there should be individual, rather than formula-driven, assessments. Fifthly, some suggested that the income tax

  49
  code or the national insurance system could be used to recover payments, as happens in Australia. Sixthly, they said that maintenance must be fair, and should reflect the ability to pay. Finally, one constituent made a plea that we should not return to the days of continual visits to court and never-ending war between ex-partners, with suffering children in between.
  All those points could be covered if one agency, such as a court, assessed liability on an individual basis, while another was responsible for the enforcement of court orders. Other hon. Members have referred to the system used in the past, which broke down when it came to enforcement.
  Millions of people have been adversely affected by the Child Support Act, and it is essential that its replacement should be created only after the widest possible consultation—consultation far beyond this place, with people who have personal experience of both the current system and the previous one. It is important that the new system's overriding remit should be to support children whose parents can no longer live together. Parliament got the Child Support Act hopelessly wrong; we must not repeat that mistake.
  5.39 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to speak in today's debate, which touches on an issue that has been of great concern to my constituents.
  While I appreciate the cross-party consensus that exists on many aspects of the subject, I do not believe that the motion, as moved by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), which advocates moving towards a court-based, tribunal-based system—although a number of the comments since made by Liberal Democrat Members have advocated something different—would resolve the difficult problem of ensuring that proper financial provision is made for children whose parents live apart. To say that we need a fair system that encourages parents to agree voluntarily to child support is unrealistic, given the great difficulty that parents have, often in the bitter climate of the breakdown of their relationship, in agreeing to financial support for their children.
  There is no doubt of the size of the task. In 1995, 155,000 marriages, about half of which involved children, ended. In the same year, 90,000 children were born to lone mothers. Those are cases that would never normally go through the divorce courts. Those are the children who are most likely to be brought up in poverty, on benefit. Yet there is often a parent who should be contributing, at least financially, to the children's upbringing. I completely agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) that parents should also be exercising other responsibilities.
  Whatever the difficulties in its administration, the principles behind the CSA are widely held, as is clear from this afternoon's debate. It is perhaps partly the achievement of the CSA that most people who ask for help start by saying, "Of course, I know that I have got to support my kids," before complaining bitterly about some aspects of its implementation.
  The hon. Member for Newbury's criticism that the CSA is actually a Treasury support agency has some sting to it. However, my constituents in Northampton, North
  50
  would not necessarily want to see their hard-earned taxes supporting families where they know that there is a parent who could or should support the children, but chooses to walk away from his or her responsibilities.
  One of my objections to the proposal that maintenance assessment should be down to courts and tribunals is that lone parents with children would often lose out, just as they did in the years before the CSA was set up, when I believe that three out of four children did not receive any support from one of their parents. The need constantly to go back through the courts or tribunals to get maintenance orders enforced would mean that only the more articulate and well-heeled would be able to chase errant partners. Yet to continue as we are now is not much of an option either.
  The CSA's failures account for about one fifth of my casework; I am sure that most other hon. Members are in the same position. Some of the more dramatic cases have included a man whose maintenance payments were taken directly from his pay; because of mistakes made by the CSA and his employers, he was left with £26 one week and £36 another week over Christmas. His workmates had to have a whip round so that his family had enough to live on during the holiday period.
  Another case involved a woman who could not get the CSA to respond for years, then found that she could not get it to enforce maintenance orders against her self-employed former husband. She was left severely out of pocket while she saw her former husband enjoying a good life style with his new partner.
  Those are formidable problems that are distressing to the people involved, time consuming for all those who provide advice or help and expensive for the state. Ultimately, and most importantly, they leave many children to be brought up in poverty.
  Owing to all the difficulties, towards the end of last month, I held a special seminar on the CSA for advice agencies in my constituency and a special surgery for CSA clients. Child Support Agency staff from Belfast and the east midlands attended, and I am most grateful for their support. The occasion provided a good opportunity to talk through some of the measures that could make it easier to achieve the CSA's aims—aims that many divided families say they agree with. Six points emerged that could help to transform the CSA and make it more effective.
  The biggest change would be the introduction of a simpler tariff system for the assessment of maintenance, to simplify and speed up the present procedure. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that that should be based on a flat rate rather than a percentage of earnings, as one of the current problems involves people proving and disputing exactly what constitutes earnings.
  One of the biggest sources of problems with the CSA is the fact that the present assessment procedure is so cumbersome. It provides for endless assessments and reviews, so an absent parent can put off paying maintenance for a couple of years, only to find that he or she is then faced with arrears running into many thousands of pounds. By that time, the family circumstances will have changed and the process will have to begin all over again.
  Having established simpler procedures for setting maintenance, there then needs to be much quicker enforcement. The CSA's present enforcement procedures,

  51
  using deduction of earnings orders to stop money direct from people's wages, are draconian, but they usually come too late. One man who came to see me recently had £500 or more stopped from his £1,100 a month wages—his maintenance liability plus repayment of arrears totalling £12,000. The arrears were mainly his fault, but any sensible collection agency would not allow a person to accrue such arrears in the first place. I understand that the total amount owed by absent parents is £1 billion.
  If the present assessment procedures are retained, better recognition needs to be given to the full cost of housing and travel to work because 15 miles is quite a long distance, particularly when there is no proper public transport. In addition, there should be recognition of parity of the cost of a first and second family.
  A radical improvement is needed in the way in which CSA staff communicate with their clients. Computer printouts do not meet the needs of the many people who need to go through their affairs in detail, face to face with someone else. At present, face-to-face interviews are possible, but many people do not know about them and, in some instances, it appears that those facilities might disappear.
  The CSA needs to be more proactive in chasing up the more difficult cases and getting absent parents who fail to support their children to recognise their financial responsibility. There is resentment of the fact that the CSA chases the more co-operative parents for yet more money while those who do not co-operate still get off scot-free.
  Many absent or non-resident parents resent the fact that, however much they pay to the CSA, they still have little chance of improving the living conditions of children who grow up on income support. Many of my constituents would welcome a maintenance disregard for income support applicants—as suggested by a number of previous speakers—to provide incentives for absent parents to support their children, to provide some parity with applicants in receipt of family credit and to deal with child poverty. At present, we hear of absent parents offering their former partners so much a week not to co-operate with the CSA. The absent parent is better off, there is more money for the children and there is none of the bureaucratic hassle, but the state loses out, which means that other taxpayers lose out.
  The Government are right to review and reorganise the CSA—perhaps to rename it and give it a fresh start. To abolish it would send out mixed messages to the public about changing the rules and letting people off their responsibilities just when we are making some headway and encouraging the idea of parental support and responsibility for children.
  It is right to take a bit more time over the review as it is widely recognised by all parties that many of the problems were caused by the inadequacy of the original legislation and the lack of scrutiny. A botched job will not be made better by a botched repair job.
  I would much rather that we have a thorough review that will produce the changes—I hope that they will be radical changes—that are needed for the CSA to achieve its goals and ensure that parents make proper financial provision for their children even if they do not live with their partners. We must ensure that the state—other
  52
  taxpayers—is not left to pick up the bill for children who are left by one of their parents. Above all, we must ensure that children are properly supported by both their parents, not brought up in poverty.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: One of the advantages of having sat out the previous Parliament is that I have spent five years without having to deal with CSA cases. On my return to Parliament, I found that CSA cases take up much of my time and cause me the most grief.
  It was right and proper that we introduced the CSA through the Child Support Act 1991. I was in the House when the measure was proposed and its principle was welcomed in all parts of the House because it was felt that action was needed to deal with a widespread problem. I remind the House of what the then Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Tony Newton, said when he introduced his White Paper. He outlined what he hoped would result from the measure and said:
  "Governments cannot, of course, ensure that all children always live with both their parents, but they can and should seek to ensure that, whatever the underlying circumstances, the welfare of the children is the prime consideration."
  It was always the Conservative Government's intention to ensure that the measure dealt adequately with the welfare of children.
  In fairness, Mr. Newton said that the taxpayer also had an interest in the matter. He said that support for lone parents
  "places a large burden on those who pay tax, many of whom are themselves bringing up children on perhaps quite modest incomes."—[Official Report, 29 October 1990; Vol.178, c. 729.]
  Those two issues in that order were presented by Mr. Newton. The Minister has been good enough to admit that he has reversed the order. Both are important.
  It was right for us to introduce a measure that tried to deal with the problem of gross irresponsibility because those who produce children, and particularly men, should not be able to walk away from their responsibilities. We must ensure that they maintain their children. The measure has worked but, as the House has heard, there have been grave shortcomings in its operation.
  I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said. My constituents tell me that the CSA seems to concentrate on those, particularly men, who are contributing. Without exception they tell me, "I acknowledge my responsibilities. I know that I ought to pay for the maintenance of my child and I want to do that, but there is a limit to what I can afford."
  The overwhelming proportion of my case load on this issue consists of fathers complaining about the effect on their new family arrangements. Only two mothers came to see me and the husband of one of them is self-employed. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke about the difficulties of the self-employed. That woman knows the life style of her former husband. He has a fine car, a good house, a mobile phone and a fax machine and so on, but he has not paid her a penny and the CSA has told me that there is no way that it can get any money out of him. Such failure is unacceptable.

  53
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is not in his place, spoke about second marriages. The difficulties surrounding such marriages were graphically brought home to me by those who came to my surgery or whom I visited in their homes. Whatever our views on marriage and the desirability of ensuring that marriages are maintained—I know that the Minister and I share strong common ground on that—some break down and we have to try to cope with the consequences.
  If people who have made arrangements remarry, there are inevitably children and it is a traumatic experience trying to cope with the demands that are placed upon them. The problem is not the principle that they should contribute to the maintenance of their children from the previous marriage but the amount of that contribution. They find it intolerable, and I understand why they are exasperated. One man said in my surgery, "Unless I can change the arrangements, I do not see the point in carrying on with life." He did not say that simply to dramatise the situation for my benefit: that is what he felt. A man with an attachment of earnings order loses that money from his account at once because it is the first claim on his income. Such men feel a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness and that is serious.
  Another point that is put to me by constituents is that the first wife has found somebody else, is living comfortably and is being looked after by the new husband. The father who is trying to look after his children as best he can feels a huge sense of grievance. He knows that his child or children are being well looked after because the household in which his ex-wife is living is more comfortable than his own. The CSA does not make as thorough an investigation of how the parent with custody is faring vis-à-vis the father and the father's new family.
  Much has been made of the CSA's staff. I have no doubt that, in a difficult job, the staff are well intentioned and trying to cope. However, some of their mistakes are unforgivable, and the CSA does not seem to be user friendly. As many hon. Members have said, constituents cannot get the staff on the telephone or get any sense from the CSA, and they deal with a different person each time. It took the CSA nine months to assess the review of one of my constituents, although he had provided all that was required. At the end of the nine months, the CSA sent him a bill for £2,000, which is a hell of a lot of money. The guy did not have it and the bill sent a shock through the household. The CSA does not seem to be alive to the implications of the huge burdens that it places on families.
  In a garrison town such as Aldershot, there are also difficulties. There is a lack of sensitivity. A soldier who was about to be posted to Northern Ireland, which in some respects is an active theatre, got a load of stuff from the CSA demanding yet more money two weeks before he was due to go. When he was in Northern Ireland, more letters arrived demanding more money and his second wife told the CSA, "I am not sending these on to my husband. He is out there in Northern Ireland putting his life on the line." The CSA needs to put right that lack of sensitivity.
  I agree with much of what has been said about improvements. If the appointment of case officers means more staff, I think that the House would be prepared to wear it if it means that constituents feel that they have some contact rather than the faceless and constantly changing scene of the CSA. The availability of interviews
  54
  will be beneficial because people want to speak to someone. There is no point in saying, as Mrs. Boardman once said to me, that much business is conducted on the telephone.
  I am not sure that it is possible to devise a formula that will meet all circumstances. A simple formula could be unfair and a complex one would be incredibly time consuming. The CSA must acknowledge that those who are responsible for new families should be given more consideration of what is required to maintain that new family and prevent it from becoming another burden on the state. I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said in the debate. I am sure that the House feels that he will deal sensitively with the matter, and we look forward to the results of his review.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. It enables me to do two things: first, to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform on the strong Government amendment and, secondly, to bring home to him, if I can, the extreme urgency of the review and of the measures that will doubtless attend us.
  As you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our surgeries are sad places; at least mine is. During our surgeries, we deal with just about every form of economic and physical disability and all the attendant miseries that they bring. However, I want to bring home to the Minister—I think that he knows this—that no single thing causes more anxiety, despair, depression and family break-up than the Child Support Agency.
  I take issue with some hon. Members who have spoken about the complexity of this: CSA reform is not a complex matter. The agony of the CSA may be distilled, effectively, into three problems. The first, which has been touched on by many hon. Members, is the CSA's statutory impotence in pursuing and enforcing orders against people who will not co-operate. The vast majority of them are indeed self-employed men who are able to obfuscate the nature of their earnings.
  The second problem is the ghastly and impenetrable formula with which we have to operate and in which CSA staff are trapped. I suffer particularly badly from the formula. Many of my constituents have picked up a rumour that, in my other life, I was a lawyer dealing with commercial fraud in the City. They therefore jump to the conclusion that I may be able to assist them with the impenetrable demands that are made on them by the formula. Thus, when they come to my surgery and perceive that I cannot understand a word of it either, to their many other complaints is added dreadful disappointment at the legal system and legal education.
  The third matter that needs urgently to be dealt with—we all hear about it all the time in our surgeries—is the chaotic state of assessment reviews, which are now done not annually, but, if people are lucky, bi-annually. That results in the sudden, again impenetrable, sometimes downright contradictory demand—to men who have done nothing but honourably meet the debts that they were told they had—for many thousands of pounds, with all the shock and trauma that that causes.
  Recognising as I do that anecdotal evidence is the last thing that the Minister wants in this case, may I bring to his attention one particular case, which involves a soldier,

  55
  interestingly enough? I also represent a garrison town. One particular soldier comes to me. I am honoured when soldiers come into my surgeries. In general terms, and this man is no exception, they are brave and honourable men who want nothing more than to serve their country and to support their children. In that respect, he is absolutely no exception. He and his family have been brought to the verge of despair by a series of completely impenetrable, totally contradictory demands for arrears running into many, many thousands of pounds, which has resulted in the break-up of his family.
  When I see in my surgery that that otherwise brave service man, who would follow you anywhere, Mr. Deputy Speaker—indeed, he would follow you across the sands of Arabia—has been brought to the verge of a nervous breakdown, I reflect that there is one ghastly secret weapon that we must at all cost keep out of the hands of the world's dictators: the workings of the CSA. Indeed, if several million bogus letters resembling those from the CSA were addressed to British soldiers and allowed to waft across the battlefield, it would cause paralysis among the vast majority of our officers and men.
  I advance three nostrums that would largely right the wrongs of the present CSA. First, I am against reinventing the wheel of the family court. The agency in itself, if reformed, is perfectly adequate, but it needs the power to obtain evidence on oath and by affidavit, particularly from people who are recalcitrant and will not provide the evidence that it needs. Thus, the enormously powerful remedy of perjury would be available to the agency, as it was to the courts.
  The second reform that I urge on the Minister is that there should be a limit in the CSA's power to attract or to enforce arrears, where the accumulation of those arrears is the fault of the CSA. My third proposal is that the rigid formula that we have to live with should be replaced by a mixture of consensus and orders, to be backed, if necessary, by proper sanctions. However, those orders should be based on what the courts used to call, in the old days, when we dealt with such things, reasonableness between the parties.
  If those reforms were brought into effect, many of our problems would be resolved and our surgeries would be shorter and infinitely more pleasant.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: I hope that I can say without offending anyone that, as a new Member, this debate has been a refreshing experience for me. This is what the House of Commons should be about: adult discussion, with hon. Members expressing different views, but constructively. It is heartening.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) knows infinitely more about the law than I ever shall, but as other speeches have illustrated, the CSA's activities are not suited to bureaucratic methods. Those are not the right way in which to deal with the problems. Some sort of court system, which should be as informal as possible, would be better.
  With that system, it should be possible to persuade more couples to come to an agreement, which is obviously better than some bureaucrat trying to enforce
  56
  something. It is harder to persuade other couples to come to an agreement, but under that system, they would respect a face-to-face discussion, with a neutral party adjudicating. Many people would accept the decision of that informal system and pay up. There is then the third group, which is totally bloody-minded and would not pay up at all.
  An informal court hearing system that learnt from experience elsewhere—for example, the children's hearing system in Scotland, which works well in dealing informally with family problems that are not unrelated to the things that the CSA examines—would be the best way in which to deal with the matter, rather than having a bureaucrat who tried to enforce lots of rules.
  I was struck by the Minister's comment, if I understood him correctly, that it was not possible for any competent official to understand the whole system. That one sentence demolishes the system. Any system that a reasonably intelligent official cannot understand is not worth having and should be thrown into the wastepaper basket.
  The other aspect is enforcement, to which other hon. Members have referred. That has to be dealt with much more seriously. There could be a structure whereby people who acted in a civilised way and co-operated paid less than those who were bolshie and bloody-minded. It surely must be possible to extract money out of people, using the tax system or whatever other system is used, and ensuring that they pay up. Those who are willing to pay, but who have temporary difficulties, should be treated more leniently. It would be reasonable to have an informal court system to reach agreement on the figures, but a really strict enforcement system for those who will not pay. Then, we would get on much better.
  My experience is that other parts of the benefits system create just as much trouble for people as the CSA. Indeed, I have more trouble with the disability living allowance system than with the CSA. The point is that child support is not a suitable subject for a bureaucratic system.
  I hope that the Minister will consider the ideas put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House in what has been a very constructive debate.
  6.10 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Never has an Act of Parliament caused so much misery as the Child Support Act 1991. It was poor legislation when it was introduced, in too much haste, and it desperately needs reforming. If my right hon. Friend the Minister can create a simple new legislative system that actually works and is seen to be fair by all involved, at some time in the future we might find him perched on a pedestal somewhere along the embankment. My first experience of the Act was when I became a Member of Parliament last May, so I see it only through the eyes of my constituents. As I am by no means an expert, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that even some of the staff at the CSA find the system difficult to operate.
  I want to mention some of the problems that have beset some of my constituents. Several of them are still paying child maintenance, through deduction of earnings, way beyond the normal cut-off age of 18. One constituent is still paying for a child who is well past 19. Perhaps the date of birth could be programmed into the mechanism to trigger an automatic cut-off for the deduction of earnings order, so that my constituents would not have to fight to get the payments stopped.

  57
  In one case, the mother was initially awarded care of the son for 18 months. Unfortunately, it soon became apparent that she was a drug addict. The father has now looked after the son, Simon, for three years. He has been to see me several times, in sheer desperation, because he is still being made to pay child maintenance to the drug-addict mother. Although I have tried, I cannot persuade the Child Support Agency to stop the order. It is a remarkable delay in taking any action.
  Another constituent has tried to commit suicide three times. He often breaks down when he comes to see me in my surgery, so it takes me a long time to interview him and discover any new problem. Over a period of 18 months, he has had 16 reassessments of between £12 and £110, despite the fact that his wage has never changed. He has received no overtime or any other significant alteration in his income over that period. His mother also comes to my surgery, desperately pleading with me to sort out that tricky problem.
  On a more trivial level, one constituent tried to contact the CSA many, many times—unfortunately, on a mobile telephone. When he finally got through, it took 45 minutes to get an answer to his query. He did not dare hang up because he was desperate to sort it out. That one telephone call cost him £28.
  The Child Support Act is anti-marriage—as other hon. Members have said, although sometimes in a different way. A number of my constituents have told me that when they many a new partner, the CSA is quick to descend on them and take any earnings by the new wife into account. However, it does not seem to work the other way. A number of the fathers tell me that their former wives are living in the lap of luxury, often fraudulently claiming benefits. I have submitted evidence to the CSA showing that some mothers are living with new partners who are working and have good incomes, yet they continue to draw benefits, including housing benefit. The CSA just says, "Sorry, it is not our job to sort out fraudulent claims from the Benefits Agency." Surely something must be done about that. Because of such practices, fathers are often less well off than the mothers to whom they pay maintenance through the Child Support Agency.
  The CSA claims that it does not take more than 30 per cent. of disposable income—or 40 per cent. when there are arrears. I have a constituent who is losing half his disposable income because of a CSA assessment. I have fought that, but cannot get it altered. I have not had an adequate response.
  Several hon. Members said that the formula is extremely complicated and does not take into account individual circumstances. I concur with that view. In addition, the forms that must be filled in are far too complicated for many of my constituents, yet they get little help with them. I agree with other hon. Members that, if we are to continue with such a complicated system for the next two years, face-to-face contact with those operating the system is absolutely essential so that correct advice can be given.
  In my constituents' experience, the CSA is unapproachable. Many of them would like to have a calm, collected interview with CSA staff, who could explain how assessments have been made. They would then feel reassured that no mistakes had been made. In fact, a face-to-face interview is difficult to obtain—and, as hon. Members have said, offices are being closed, so it will
  58
  become even more difficult. If, against our hopes, nothing happens, the expectation is that by 2000 there will be a 60 per cent. increase in the number of cases dealt with by the CSA. However, we have been told that in the 1998–99 financial year the agency is expected to make a 10 per cent. saving. That does not make sense. That sort of requirement will not produce the improved service that is obviously needed.
  On behalf of my constituents, I urge good speed on my right hon. Friend the Minister in reforming this invidious piece of legislation. We look forward to a simpler system. None of my constituents disagrees with the basic principle that the care of children should be shared between the parents.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. John Cryer: I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate. I reiterate what other hon. Members have said—what we learn at our advice surgeries and from the letters and telephone calls we receive shows the nightmare that the Child Support Agency has wreaked across the country. Hon. Members from England, Scotland and Wales have spoken this afternoon, but they all tell of the same experience—that the CSA is making many lives miserable. I was pleased to see the strength of language used in the Government amendment; I hope that it is a sign of the speed with which the Government will change the system.
  Last year, at the back of the Child Support Agency's annual report—which was released in July and, in the circumstances, was a surprisingly cheery little tome—the Comptroller and Auditor General delivered his own report, in which he mentioned a few alarming percentages. Some examples included the fact that 39 per cent. of receipts from absent parents were wrong, as were 85 per cent. of absent parents' maintenance balances. Those mistakes have a clear and common root: the initial assessments made by the Child Support Agency were wrong, which led to the subsequent mistakes.
  A related matter, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform said, is the system's complexity, in addition to its rigidity. Like other hon. Members, I have experiences of ringing the Child Support Agency with a perfectly reasonable offer that is turned down because those at the agency say that it is not allowed by the formula in the original legislation.
  We must deal not only with mistakes in maintenance assessments and with rigidity and complexity in the original legislation's formula, but with enormous time lags in dealing with assessments or reassessments—which, last year, took at least a year in more than half the applications. Only 63 per cent. of cases requiring assessments to be readjusted were cleared in 13 weeks, which is an appalling track record for any agency.
  One of my constituents, who was working as a docker at Tilbury docks, was earning £1,400 net per month—which included a great deal of overtime that he earned to pay £350 monthly to the Child Support Agency. After he received a serious injury—which often happens to dockers—his income fell to £1,100 per month because of lost overtime. The CSA refused to take account of that income drop, the consequence of which was that he breached the protected income figure that the CSA had determined. I was told over the telephone by the CSA that the figure was £880, but that figure was later denied.

  59
  Subsequently, although the CSA agreed that it was all right to breach that figure, there were further complications. The agency eventually made an adjustment of £8 per week and apologised for its mistake. However, that constituent was probably only one of thousands of people who have enormous problems with the CSA, which are making their lives a real misery.
  The root of the problems is undoubtedly six years ago, when the CSA was founded. It was established hurriedly and incompetently, and on fairly inaccurate information, to subsidise state spending. It has consequently become the shambles that it is today. The previous Government saw in the CSA and in the Child Support Act 1991 an opportunity to subsidise their social security spending, and we are living with the consequences.
  Mr. Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman referred to the delays, which in my experience are absolutely critical. In his speech, the Minister rightly praised the work of staff who are already at the agency. Something that all hon. Members could look forward to is having twice as many excellent members of staff working at the agency. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in asking the Minister immediately to put more resources into staff, so that matters are dealt with more quickly? The review is bound to take much longer, and misery will continue to be inflicted on people unless there are more resources for staff.
  Mr. Cryer: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have conveyed the message and agree that extra resources are desirable. However, the change programme—which is a leftover from the previous Government and was clearly an attempt to privatise sections of the public sector—is continuing, and it will not help the CSA or any other part of the public sector. As we are already seeing, that programme is really privatisation by the back door.
  There is evidence that single parents—or parents with care—are deliberately trying to avoid going to the CSA. As I have heard in my surgery, if they go to the CSA, their benefits might be stopped and they might have to wait for six or 12 months—they do not know for how long—until they get money from the CSA. There are also fears that the ex-husband or ex-partner, if he is of a violent frame of mind, might come calling if the CSA starts pursuing him in the manner that it does.
  I should like the CSA to be overhauled radically, which would effectively entail its abolition and replacement with something else. I have sympathy for moving towards the Australian system, but I do not advocate a return to using family courts, which are unnecessary. We could move towards a more consensual system, so that we do not have a repeat of the huge misery that has been caused in the past six years. However, that is the long term; in the short term, the system requires an overhaul of its method of assessment and of the criteria that it uses. The system will then start to work more efficiently.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) mentioned the problem of lowering the divorce rate and said that there is not an easy answer to that problem. However, the easy answer is full employment. I guarantee that the divorce rate will drop like a stone if we have full employment. The causes of
  60
  divorce are poverty, financial insecurity and unemployment. Once we start more broadly to attack those problems, the divorce rate will start to drop.
  6.25 pm
  Mrs. Janet Dean: I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate, which has been very useful in allowing new Members to share the considerable knowledge of the operation of the Child Support Agency that we have gained in recent months. It is important that we have radical reform, as nothing less will bring respect to a vital service for children in the United Kingdom.
  Sadly, I do not believe that, from its inception, the Child Support Agency has had respect—which is not an accusation against its staff. As other hon. Members have said in this debate, the agency's staff are working in very difficult circumstances. Specifically, because the legislation was retrospective, havoc was caused and good support agreements between parents were torn apart once the Child Support Agency became involved. The children are the ones to lose out when a quite reasonable relationship breaks down.
  The CSA tackled the "easy cases" because it had to get the money in. Therefore, those who most need maintenance support for their children do not receive the help from the agency that they should have. Demands were made on absent parents—I, too, think that we should change that phrase, but it is the one that we currently use—that were seen to be unreasonable.
  Mr. Mark Oaten: Surely the hon. Lady will agree that, as the Government have used the phrase "non-resident" in their amendment to the motion, she could use this opportunity to tell the Minister that there is no reason why the phrase could not be changed tomorrow. Making that change and doing away with the term "absent parent" would make a great difference to many people who complain about it. Perhaps the Minister will consider doing so tomorrow, and the hon. Lady can make representations on that.
  Mrs. Dean: I certainly urge the Minister to change the term to "non-resident parent" as soon as possible and practicable. As has already been said in the debate, most parents—usually fathers, but sometimes mothers—want to pay to support their children. However, they are faced with problems such as those that have been mentioned. Ultimately, money is demanded of them and they think that the system is being unfair.
  As hon. Members have said, there are cases in which a first wife who has care of the children becomes relatively well off when she remarries. It is a real problem when both the non-resident parent who is paying for a child's upkeep and his second family are struggling and suffering, whereas his ex-wife's new family are living quite well. The problem is that he is paying to support not only the child, but the mother and the child. Clearly, that causes a great deal of resentment. There have been so many mistakes in the calculations that the whole system has been brought into disrepute.
  The other side of the equation is that the parent with care is not getting the maintenance that she—it is generally a she—should be getting. As has been said, it is particularly difficult to sort out when the non-resident parent is self-employed. We must introduce methods to

  61
  tackle that problem. It is easy to get money from an individual who is paid a wage—one can simply have an order placed on that wage—but it is not so easy when the individual is self-employed.
  I quite like the idea of a percentage or flat-rate system being introduced, but whatever we do needs to be simple.
  Dr. Iddon: Does my hon. Friend admit that there is a danger in a percentage system in that it would hit low wage earners far harder than it would hit those who are extremely or moderately well off?
  Mrs. Dean: I think that a percentage system would generally be able to recognise differences in income. There needs to be a recognition of additional children for whom people may care. For example, I know of cases in my constituency where a man pays to support his children from a former marriage. At the same time, his new wife has children from her previous marriage, but those children are getting no income from her previous partner. Effectively, the husband is being forced to support two families. Any new maintenance assessment procedure needs to cover such problems.
  Mr. Rendel: Has not the hon. Lady just exemplified why any formula is so difficult to operate? Every Labour Member who has suggested a formula of any kind has immediately had to say that of course it would also have to take into account this, that and the other. To be fair, the Tories were beginning to introduce some changes, but the formula became ever more complex.
  Mrs. Dean: Obviously, any review is going to be difficult; if that were not so, we would not be discussing the matter now.
  I urge Ministers to consult as widely as possible and in the greatest possible depth on any proposals. Our main objective must be a formula that is simple enough for everyone to understand—not only parents, but the people who operate it. It must also be respected on all sides. That is crucial because where the country went wrong in the first place was in establishing an agency that did not have that respect. We must start afresh and introduce a system that everyone can respect.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: Hon. Members of all parties have said what a good debate this has been, and I echo those sentiments. The tone was well set by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) in the measured way in which he moved the motion, and that tone was picked up by the Minister of State and, indeed, by the Opposition spokesman. Today's experience has shown the value of Opposition day debates and, at the risk of being ever so slightly partisan, of Liberal Democrat Opposition day debates in particular. We have sought to take a contentious issue and offer some constructive thoughts on how it might be dealt with.
  As a new Member, I was intrigued to hear the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). They mentioned two things that Back Benchers can do to make individual constituents feel part of the political process. My hon. Friend related how she had asked constituents who had had contact with the CSA
  62
  and who had written to her about it what they would do. She has ensured that their voices have been heard today, and that is very valuable. The hon. Member for Northampton, North brought together all the stakeholders—I think that that is the phrase—in the Child Support Agency and enabled a dialogue to take place. Face-to-face dialogue is what is so often lacking—that is what we need more of, not the shutting of benefit offices.
  I am grateful to the Minister of State for his kind remarks. He has been something of a sponsor of my involvement in these Corridors in that, while he was Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, I took on the role of specialist adviser. I think of him as a sponsor, or almost a godfather—[Interruption.] Yes, an absent parent. It is not a role that he will regret.
  Many of the hard-pressed staff of the CSA have been praised by hon. Members, and I echo that praise. The people whom we telephone on the Members of Parliament hotline often give prompt and efficient service. That is good and it makes some of my constituents think that I am an effective Member of Parliament, which is always welcome. However, when I achieve something as a Member of Parliament by pulling strings or using special telephone lines, I wonder why my constituents cannot get the same service. I hope that whatever system we introduce will give everyone that quality of service.
  Some of the praise for the staff rings a little hollow, given that we know that some of them will be laid off or not have their contracts renewed even though the agency's work load will increase by 50 per cent. In two years' time, the Government may have a simple system in place and those staff may not be needed, but between now and then, it is going to be hell—hell for the staff and for the people who have to deal with the agency. Although the language has been measured, and there have been good-natured comments from all parties, I hope that the Government will not take that as a reason for complacency—I am sure that they will not. The language has been measured, but for our constituents, this is a matter of great urgency. I hope that once the Green Paper has been produced in the summer and the consultation has been undertaken, the Government will act quickly.
  Where should we go from here? It is easy to take an easy target like the CSA and to say that we should get rid of it—and get a few good headlines in the process—but to offer no alternative. We must not be guilty of that; we must offer a constructive way forward. Today, we have heard many elements of that way forward. The new agency, the court or whatever system we put in its place must be properly resourced from the outset.
  The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) mentioned the CSA's annual report, which states that half of all maintenance applications are more than a year out of date. Sometimes, my constituents have to wait a while for a reply from me, but if half had to wait for a year, I suspect that I would not have a job after the next election, and rightly so.
  The CSA's report also shows that in one in six cases, the assessment of maintenance owed is out by more than £1,000. How can that have been allowed to continue for so long? When will it get better? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us.
  The agency's replacement—whether it be a new agency or a court—must be properly funded and flexible. Criticism has been made—rightly so—of a rigid,

  63
  formula-based system. The initial system was rigid and it was seen to be unjust, so departures from the rigid system were introduced to correct perceived injustices. If the original formula was too rigid and inflexible and created injustices, how can it be right to move towards an even more simplistic, rigid and bureaucratic formula?
  The Minister of State essentially announced a non-residential child tax. That is my understanding of the drift of the Government's proposal. It will certainly be simple, it will save on staffing at the agency and it will cut the backlog but, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said, a simple formula will mean rough justice. If there was a sense of rough justice with the fairly sophisticated formula with which we began, how much greater will the sense of injustice be if a tax—a flat-rate or a percentage system—is introduced?
  Mr. Field: As the hon. Gentleman's party claims to have introduced income tax, how does that feature in his argument?
  Mr. Webb: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been washing their hands of what happened under the previous Administration, but I am not sure that we can be blamed for income tax.
  To use the court system as an analogy, once innocence or guilt has been established, judges have flexibility in sentencing to enable them to take account of the circumstances of an individual case. There is no reason why the same should not apply to child support. We should have broad guidelines and principles, but the ability to take individual circumstances into account.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is no longer in his place, proposed a test of reasonableness. That is a good idea. Instead of having a flat-rate or lump-sum tax, there should be a reasonable assessment of individual circumstances. The system needs to be flexible, fair and seen to be fair. The Child Support Agency is neither. We have heard today that parents with care and non-resident parents want the chance to be heard. That will not happen if they are faced with a lump-sum tax that takes no account of their personal circumstances.
  The agency has been accused of chasing easy cases. That is another instance in which the CSA is not seen to be fair. I make one suggestion as to how that perception can be changed. The performance targets for the CSA relate partly to how much maintenance it recovers and not to the number of people from whom maintenance is recovered. Members of the CSA staff worth their salt will, therefore, go for the easy cases in order to meet their performance target. The performance target should also relate to the proportion of people from whom money has been recovered and thereby change the incentive structure. Perhaps the next set of performance targets should create the right incentives instead of the wrong ones.
  Most of all, we need a system of child support that puts children first. The hon. Member for Croydon, North made several proposals with which I heartily agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that we needed to ensure that the incentives were right. At the moment, they are all wrong.
  64
  There is no incentive to co-operate as it is not in the interests of the absent parent or the children. For goodness' sake, we should allow the parents—and thereby the children—to keep some of the money. That would not cost much up front and it could even save money if it increased compliance with the CSA. It could also be introduced in the Budget. If there are a few hundred million pounds knocking around—and I understand that the Chancellor has a little to throw into the pot—let us forget about working family tax credits and have instead a maintenance disregard.
  Just occasionally, the Liberal Democrats are asked where the money would come from to pay for our ideas. The working family tax credit will require several hundred million pounds. I would throw the money in a different direction. We need a system that puts children first and a maintenance disregard would do exactly that.
  Mention has been made of letting people take maintenance into work as a firm foundation. That has to be right. If maintenance were enforced, a lone mother would have the confidence to take work knowing that the maintenance that she received was guaranteed by the state. If that money stopped, the state would have plenty of mechanisms for recovering it. The state is pretty good at getting money off people—much better than the CSA.
  If we are interested in welfare to work—and apparently we are—let us give lone parents the bedrock of maintenance. Let us make sure that they get it and thus give them an incentive to co-operate with the agency. If they take low-paid work, let us underwrite their maintenance so that they have the confidence to take a job.
  We have sought to be constructive about the direction that we want child support policy to take. We believe that a flat-rate or percentage tax would be a gross injustice and that the system should take account of individual circumstances and put children first.
  6.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): I acknowledge that the Liberal Democrats initiated the debate, and it is important that the Government respond to the many issues that have been raised.
  I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in today's extremely interesting, thoughtful and stimulating debate. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) set the tone, and enabled it to be one of the better parliamentary occasions in which I have participated in the past 11 years. Similarly, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) summed up the Liberal Democrat position, although I am not totally convinced that he answered the question from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform about the future of income tax, but we shall leave that for another occasion.
  Crucially, the debate has enabled hon. Members—and particularly Back Benchers—on both sides of the House to express their views about the way in which the Child Support Agency should be reformed. The important message that has come out of the debate is how clearly and consistently the issues that concern hon. Members have been placed on record, and the fact that many of those issues are common to all hon. Members through their postbags and their constituency casework. I can assure the House that Ministers deal with similar constituency cases. Many of the issues are common to us all, and form our thinking as the review progresses.

  65
  There is a fundamental principle on which all debates on child support should be based: all children have a right to the emotional and financial support of both their parents. That right does not diminish if their parents no longer live together. It is a principle to which the Government fully subscribe, and we shall ensure that it is at the heart of any reform of the child support scheme.
  As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate for the Government, child support has the potential drastically to enhance the quality of life of many of the poorest children in society. He set out the principles and objectives that we want the Green Paper to address, and the direction that we expect it to take. He and many other hon. Members rightly praised the staff of the CSA, and I add my voice to that—but not without caveat and exception.
  In praising the staff, we have to recognise the difficulties they experience because of the nature of their work and the formula that we have imposed on them, as well as the context in which they operate. In addition, the technology that they use to assess people fails to communicate with other agencies.
  For example, the Child Support Agency cannot communicate with the Benefits Agency, so income support and maintenance—fundamentals of the system—cannot be considered together. That results in anguish and concern for the parent with care and the absent parent when letters from the CSA cascade through their letterboxes. It is not necessarily the fault of the staff, but it is the fault of the system, which cannot suppress change after change to the formula. We have to address those issues if we are properly to address the needs of staff and ensure that praise is directed towards them.
  As I said, many hon. Members have expressed their views on how the Child Support Agency should be reformed. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) assured us that he welcomed the forthcoming Green Paper, and that the Opposition would contribute to the debate and make their own proposals for reform. We look forward to those as soon as possible.
  I welcome—as I always do in summing up such debates—the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks). He always gives a thoughtful and comprehensive view of the state of child support in the widest sense. His contributions are always welcome. He particularly advocated a child maintenance disregard, as he has consistently for many years. I assure him that that will be included as part of our review.
  Like many hon. Members, my hon. Friend has called for a simpler formula, but recognised the rough justice that that may cause. The formula is part of the review. He also called for a more case-worker-focused approach to child support and assessment, as did many others, including the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who is not in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard). They recognise the need for face-to-face contact.
  Mr. Blizzard: One of the most enlightening points made during the debate came from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform. When asked, "Why cannot my constituents speak to the same person?" he explained that many cases were too complicated for one person. That is an argument for simplification.
  66
  If a case is too complicated for the official, it must be too complicated for the customer. While we are seeking a way to reform the system, cannot a method be devised to enable our constituents to go back to a named official who either knows the answer or can get the answer from someone who knows?
  Mr. Bradley: I understand that well-made point. We are looking carefully at interaction between the agency and the public.
  Comment has been made about proposals to close offices. Those proposals relate mainly to the centralisation of processing work rather than direct contact, be it face to face, by telephone or through other methods of communication. We want to move towards individual casework, while recognising that an individual case worker may not have all the tools to deal with the case.
  We want to streamline the process to ensure that the member of the public knows whom they are talking to on the telephone or has the opportunity to go into the office and make direct contact, which is the most effective way to get satisfaction. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform said, when more than 90 per cent. of staff time is taken trying to understand the formula, how can we ensure that face-to-face work is undertaken? The process has to be streamlined and simplified.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) proposed simplifying the system with a percentage scheme. That will have to be considered. He also pointed out the crucial problem of dealing with self-employed people. That point has been well made by hon. Members on both sides. I am well aware of it from my constituency cases. I assure the House that we shall examine the issue in the review.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), the hon. Member for Taunton and others talked about terminology. We have recognised the need for more sensitive terminology. The term "non-resident parent" has been used. It has been suggested that we could make the change overnight. We can change the words we use when we talk, but my understanding—I shall confirm this—is that the terms "parent with care" and "absent parent" are used in primary legislation. Changing all references to those terms would require changes to primary legislation, which cannot be done overnight. However, that does not stop us using more family-friendly terms—perhaps "Mum" and "Dad" are suitable.
  Many hon. Members have suggested that change should come as soon as possible. I recognise the anxieties expressed by hon. Members on both sides about their dealings with the Child Support Agency. We want to ensure that any change we make is a change for the better. We do not want to rush into quick fixes that compound the problems that we are all experiencing.
  Debates such as this give Back Benchers a chance to express their views. There will also be an opportunity for proper consultation when the Green Paper is published, when we hope to have a further useful debate—as we have had this evening—on reform of the Child Support Agency. We want to reflect the wishes of all hon. Members, and do not want to compound the difficulties by rushing into reform without fully understanding all the problems.
  I commend the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), who made a detailed examination of his cases. The evidence

  67
  he presented to the House will help to inform our decisions on the details of the reform process. I shall read the report of his contribution carefully, to ensure that the issues that he has raised are taken into account in the review.
  I understand the anxiety that has been expressed about the Child Support Agency's budgets for the next two years. We have put in an extra £15 million for this financial year. Another £15 million will be put in for the next financial year in an attempt to resolve some of the agency's administration difficulties. On top of that, from April there will be an opportunity for Benefits Agency staff to help with income support assessments and the filling in of child support assessment forms.
  I recognise the problems that have been identified on the complexity of child support assessment forms. Similar problems are experienced with all social security forms. A fundamental review of all social security forms is under way. There is no point in collecting information for the sake of it. We have to ensure that the information we collect has a purpose, can be used sensibly, and leads to a more efficient and effective service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North made proposals on sensible reform of the agency. I assure her that we shall consider them carefully to determine how they can best fit into the Green Paper. She will have an opportunity for further comment at that stage.
  I also commend the contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber. With his experience of the court system, his endorsement that a return to it is not the best way forward was important. He identified three reforms. We shall take them forward.
  The hon. Member for Northavon made a careful point about performance targets. We have to examine all social security performance targets to ensure that we assess outcomes rather than using them as a tool to shift work that is inaccurate and inefficient, and leads to repetition later. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that work is under way.
  We aim to bring forward proposals by the summer which will improve the CSA, encourage parents to fulfil their emotional and financial responsibilities, and, crucially, put children first. I therefore hope that the House will support the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 296.

  Division No. 157]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Chidgey, David

  Baker, Norman

  Cotter, Brian

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brake, Tom

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Breed, Colin

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Burnett, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Burstow, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  68

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

  Keetch, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wallace, James

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Webb, Steve

  Welsh, Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Wilkinson, John

  Moore, Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Oaten, Mark

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rendel, David

  Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Adrian Sanders.

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ainger, Nick

  (Copeland)

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Darvill, Keith

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davidson, Ian

  Austin, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Denham, John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Berry, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Best, Harold

  Dowd, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Drew, David

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Edwards, Huw

  Borrow, David

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burgon, Colin

  Flynn, Paul

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Follett, Barbara

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galloway, George

  Caplin, Ivor

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Casale, Roger

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cawsey, Ian

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Grocott, Bruce

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Home Robertson, John

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  69

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Meale, Alan

  Hurst, Alan

  Michael, Alun

  Hutton, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Milburn, Alan

  Illsley, Eric

  Miller, Andrew

  Ingram, Adam

  Mitchell, Austin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jamieson, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Mudie, George

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Mullin, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Norris, Dan

  Khabra, Piara S

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Laxton, Bob

  Olner, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Levitt, Tom

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Linton, Martin

  Pearson, Ian

  Lock, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Love, Andrew

  Pickthall, Colin

  McAllion, John

  Pike, Peter L

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Plaskitt, James

  McCabe, Steve

  Pollard, Kerry

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Pond, Chris

  McFall, John

  Pope, Greg

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Pound, Stephen

  McIsaac, Shona

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Primarolo, Dawn

  McLeish, Henry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McNamara, Kevin

  Purchase, Ken

  McNulty, Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Radice, Giles

  McWalter, Tony

  Rapson, Syd

  McWilliam, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Rooney, Terry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Marek, Dr John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Roy, Frank

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Salter, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  70

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Touhig, Don

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Trickett, Jon

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Truswell, Paul

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  White, Brian

  Snape, Peter

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  (Swansea W)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wise, Audrey

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wood, Mike

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wray, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wyatt, Derek

  (Dewsbury)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Timms, Stephen

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that all children have the right to the support of both parents wherever they may live, that the previous Government failed to set up an effective system of child support through the Child Support Agency because the CSA was introduced in a hasty and ill thought out manner, that the current child support formula is complex, difficult for parents to understand, and slow, inaccurate and expensive to deliver, that the result is that the CSA has failed to increase the proportion of parents who pay regular maintenance for their children and that 70 per cent. of parents with care are refusing to co-operate with the CSA and 60 per cent. of non-resident parents either pay no maintenance or only pay sporadically, and that the receipt of regular maintenance is an important part of the Government's strategy of tackling child poverty; and welcomes the fact that the Government is looking closely at all areas of the child support system to ensure that it is consistent, fair and efficient and that it expects to bring forward its proposals by the summer.

  Railways
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that rail privatisation by the Conservative Government has been a disaster, failing on many routes to deliver customer satisfaction, reliability or an integrated service; and therefore calls on the Government to work with the regulator to set and enforce standards, withhold grants in cases of persistent failure, and bring forward policies to deliver investment in a safe, reliable and affordable rail system at the heart of an integrated sustainable transport strategy.
  This is an important debate. As a nation, we travel to work on trains, we go to see our friends on the train, we conduct our business by train. The train network is and remains an integral part of British daily life. It will become even more important in future as we strive to cut the number of unnecessary car journeys. The arguments against rising car use are well rehearsed and I shall not go into too much detail now. The debate on the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill showed the cross-party consensus on the issue, although regrettably, Conservative Front Benchers oppose national targets for cutting unnecessary car use.
  Car ownership is predicted to increase by as much as 40 per cent., and many roads and motorways are already at capacity. The rail network is vital to reducing the resulting congestion and air pollution. Rail can take a bigger proportion of travellers and freight, but will not do so if we cannot make it more attractive and reliable.
  The apparently easy task of getting from A to B by train is often far from simple. I say that as one of the Members who has the furthest to travel, and regularly does so by train using the relatively good Great Western service. Still, I have seen the problems and I know from talking to the hard-working staff that they have seen them too.
  For too many people, rail travel is a time-consuming, costly, unreliable and confusing process. A cursory flick through the national press of the past few months confirms this: "Privatisation comes off the rails"; "Rail companies attacked for poor service"; "Rail companies told to shape up"; "Rail complaints rise"; "Rail fares rise as service declines". These have all been national newspaper headlines since privatisation.
  Meanwhile some people have reaped a bonanza: "£400 million profit", read the headlines as Porterbrook directors got rich when the rail leasing firm was sold to Stagecoach. No wonder the National Audit Office is investigating whether the Government have really achieved value for money in the brave new world of post-privatisation transport competition.
  Is that really what the Conservative Government had in mind when they went ahead with one of the most ill-judged privatisations of recent years? They may have promised us an improved, cheaper and more efficient service, but that is not what we got. Liberal Democrats opposed the Conservative Government's privatisation; we never believed that it would deliver quality of service to rail users or the investment that the rail network needed.
  72
  We wanted to develop new investment partnerships with the private sector. We suggested opening up routes to private operators if the public sector would not or could not make that investment, but we did not believe that privatisation was the solution—and we have been proved right.
  Taking the rail service industry back into public hands is now impractical—that horse has bolted. It is simply too expensive; and 18 years of Tory mismanagement have left many other services crumbling for want of cash: schools, hospitals and public housing, for instance. There are vast demands for public sector investment.
  Government intervention cannot make the system perfect, either. Whoever owns the railways, we know that there will never be 100 per cent. punctuality and reliability—any more than car drivers can expect to have a good idea of when they will arrive in London from Cornwall. That form of transport is even less punctual and reliable—a point I often make to those who criticise the railways. There will always be a tree that falls on the line, a lorry that crashes into a bridge. The problems of the rail service today go far beyond all that.
  A prime example would be bad management, which is when the Government have an obligation to intervene. The debacle of the cancellations of South West Trains last year is a case in point—cutting the number of train drivers to save money to the point where services cannot run because there are not enough drivers is obviously unacceptable. It was indeed the worst kind of mismanagement.
  Never let us forget that the companies are subsidised by the taxpayer, and if services are not delivered owing to bad management decisions, the companies must be effectively penalised. Only when poor service directly equates to poor profits for those companies will things change; that has not yet happened.
  The latest figures from the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising show that, compared with the corresponding figures for the previous year, performance figures to the end of 1997 have taken a marked turn for the worse. Punctuality deteriorated on nearly half the reported route groups. That triggered season ticket discounts on six routes: Anglia, Cross Country, Great North Eastern, Great Western, and two west coast train routes, North West and Scotland. Almost one third of all routes failed to meet their passenger charter targets. Great North Eastern, Great Western, Virgin Cross Country and Virgin West Coast Trains performed so badly in terms of punctuality that they were obliged to offer discounts to season ticket holders. They were so bad, in fact, that they had to return the annual basic funding on which they rely.
  Reliability indicators were little better. They, too deteriorated on nearly half the routes, triggering season ticket discounts on two routes, Anglia and Regional Railways. Eighteen service groups failed to meet their passenger charter targets. In 1997, companies that performed badly in respect of train cancellations included South West Trains, Anglia, Central, Connex South Central and Connex South Eastern, LTS and Regional Railways North East.
  Meanwhile, subsidies have increased vastly, up from £1 billion under British Rail the year before privatisation to about £2 billion now. Despite that, quality standards on many parts of the network are slipping. A tiny minority of customers received refunds—those who experienced the

  73
  worst delays and who could afford to buy season tickets, or those who experienced the very worst delays provided that they were not due to natural causes. Even then, they were often entitled only to a percentage of their fare.
  Having taken up cases before privatisation, I know from experience that British Rail was often far more generous than many of the present operators in giving such returns. Now, the operators generally work to agreements set through the regulator and will not go beyond those, whereas discretion was often used quite generously in the past if passengers had a genuine cause for complaint.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not also a fact that, because many people travel with more than one rail operator, they find it difficult to pursue a complaint? For example, three operators may have all failed to deliver the rail service that they should have done.
  Mr. Taylor: I agree. I was dictating a letter to just such a disgruntled passenger earlier. I have been trying to achieve some acceptance of responsibility, let alone compensation, on the part of three different operators. We have settled for agreeing between ourselves that the system is not working because we seem to be able to make no progress with the complaint. Here, I must congratulate Great Western Trains, which often gives full refunds voluntarily when it believes that a complaint is justified.
  The truth is that the majority of passengers who are affected by delays do not come into categories that would entitle them to compensation on most lines and so receive not a penny back. On the contrary, the majority have experienced slipping standards combined with real-terms fare rises.
  Anglia Railways, which runs commuter services from Essex and Suffolk to London's Liverpool Street station, produced the worst monthly performance since privatisation, when 37 per cent. of its trains from November to December ran late. Yet, in the first week of January, the company enjoyed a fare increase of 4.3 per cent. above inflation. Indeed, several of the worst performing companies, including Connex South Eastern, Connex South Central and Anglia Railways, increased their fares above the inflation rate early this year.
  Faced with poor services and rising prices, the only option available to many customers was to complain, and that they have been doing in droves. Last summer, complaints soared by 96 per cent. They concerned reliability, overcrowding, punctuality, information at stations, the suitability of services and carriage cleanliness. Between June and September, the London regional passenger committee alone dealt with a record 769 complaints.
  Also, hon. Members may not be entirely surprised to hear that complaints about Virgin West Coast were among the highest, rising by 83 per cent., while those about Connex South Central were up a massive 158 per cent. A pattern of certain names already seems to be emerging in my speech. Frankly, that is down to bad management.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that he is keen to explore the figures further. I should risk unduly delaying the House if I went through all the figures that are available to show the size of the problem.
  Mr. Robert Key: Spare us.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that I shall not do it, but I hope that he will tackle the real problems facing his constituents.
  We are talking about bad management made worse by inadequate powers for the regulator and insufficient overall national co-ordination. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that the most heavily penalised rail company, Connex South Eastern, has failed to tackle management issues, such as the high incidence of drivers taking sick leave, or to cope with staff shortages at one of its main repair and maintenance depots. Is it any wonder that South West Trains, another familiar name, which encouraged drivers to take redundancy only to find that it did not have enough left, performed badly during the year in terms of train cancellations? It was fined just over £1.8 million, but in the same financial period it was awarded £1.7 million as a special performance bonus. In other words, for all the disruption and misery caused to passengers by poor management decisions, the company was fined a net £100,000 compared to the annual £63 million subsidy that it is paid by the taxpayer.
  The train operating companies would no doubt argue that recent performance levels are better than they were shortly before privatisation, although if one speaks to them they tend to accept that their performance has been inadequate. South West Trains admitted as much to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). It is true that the operating companies took on a difficult job post-privatisation. They are coping with the Conservative backlog of under-investment in rolling stock and infrastructure that will take years to make up.
  However, the problems go deeper than that. No passenger who has had to stand on an empty platform, as I and a number of my constituents who have written to me have done, after a connection has left the station minutes before our train arrived, will accept that excuse. The late train that I arrived on was not late enough for the operator to be fined—often, it is a matter of minutes. The operator of the connecting service ensured that it left on time so that it did not risk a fine for running late. The passenger ends up stranded. In the old days, the passenger came first. Station staff had the flexibility to ensure that they met the connection. Now, the passenger is literally left behind and stranded passengers cannot even bask in the thought that the operating company will be penalised for the failure. On the contrary, because both the trains I mentioned were within the time limits, the operators were given a pat on the back and could hope for performance bonuses at the end of the year, as South West Trains discovered.
  It is more than two years since the first private operators took over. Privatisation was meant to transform the service, which had been run down before privatisation by massive under-investment. By 1993–94, the year of privatisation, investment had dropped to just £817 million. Those failing train companies are now two years into a seven-year franchise. The major decisions on investment have to be taken early or the short franchises will preclude the value of investing.
  The failure to deliver a much better quality service, despite a doubling of state subsidy to £2 billion, is a scandal. Too often, train operating companies are not even

  75
  capable of organising the correct information on their services, let alone running them. The regulator's report on national rail inquiries speaks volumes. One in 10 travellers received the wrong information, only one in five inquiries about advance purchase tickets was correctly answered and one third of answers to inquiries about advance Sunday tickets were wrong. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I now have a rule. If I have to phone the National Rail Enquiry Service about a route that I do not know well, I phone twice to find out whether the information is the same—regularly, it is not.
  Meanwhile, it is true that Railtrack's performance is improving and that the percentage of occasions on which it causes delays is dropping as the train operating companies' performance deteriorates. However, Railtrack is still responsible for 60 per cent. of passenger delays. While it has had some real success in maintaining the existing network, this year only 18 miles of track—the Heathrow express line—is scheduled for electrification, which is hardly a brave new world for our railways.
  We cannot debate this subject without touching on the confusion in London and Continental Railways. If anything can sum up the 18 years of misguided Tory rule, it is the abject failure to get the high-speed link built. Let us look at what the taxpayer handed over: £1.4 billion in cash on delivery; the entire Eurostar operation running through the channel tunnel; hugely valuable land around King's Cross; and even the brand new terminus at Waterloo, which incidentally was built on time and within budget by the publicly owned British Rail, which the Conservatives would not trust to build the high-speed link.
  If the Government can find a way of getting the link built, to get car and lorry traffic off the roads, it will help meet their objectives on CO2 and traffic congestion reduction and they will receive the full support of the Liberal Democrats. I hope that the search will be on for private sector partners, since it is hard to see how even more funding can be found from the taxpayer, however much Labour Back Benchers may welcome nationalisation. I have some sympathy for Ministers wrestling with this problem, which was caused by the Tories, but it is not easy to see the solutions. Perhaps Ministers will be able to tell us today of any progress that they have made.
  "The privatised railway receives hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy from taxpayers each year, and we expect high-quality services in return."
  Those are not my words, but the words of the Minister of Transport, speaking shortly after the general election. We agree, but does the Minister believe that we now have such a high-quality service? If not, are not firm leadership and tough action as overdue as so many of our train arrivals?
  The Minister has said that the Government would use all the tools at their disposal to ensure that the public interest always comes first. The Labour party manifesto said that an increase in the number of passengers and amount of freight that was carried by rail was an overriding goal. We welcome and support those objectives but, despite the fact that the debate focuses on the botched privatisation of rail by the Conservative Government, we now have a Labour Government. They have been in office for nine months and have taken almost
  76
  no discernible action on this issue. We are promised a White Paper soon and there are endless leaks about what may happen, but it is time for the House to know a little more about the Government's plans and how they will implement them. The Government must answer some key questions today.
  The interim package of measures that was introduced in November last year—it is mentioned in the Government's amendment—was announced with a fanfare, but what, if any, changes for the better have resulted? On what occasions and to what effect has the Minister made use of the information provided? Everyone shares the concerns expressed in the so-called concordat with the regulator, but it is not obvious that things have changed in practice—as yet, action is another matter.
  The Government said that the realisation of a range of objectives—including ensuring that public subsidies were used to enhance services and maximise value for money, and increasing safety and security from crime for rail users—would require primary legislation. When is such legislation likely to come before the House, as people want early action?
  When will there be legislation to establish a new national rail authority, which was one of the pledges in Labour's manifesto? How will the authority work in practice? From the various leaks in the newspapers, it seems that there are plenty of ideas bubbling around, but they are not being debated in the House, as they are not being communicated to the people who will actually have to take the decisions.
  How will the Government ensure that there is investment in the rail industry? We have heard much about public-private partnerships, but little detail of what that means. What examples can Ministers point to? More importantly, can they elaborate on the apparently well-briefed article in the Sunday papers that suggested that the Deputy Prime Minister might be winning his battle for change with the Treasury? It is important that we know whether progress is being made.
  Liberal Democrats want a doubling of passenger numbers and a trebling of the amount of freight that is carried on Britain's railways; we shall have to make those changes if we are to meet the road traffic reduction targets and tackle global warming. In the longer term, we need to change current incentives—paid for at a huge cost to the taxpayer—for people to have company cars, to jump in their cars more often, to drive further and to own larger cars. Part of the money saved could be invested in public transport.
  Mr. Stephen Day: I notice that the hon. Gentleman seems to be coming to the end of his speech. Before he does, will he outline the solutions that Liberal Democrats offer for all those problems? Will he say how his great aims of doubling this and achieving that will be met? Where will the money come from?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman was clearly thinking about his question; if he had been listening, he would have heard me answer his points just before he spoke. The Conservative party was not noted for listening in government, and I guess that we should not expect too much more from it in opposition.
  We believe that a key policy is to ensure that local authorities have enough money to exploit public-private packages and the solutions that they offer in cities.

  77
  That could entail funds from road pricing, for example. Moreover, I am glad that the Government announced—I do not know whether the announcement was official—that local authorities will have access to money raised through fines from the enforcement of motor vehicle standards. That money will make a real difference to the investment flow, but that cannot happen until we have sorted out the management and regulation of the private sector companies that are currently making such a botched job of running our railways. It would be quite wrong to add subsidy to subsidy to solve a problem that is largely down to bad management.
  I want a virtuous circle of investment and growth in the rail industry. We believe that the regulator's role needs toughening—I am glad that the Government agree, but we need action rather than words. We must encourage investment partnerships between the private and public sectors; again, we need action, not words. We need to co-ordinate a properly integrated rail network to replace the current divided network, which leaves passengers stranded at the station as the train chugs out from another platform.
  It is time for the Government to act. The problems in the rail industry will not be solved overnight. The sooner we start, the sooner Britain will have a modern, safe, reliable and affordable rail network. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain how he intends to achieve that.
  7.34 pm
  The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "deplores the previous Government's privatisation of the railways, which has made a large profit for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer and the passenger, and has fragmented the rail network; welcomes the Government's interim package of measures introduced in November 1997—new Objectives, Instructions and Guidance for the Franchising Director, new planning criteria for OPRAF and a Concordat with the Rail Regulator—which puts the interests of rail users first; and commends the Government's commitment to establish effective and accountable regulation and to set up a new rail authority so that passengers' legitimate expectations are met."
  I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for this chance to discuss the railways. I certainly welcome the opportunity to expose the mistakes that were made when the railway was privatised, and to highlight the proper role for the railway in an integrated transport policy.
  I shall start by reminding the House of the shortcomings of the railway regime that we inherited last May, and shall then set out the Government's transport policy objectives. Finally, I shall describe what we have done, and what we intend to do in the longer term, to tackle the obvious flaws that we inherited.
  Rail privatisation damaged the interests of passengers and taxpayers. As we said in our manifesto, it made fortunes for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer. For example, we can contrast the profits that have been made by train operators, Railtrack and the rolling stock companies with the industry's disappointing performance so far.
  We inherited a privatisation that was ill thought out and implemented with indecent haste. As a result, mistakes were made, and the weaknesses of the system are clear for all to see. The extreme fragmentation of the industry will not benefit the passenger in the short or long term.
  78
  There is no focus for strategic planning or investment in the railway industry. The railways will receive £1.8 billion in passenger grants this year, which is more than 50 per cent. higher in real terms than the average grant paid to British Rail in the five years from 1989 to 1994. However, there is no mechanism for taking a long-term view of passenger and freight companies' plans and assessing whether they match the public interest.
  This is not a commercial matter that can be left entirely to the fragmented rail industry. There is no reason why the sum of the plans produced by all the train operators and Railtrack should produce the best result for the user and the taxpayer. An overall vision is needed, but it is sadly lacking at present. That is an important reason why we need a national rail authority. Such an authority becomes all the more important if we are serious about promoting an integrated and sustainable transport strategy that will make rail an increasingly attractive alternative to cars and lorries.
  The fragmentation of the industry has hindered planning and integration at the local and regional level. Local authorities that want to promote rail schemes and service improvements have had to pick their way through a maze of bodies and contracts.
  More positively, passenger mileage has increased by 7 per cent. in the past year, reflecting the growth in the economy. However, not all the privatised train operators are delivering improved service standards. I do not say that all services have got worse, but the picture is decidedly patchy, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell effectively argued. Passengers have a right to expect better overall performance. The franchising director recently said that
  "performance levels generally continue to concern and disappoint me."
  We are not talking only about overcrowding, punctuality and reliability. The House will not need reminding of the well-publicised failures in such key aspects of integrated transport as ticketing and passenger information. We should consider how important it is to have simple and reliable information about fares and then contrast that with the present confusion.
  Since privatisation, those fares that are not regulated have been shooting up and down. I am not against train operators being innovative and offering a good product, but part of the legacy of fragmentation has been to make it harder for people to know what fares are available. The appalling early performance of the National Rail Enquiry Service has not helped.
  We also inherited a hotchpotch of responsibilities split between the franchising director and the Rail Regulator. More importantly, the powers available to the regulatory authorities are insufficient. The existing sanctions available under the Railways Act 1993 are complex, take a long time to implement and allow only limited scope for financial penalties on operators. Penalties can be avoided altogether by an operator who takes swift corrective action after a contractual breach has occurred.
  Regulation is another fundamental weakness in the railway regime. Railtrack, a monopoly supplier, was soon judged by the regulator to be inadequately regulated. It got off to a slow start, building up a significant backlog of investment, and in January 1997 the Rail Regulator condemned as wholly unacceptable Railtrack's £700 million investment shortfall. When we took office,

  79
  we also found great concern that Railtrack was not responsive to proposals for increasing capacity, especially for rail freight.
  The key rolling stock leasing companies—the ROSCOs—are not regulated at all, but we hear frequent complaints about their performance.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the way in which Railtrack has confused maintenance and capital investment? It is important that the public should realise that Railtrack—unlike British Rail, which made it clear what was investment and what was maintenance—is confusing the figures so neatly that, even taking into account the inadequate sums that my right hon. Friend mentioned, it is clear that the company is not performing properly. It should be required to be far more transparent.
  Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an important point based on her experience and knowledge of the industry. It is true that we need higher investment in the railways and we look to Railtrack to deliver that.
  We found on taking office that the sale of British Rail's channel tunnel business, Railfreight Distribution, was in limbo, awaiting clearance from the European Commission; there was no national strategy for giving freight a sufficient priority on the network; and we discovered a long history of underspending of even the modest budgets set aside by the previous Administration for rail freight grants.
  I have described the flawed regime that we inherited in May. Over the past nine months, we have started the task of ensuring that rail plays a full part in an integrated transport policy. We regard our railway as a national asset, and one that we need to make better use of. The concept of an integrated transport policy has captured people's imagination, showing the importance of transport and the dissatisfaction with the current situation. The public mood for change reinforced our determination to launch last June a fundamental review of transport policy.
  Our objectives are clear. They are to provide for a strong and sustainable economy, to achieve a more inclusive society, and to protect and improve the environment. We are not looking at transport in isolation. We are considering the links between transport and wider Government objectives and policies, for example, on health, sustainable development and social exclusion.
  It is clear that the car and the lorry will remain an integral part of our society and that the road network will play a crucial part in people's lives, but we want to reduce car dependency. The forecast growth in road traffic of between a third and a half by 2016 is unacceptable because of its wider consequences. We must learn to strike a better balance between the various modes of transport.
  I shall say a few words about what we have achieved so far. On 6 November 1997, I announced three new measures to boost investment, protect passengers' rights and ensure that private rail operators provide high-quality services. First, we issued the franchising director with new objectives which deal with the real issues that matter most to passengers—investment in decent rolling stock and stations, high standards of punctuality and reliability, and the protection of passenger rights.
  80
  The overriding priority left to the franchising director by the previous Government was to privatise rail services as quickly as possible. The new objectives make it the franchising director's principal aim to win more passengers on to the railway, to ensure improvements in the quality of rail services and to manage franchise contracts tightly in the public interest. In short, they make passengers' interests paramount. That is especially the case in respect of enforcement action by the franchising director. When contravention of a franchise agreement is material, the franchising director is to take prompt action that secures additional benefits as compensation for passengers. In other words, the passenger benefits rather than just the Exchequer. In more extreme cases, the franchising director is to have recourse to his powers to make enforcement notices specifying fines.
  The new guidance to the franchising director is beginning to bring results. For example, he has today announced that he has secured measures to alleviate the serious overcrowding that is affecting key parts of the Connex South Central services. As soon as it became clear that Connex would exceed the load factors in the franchise agreement, the franchising director directed Connex to provide additional capacity quickly. The measures agreed with the franchising director include the allocation of higher-capacity rolling stock, the leasing of additional units, and the lengthening of some trains. The additional capacity is to be fully in place by April.
  The franchising director has said that he intends to ensure that all the London commuter operators take swift action to reduce severe overcrowding, where network capacity is available. He has assured me that he will continue to require urgent action if train operators might breach their load factor limits.
  The new objectives emphasise the importance of improving the security of rail passengers, not least of women, for whom personal security is a significant issue. The objectives also refer to the promotion of the use of bicycles, and the need to ensure, as far as possible, that the railway provides suitable facilities for cyclists.
  The new objectives for the franchising director also make investment a priority. With that in mind, I set out on 6 November a set of planning criteria that will provide an effective framework for developing and implementing worthwhile rail investment, which will improve the range and quality of the services available to rail users. We have asked the franchising director to ensure that local authorities and other potential promoters of rail investment are given clear and well-publicised advice on the mechanism for appraising and delivering new investment.
  The third element in our interim railways package, which I announced on 6 November, is a voluntary concordat between Ministers and the Rail Regulator. Firm, fair and accountable regulation is essential for passengers and for the industry on which they depend. We inherited a regulatory structure which—remarkably lid not give the regulator any formal indication of what the Government wanted for the railways. The concordat bridges that gap.
  We welcomed the Rail Regulator's voluntary agreement with Railtrack last year, which amended its licence so that the regulator could better ensure that Railtrack invests in the network at the right levels and for the best results. If it proves necessary, we will not

  81
  hesitate to tighten regulation by legislation. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also asked the Rail Regulator to undertake a thorough and fundamental examination of all the issues raised by the current arrangements for the supply of rolling stock to train operating companies.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Before the Minister finishes listing the Government's achievements, can he tell the House what they have done about the national rail inquiry line? The Minister correctly identified the inquiry line as a major problem. I have found that I need a four-call approach—the first two to get different prices, the third to be told that the service does not exist and the fourth directly to the train operating company to get the true answer. What have the Government done about that major problem at the first point of contact with the railway system?
  Dr. Strang: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have raised the issue with the Rail Regulator several times. We have been informed that the service is improving, and when I have used it I have found it to be satisfactory. However, I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments and I will draw them to the attention of the Rail Regulator. The hon. Gentleman should understand that we have to operate within the current legislative framework and it is up to the Rail Regulator to enforce the measures necessary to improve that vital service.
  The Government expect the rolling stock companies, and the rest of the industry, to promote the use and development of the railway in the way that best meets the needs of passengers and taxpayers. We have already taken action to boost the take-up of freight grants.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: On rolling stock, given that the franchisees—the train operating companies—show reluctance to invest as their franchises near the end of a period, will the new regulatory powers that the Government have taken in relation to the rolling stock companies be used to ensure that ROSCOs take risks by investing in new rolling stock against a guarantee that future franchises will require future franchisees to take on rolling stock that has been purchased by the current franchisee or ROSCO in the event that the franchise passes from one company to another?
  Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The franchise system depends on the ROSCOs. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the regulator will examine the position of ROSCOs and consider what additional regulatory measures may be required. The regulator is to report back by mid-April, which will give us plenty of opportunity to take a decision on that in advance of any legislation that we may introduce. The Government expect the rolling stock companies and the rest of the industry to promote the use and development of the railway in the way that best meets the needs of passengers and taxpayers.
  We have already taken action to boost the take-up of freight grants. We have published new guidance for prospective applicants that cuts through much of the previous red tape. Last year, the Government spent £15 million on direct freight grants; the budget this year is £30 million, almost all of which is likely to be taken up. For 1998–99, despite public expenditure pressures, we
  82
  have increased funding to £40 million. That is what I meant when I said at Question Time that when it comes to freight, this Government put their money where their mouth is.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: I am listening carefully, but the Minister has not yet said specifically what the Government intend to do to drive freight haulage off the roads and on to the rail system. It is obvious that road haulage is responsible for many accidents and delays on the roads.
  Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have massively increased the opportunity to take up grants for investment in rail freight. I shall explain the progress that we have made in respect of the channel tunnel. He would agree that the channel tunnel, if nothing else, should drive more freight on to the railways.
  Mr. Day: Does the Minister agree that saying that the Government should take measures to move transport from lorries and on to rail is an oversimplification? Are not the majority of heavy goods vehicle journeys 40 miles or less? If such lorry movements were discouraged, many lorries would have to travel further to get to rail heads.
  Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is right that the railway comes into its own only for longer journeys, unless there is a dedicated arrangement such as those that used to exist between collieries and electricity power stations. For the normal network, rail is economically viable only for reasonably long journeys. The House will agree that there is great scope for many fairly long journeys that currently go by road to go by rail.
  At European level in December, the United Kingdom and French Governments, the railways—Railfreight Distribution and SNCF—and Eurotunnel agreed arrangements to facilitate the development of rail freight traffic through the tunnel and beyond, not only by Railfreight Distribution but by potential new entrants to the market.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell mentioned the future of the channel tunnel rail link. I am glad that he agrees that it would not have been right to give another £1.2 billion to London and Continental Railways. I think that the House appreciated that the Deputy Prime Minister came straight away that evening to explain the situation. The position is that LCR has been given 30 days. In that time, it is possible for it to produce a revised proposal to enable the link to be built. We want a fast link, as my right hon. Friend made clear. The hon. Gentleman will understand that while those negotiations are continuing, as they are, it would be inappropriate for a Minister to say any more than what was said when my right hon. Friend made his announcement.
  Much has been achieved over the past nine months, but what we have been able to do has inevitably been limited by the current legal framework. For example, our commitment to create a new rail authority requires legislation. We will work up the details of our proposals for inclusion in the White Paper on transport in the spring.
  Our White Paper will also set out how we intend to ensure a high standard of safety across all modes of transport. Railways already have a good safety record. The latest figures published by the Health and Safety

  83
  Executive show that the improving trend was maintained in 1996–97. However, as the tragedy in Southall and last week's near miss at Paddington remind us, safety on the railways must be pursued with energy and vigilance. The railway inspectorate's last annual report revealed that some operators have tried to reduce safety levels to the minimum allowed, saying that maintaining, or improving on, the status quo is too costly. The House will agree that there can be no question of putting profit before safety. We look to the independent Health and Safety Commission, as the safety regulator, to ensure that standards are maintained, and improved where necessary. Last month, I wrote to the chairman of the commission making it clear that he should bring forward any formal proposals on automatic train protection and mark I rolling stock that the commission considers necessary. We will, of course, consult the commission on our legislative proposals for the railways.
  We will also work in partnership with the railway companies where it is in the public interest. For example, Railtrack's investment in security and station regeneration provides opportunities for partnership locally and nationally. We also want to encourage the best examples of transport integration by the new operators. For example, integrated rail-bus ticketing and information provision was introduced in the west midlands in October. The scheme involves 50 bus companies and six train operators in the region, making it probably the largest example of integrated ticketing outside the London travelcard area.
  The areas for action on railways that I have described will complement our wider plans for developing an integrated transport strategy. The White Paper will set out a strategic framework for sustainable transport policy for this Parliament and beyond. We are determined to establish a new framework to enable rail to play a full role in overall transport policy. We shall not hesitate to take action to remedy the defects that I have described.
  Mrs. Betty Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plight of disabled people? We talk about integrated transport policy; for some, that meant that they could put their invalid cars on trains. A constituent, since rail privatisation, has been unable to do that. We must recognise the plight and rights of disabled people. That is what equality really means.
  Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises an important point. On the disabled, the House will agree that we need to move forward on every transport mode, including the railways.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is a crucial point. I have a constituent who was travelling with more than one operator and so was unable to discover whether it was possible to be met at unstaffed stations or to come back. No one could give a guarantee on that to my constituent.
  Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If he provides me with details of the case, I will write to him.
  Train operators have entered freely into competitive contracts that said that they needed to provide a good and improving service. The public have a right to expect
  84
  decent, clean, safe and reliable services. We are determined to ensure by effective and accountable regulation that the industry delivers that continuous improvement in the quality of services.
  There is a consensus that we want more people and goods to travel by rail. For reasons of economy, safety and the environment, there is a powerful case for increasing the role of the railways in our transport system, for both passengers and freight. We have already taken steps to put rail users first. In the coming months, we intend to build on that progress and provide a railway of which we can be proud.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: We start the debate from the fairly bizarre position that the real Opposition are in the business of defending one of Britain's great national assets against attack from the Government and their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
  I start from the fundamental premise that, at the moment, the privatised rail service is not performing as well as we would wish, but its long-term future is not just good, but excellent. We believe that Labour and the Liberal Democrats were wrong to oppose the privatisation of the railways, and that by the next general election they will defend that policy. They will do so by claiming that, having moved round a few deckchairs and having imposed a few extra burdens on the private sector, the improvements already in the pipeline will have occurred only as a result of their shuffling of the pack.
  At first sight, no one can accuse the Liberal Democrats of inconsistency. Their motion attacks my party for introducing rail privatisation. It is clear that they feel that they are still fighting the previous election rather than looking to the future, unlike the Conservatives. A closer reading of the Liberal Democrat motion, however, reveals that there has been an important and subtle shift in that party's position. It likes to portray itself as being committed to a market-based, competitive economy, yet in reality it remains an inherently interventionist party, committed to public ownership.
  The Liberal Democrats' socialist tendencies towards state ownership are most vividly illustrated by their commitment to retain public control of Railtrack. In their 1995 policy document, entitled "Transporting People", they stated:
  "The Liberal Democrats would re-acquire a controlling interest in Railtrack."
  That was reiterated in their 1997 manifesto, in which they said that they would provide for the legislation to do so. According to tonight's motion, however, it seems that the Liberal Democrats have subtly abandoned that commitment, because they simply call on the Government to
  "bring forward polices to deliver investment in a safe, reliable and affordable rail system".
  The last dinosaur has gone. One of the great achievements of the Conservative party in the past 18 years was the destruction of socialism. We have now achieved a double whammy by bringing the Liberal Democrat party into the 20th century, and we are pleased to take the credit for that.
  I do not believe that anyone would seriously argue for the renationalisation of anything in the private sector. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is desperately

  85
  trying to take over Eurostar, but I suspect that the Treasury might spoil his urge to have a live train set to play with.
  I should like to set out why we believe privatisation works. The effects of state ownership and control of nationalised industries were devastating. Those industries performed poorly. They were the creatures of politicians and their officials, who were, in turn, remote from customers and employees alike. Those industries were under the iron grip of the Treasury. There was a lack of motivation, because managements were unable to motivate their work forces with proper incentives. Civil servants were drawn into the role of management. Perhaps the worst aspect of state ownership was the massive misallocation of public money through state-directed investment, which responded to but never quite met the demands of the state, industry, management or the trade unions.
  A few figures illustrate the impact of privatisation. Between 1983 and 1985, public investment in gas, electricity and water averaged £2.7 billion. Just seven years later, in 1991–92, when all three were in private hands, investment had more than doubled—an increase significantly greater than the rise in the retail prices index. Privatisation has given the consumer greater choice and value. It has also promoted wider share ownership, giving ordinary people a direct stake in the success of British industry.
  Mr. Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the privatisation of the railways has been perfect in every way? If not, what mistakes will he now admit to?
  Mr. Ottaway: The jury is still out on that, but I shall be quite candid—I believe that in the long term it will be a success, and I intend to set out exactly why.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House what he means by long term? Does he mean within this Parliament, this year, within the next decade or in the foreseeable future? That improvement seems to be long delayed, like those in many of the services to which he is attached.
  Mr. Ottaway: I am glad that the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip was able to get his intervention in for the benefit of Hansard.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: That was a cheap shot.
  Mr. Ottaway: If anything is talking of cheap shots, it is the terms of the motion.
  I believe that in six years' time there will be a clear and demonstrable improvement in services, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and everyone in the House will happily defend.
  The real success of privatisation has been the realisation of management's ability in the privatised sector to respond to the challenge of coping with the pressures that are part and parcel of being in the private sector. Not unsurprisingly, not a single senior management team in any of the more than 100 privatised companies would prefer to return to state ownership. No one seriously believes that companies such as British Airways or British
  86
  Telecom should return to the public sector. Even the Labour party has dropped the rhetoric that the only reason for not doing so is the cost involved. It now admits that it was wrong.
  I suspect that the Labour Government are now embarrassed by the comments of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is well known for saying:
  "British Airways would be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all."
  It was the Liberal Democrat energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), now the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman—he is not here today—who said during the electricity privatisation debate that privatisation would
  "result in higher prices for the whole population and especially for those on low incomes."
  When he turned his hand to the Gas Bill, he said:
  "16 million British gas consumers can expect only one result—to pay increased gas prices, higher than the rate of inflation, for years to come."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 793.]
  As the Liberal Democrats wipe the egg off their faces, let us consider what the Prime Minister said of electricity privatisation when he was Opposition energy spokesman:
  "the idea that we will have an influx of power stations, all competing on the grid, is nonsense."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 683.]
  He was, of course, right in one respect—his recent decision to stop any more gas-fired power stations coming on to the grid is his attempt to make that quite ridiculous remark a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party will also be wrong about the privatised railways. It is easy, but wrong to conclude that the present state of affairs on the railways represents the way in which services will continue—it is just a snapshot. It is no surprise that the railways should be struggling at the moment, because all industries have struggled in the first couple of years after their privatisation. In 1985, The Observer ran an article about British Telecom under the heading:
  "Telecom fails to raise tone"
  and the sub-heading:
  "Victor Smart reports on how BT's image and its service to the public have fared in the year since privatisation."
  A year later, the Financial Times said:
  "Almost two thirds of large companies believe that British Telecom's services have either deteriorated or stayed the same since privatisation, according to a survey".
  It is no surprise that in these early days of rail privatisation, the railways are getting a bad press. A bad patch at the beginning is a common feature of every privatisation.
  Sir Robert Smith: Given that we are discussing transport, the hon. Gentleman might want to hone in on one of our domestic transport issues. Can he outline for us when bus privatisation will prove a success?
  Mr. Ottaway: The Liberal Democrats are grubbing around to make interventions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will not go into detail about the buses. All I know is that more passengers are travelling more miles, on cheaper, more efficient and better-quality buses than ever was the case before privatisation.

  87
  The latest figures from the Rail Regulator confirm that Britain's 25 private train operators are still achieving performance figures above those attained before privatisation, despite the slight fall in performance improvement shown in the regulator's bulletin. Those independent figures directly refute the misleading allegation that train services are now worse than they were before privatisation.
  Although we acknowledge the disappointing trend for the past quarter, overall performance levels are noticeably better than those recorded between 1993 and 1995 under British Rail and those in 1995–96 during the process of privatisation. Accusations that service levels have declined since the completion of privatisation in March 1997 are irrelevant, as more than half the franchises were in the private sector by October 1996, when performances were improving.
  One cannot deny the fact that the new railways are performing better than their predecessors. More train services are being run; 8 per cent. more passenger journeys are being made every year; and there has been a welcome increase of 7 per cent. in passenger mileage. The true picture is that the railways are growing. The train operators are investing heavily, adding new services, providing new routes and building a better railway for the future.
  The wave of facts speaks for itself. When in opposition, Labour tried to argue that the level of subsidy would go on rising; in truth, the contractual payment to franchisees falls from today's level to zero by 2005, at which time the franchisees start to repay the Government, and by 2011, they will be paying the Government nearly quarter of a billion pounds a year as a negative franchise payment. Labour said that services would be cut, but the opposite is true: there are 138 extra trains a day and 29,000 extra trains a year, with an increase in the number of train miles of 2.1 per cent.
  Labour said that fares would rise, but they have fallen every year: in 1995, the rail fare component in the retail prices index was 4.4 per cent., in 1996, it was 3.7 per cent. and in 1997 2.3 per cent. In 1998, the figure will be near the RPI increase, but all will welcome the 7.5 per cent. cut in Thameslink's fares this year. In 1999, overall fares will fall by 1 per cent. per annum. Compare that with the 45 per cent. fare increase between 1980 and 1995. When in opposition, Labour said that freight on the railways would be eliminated, but the long-term decline in freight has been reversed, with English, Welsh and Scottish Railways—the UK's largest rail freight operator—aiming to triple rail freight's market share in the next 10 years. There are 280 locomotives and at least 2,500 new wagons on order, leading to the reopening of the Thrall works in York to meet the demand of new investment.
  It would be helpful to look at an independent assessment of the train operators' performance, and no one could provide a more objective assessment than the chairman of the central rail users consultative committee, who from the outset makes it clear that, as a statutory body representing the interests of rail users, the committee was impartial and neither for nor against rail privatisation.
  88
  Its concern has been to speak up for and protect the passenger. In his 1997 statement, the chairman said:
  "this is the year when more people use the trains again—by up to 8 per cent. With new money, both public and private, new rules and incentives, a new structure to give greater freedom to act and many new people involved".
  He rightly draws attention to the hullabaloo surrounding the industry as it battles to deliver the services that the nation expects. He continues:
  "The rapid transfer from BR has been accompanied, though at lower volume, by the debate on the pros and cons of privatisation with criticism always loudest and leading to the distortion of the real issues; sadly, one swallow is still enough to make a summer".
  He poses two questions: first, has the basis been laid for the reinvigoration of our railways; and, secondly, is this the new age of the train and will the continuous loss of market share for both rail and public transport be reversed at last? I believe that the answer to both those questions is yes.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman quotes that gentleman with such approval, but can he tell us whether the members of the committee are elected and, if not, by whom are they appointed? How wide is the representation of women and young people? If it is true that, by accident, there is a large number of retired members of the Conservative party on the committee, can he explain that?
  Mr. Ottaway: I am told that the Labour party has always supported the committee. I believe that appointments are made by the Government, and if the hon. Lady is volunteering for the job, I am sure that the Minister has heard her plea—that might be the solution to his problems.
  In answering the two questions posed by the chairman of the central rail users consultative committee, one has only to look at the level of investment and the management of that investment to realise the naivety of the motion in urging the Government to introduce policies to deliver investment. The level of current investment in the railways is staggering and makes a mockery of the claims of the Government and their coalition partners that the railways are in crisis. Over the next 10 years, Railtrack plans to spend more than £10 billion, with more than £2 billion on renewing track, more than £2 billion on signalling modernisation schemes and more than £2 billion on structures and stations.
  Many hon. Members present will have been to the all-party west line group meeting a couple of weeks ago to hear a presentation from Railtrack and Virgin. The effects of the proposed £600 million improvement of the line will be dramatic: it currently takes five hours and 20 minutes to get from London to Glasgow; in four years' time, it will be four hours and 20 minutes; and in seven years' time, it will be three hours and 50 minutes—I hope that that answers the earlier intervention by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Most revealing of all was the companies' assertion that it is current rolling stock that causes 90 per cent. of unreliability—replace the rolling stock and

  89
  the quality of service improves. That is a tribute to the policy of privatisation and it is why such policies will work.
  Mr. Phil Willis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way.
  Mr. Ottaway: It is just honourable.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) called him right honourable—I am glad that he has been demoted.
  On the question of investment, I live in the Harrogate area and regularly use the Harrogate to York line. Users of that line suffer constant delays and interruptions to services. We have the most appalling 30-year-old rolling stock, and the reason why the company will not invest in new rolling stock is the seven-year franchise of which the hon. Gentleman seems so proud. How are we going to get companies to invest millions of pounds in new rolling stock, on seven-year franchises?
  Mr. Ottaway: Not by renationalisation, which is what the hon. Gentleman's party wanted until the election.
  In respect of the west coast line, the imminent announcement of a £500 million investment in 55 tilting trains is welcome. Already, Virgin's passenger numbers are up as a result of marketing never envisaged by the old British Rail. Under the old regime, the Treasury would never have allowed Virgin its new £15 single fare from Euston to Glasgow. If anything gets people off the road and on to the railways, it will be a positive approach like that. When the industry was nationalised, the Treasury would have insisted on a fare rise to help out with the public sector borrowing requirement. That is the benefit of being unleashed from the Treasury. That is why I believe that the chairman of the central rail users consultative committee can be reassured that the answer to both his questions is yes.
  It should come as no surprise that John Welsby, the British Rail chairman, said only four weeks ago in the Sir Robert Reid lecture:
  "The privatisation regime has swept aside the debilitating uncertainty of the annual public expenditure round; investment programmes can be planned over several years forward with much greater confidence; and there is greater freedom for the participants to make use of financing mechanisms such as leasing which are standard practice in the private sector but which were denied to the public sector corporations."
  He continued:
  "If, as a public corporation, BR had been granted the scale of Government funding which is now committed, the promises of continuity that have been made, and the flexibility that now exists to make use of the array of commercial financing mechanisms, we would have thought that the millennium had not only arrived early but had also brought with it the sort of glorious benefaction that is the stuff of dreams."
  Mr. Keetch: Tosh.
  Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman says "Tosh," but those are the words of the man whom the Deputy Prime Minister has just appointed special adviser on the railways.
  Hon. Members may ask, "If the railways are so good, why is it that I don't know about it?" The truth is that good-news railway stories are simply not being reported.
  90
  I have here—or at least I did have—a list of 100 new initiatives for a better passenger railway system from the train operators. Sadly, not one has been reported. I say to Labour and Liberal Democrat Members: it is dangerous to believe that what one reads in the newspapers is what is happening on the railways. It is not.
  The rebirth of and renewed interest in new railways is prompting a new excitement. The Wensleydale Railway Association wants to restore 18 of the 40 miles of railway line from Northallerton in Yorkshire to Garsdale. That is a unique, imaginative and fresh idea, which deserves to succeed. Its desire to lay track on old BR routes where the existing tracks have been removed by local authorities shows a spirit of enterprise that could never have existed under the old regime.
  Elsewhere, one of the most successful reinstatements of a route that has long been closed to passengers has been the Nottingham to Worksop Robin Hood line, reopened in stages since 1993. The successful implementation of such a project, involving the co-operation of local authorities and other parties outside the industry, is doubly commendable.
  New services can be expected. North West Trains is promoting a through service, direct from Manchester airport to London Euston. In the midlands, the Birmingham to Rudgley town service, already considerably developed over recent years, is to be extended through to Stafford. Great Western Trains and Thames Trains are co-operating on a joint venture that will see a through passenger service introduced between Bristol Temple Meads and Oxford. Through my constituency, Connex South Central is introducing an additional hourly London Victoria to Brighton fast service.
  The wording of the motion is lacking in vision, ignorant of the past and without an understanding of the future. The Conservative party is the party with the clarity and understanding of management and business today. It introduced a policy that is turning one of Britain's great national assets, which used to struggle manfully but always just fail, into a service that will match the success of other privatised industries—that is something of which the nation will, in time, be proud.
  The decline of the railways started in the previous generation, as illustrated by the Beeching cuts. Now, when we consider the ambitions of the promoters of the Robin Hood line and the Wensleydale line, we realise that it is the Conservative party that has reversed the trend, bringing life and quality of service back to our railways. Its actions are bringing out the best of the private sector, private management and private finance. I urge the House to treat this squalid little motion with the contempt that it deserves and to ignore it.
  8.21 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I did enjoy that speech. I had not realised that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) had such a delightful sense of humour. I know that it must be complicated for him to take over such a case in the House at present, but his speech was very engaging. The fact that it bore no relationship to anything, let alone reality, pleased me enormously. We should have more amusing speeches like that in the House of Commons.
  To look at the matter seriously is to consider a railway system that is now in a total state of fragmentation and chaos. If I have one thing to say tonight to my hon. Friend

  91
  the Minister, it is that I welcome the fact that the Government have taken urgent action to look at what is happening in the railway industry, to consider the means of putting it together in a usable form and to promise to come forward, not only with a White Paper, but with clear plans for the strategic rail authority.
  The same John Welsby who has been quoted in the debate is worth quoting in another way. In a beautiful document, the British Railways Board's annual report and accounts, he states:
  "The privatisation process imposed considerable costs upon the Board, notably in fees for lawyers, accountants and other consultants and professionals. In 1996/97, those costs amounted to £58 million, bringing the total privatisation costs for the Board"—
  that is just one part of it—
  "to £349 million since 1992/93—in addition to the costs imposed by the Government, Railtrack and others.
  Net sales proceeds during 1996/97 amounted to £253.4 million, bringing the total net proceeds for sales by the Board to some £820 million since the privatisation process began."
  How much has the taxpayer paid for London and Continental Railways so far? Let us be serious for a moment. The brutal and deliberate lopping of the railway system by the previous Government was done for one reason only: to pass directly to many of their friends considerable numbers of assets. If anyone doubts that, he has only to look at the profits made by individuals who became involved, either in individual franchises or, in the case of the rolling stock companies, in particular assets that they could sell for astonishing and frightening profits.
  We have only to look at the way in which, when there was any difficulty, those same companies came roaring back to the taxpayer saying, "What we would really like from you is extra money to enable us to perform the tasks that we said we were going to perform when we took over the franchise." In addition, the taxpayer is paying at least 50 per cent. more to get half the services that he received under British Rail.
  If the amount of money that has been thrown away on privatisation had been spent on the west coast main line, we should now have modern rails and modern trains, and many of the orders that were placed before the privatisation of British Rail would have been fulfilled. There would have been jobs in that industry and passengers at every level would be enjoying a first-class service.
  I am not alone in receiving frantic telephone calls from constituents who are not Labour voters complaining that they, as business men, have been dumped on a Milton Keynes platform at 4.30 pm on a Sunday, with no explanation, no train and no clear view of where to go to get an alternative service. I am not alone in receiving constant complaints about the inability of timetables to relate to the way in which trains run. I am not alone in being told by many of my constituents that what is happening now is a disgrace and certainly not an integrated or properly run railway system.
  The late, lamented Robert Adley told us what would happen and it has happened almost exactly as his report said it would when privatisation was first mooted. Worse than that, we must realise that some things have still not been brought into the light of day. It is important to realise that Railtrack is not differentiating between the figure that
  92
  it spends on maintenance and capital investment. That company is cash rich with taxpayers' money. It is a company that began to do many of the things required of it only when it was told very firmly that unless it did so, within six months it would be in severe trouble. It is a company that is seriously contemplating taking over the running of other companies. That may be a way in which to divert some of the taxpayers' money back into investment, but let us not imagine that that company is marked either by high quality of management or by a high commitment to the railway industry.
  Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall merely make one or two points. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Transport Sub-Committee when it was taking evidence on the strategic rail authority, and was so open and ready to exchange views. That report will be of great help to the House when it is printed and I certainly welcome the opportunity to go into considerable depth over the changes that we believe will be necessary.
  There are certain things that we should record. The fragmentation of the system means that many of the franchisees are already beginning to think of excuses for not fulfilling their existing conditions. Many of them are using the argument that if they were allowed to extend their franchises, they would be able to do exactly what they promised to do in the first instance, although there is no evidence of that or any reason to believe that they are capable of producing the level of service that they initially promised.
  I seriously counsel my right hon. and hon. Friends against extending the franchises. If companies cannot deliver the level of service that they have promised, given the enormous amount of taxpayers' money that most of them are walking away with, they do not deserve to be allowed to continue without severe penalties. We must consider the relationship between the penalties and the public subsidy. There is no point in penalising a company because it is not performing its tasks properly if it gets more money from the taxpayer at the end of the year than if it had performed properly. That is not only bizarre but unjustified. We must look at how we find out about the consumer's view. Many well-meaning people may be involved, but we must ensure that the consumer is properly represented.
  We must examine the abuses of rolling stock companies. It is extraordinary that they were flagrantly left outside the control machinery. Those companies do what they like, make as much profit as they want and direct whatever terms and conditions they please to the people who use them. They are not restricted in any way.
  The Government not only understand the need for a properly integrated transport system, but are working towards that. Theirs is the first serious attempt for a long time to find out what is happening. They are considering not how they can hand over assets to somebody in the City, but how to provide a good rail transport system. However, I have a warning on one aspect. As a result of the conditions that were laid on it, the British Rail Property Board is increasingly selling sites that many people will need, especially in relation to freight. That land will be needed if we are to develop new and integrated services, and ensure the movement of freight from road to rail that we require. If British Rail persists in selling railway land because it is constrained by its

  93
  existing terms, that will be counter-productive. It will not be in anybody's interests and will undermine what we seek to do.
  The people who ran a 100-year-old system and kept it together with love and string are much missed. Their lack can be seen throughout the system, and the replacement of people who knew about railways by engaging young people who know nothing about them is not the way in which to achieve customer satisfaction. The private companies should look at that.
  Our strategic rail authority must be given proper powers. It must have the ability to make the private companies sit up and take notice, and that means refusing to give them large amounts of money while trying to penalise them by saying that they ought to pay some money back. That is nonsense and it cannot be allowed to continue. Some famous franchises will soon fall in. Some companies will refuse to invest, and the nearer that they get to the end of the franchise, the less they will perform in the manner that they have promised. It is remarkable that we hear a great deal about what they intend to do in 2005. It would be helpful if I knew what they intend to do next week. When I use the train at the weekends, I would like to travel on one that arrives at a time that roughly corresponds to the timetable, has proper seats and is operated in a way that bears some relationship to what passengers want.
  This country needs a good transport system. Above all, it needs a good, new railway system. Oddly, because the Conservatives were so brutal in their transfer of state assets to their friends and in their destruction of so much of the railways, they may have given us the chance to start at square one and build a modern, bright system that is worthy of Britain in the new century. I think that we can do it but, having listened to the hilarious tales from the Opposition, I know that we shall not do it with any assistance from them.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I agree with much of her damning analysis of privatisation. The rail network is in a sorry state. For many people, it is a second-class, unreliable service and it has been atomised by a privatisation that made no sense. It has been returned to a sort of Victorian structure, and that was done not for any good reason, but for the reasons that have been set out by the hon. Lady. Privatisation was driven by dogmatism and followed a scorched earth policy in an attempt to get everything finished and out of the way before the general election. That is no way to serve rail users or the general public.
  The contribution by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, was incredible. Even he admitted that, at least for the time being, matters had got worse rather than better. There was a touching Panglossian optimism that at some time in the future, everything would be all right. The Conservative view of rail privatisation is mariana. I prefer to make a judgment on what has happened so far rather than rely on vague promises of better things to come from the party that caused the present state of the railways. The hon. Member for Croydon, South reminded me why, after 18 years, it was so important to remove the Conservatives from office on 1 May. Much as I might disagree with the Labour party, at least we are on the same planet.
  94
  I endorse the remarks by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich about the sale of British Rail land. I shall give an example from my constituency. A parcel of land next to Newhaven Town station served as a taxi rank. It was held by BR and not by Railtrack or Connex South Central, the operator. Despite my protestations and those of the relevant local councils, the land was sold. As a consequence, there is nowhere for taxis to park at that station and people who depended on taxis no longer use the station, but choose instead to drive long distances.
  Another parcel of land in Newhaven is owned by what is left of BR, and English, Welsh and Scottish Railways is interested in using it for rail freight sidings. The company has been on site and has told me that it is vital that that parcel of land is not sold. It would cost the Government nothing to put an immediate moratorium on the sale of all land that is currently held by BR until it has been assessed under the Government's new integrated transport policy to see what land could be used. The previous Government identified parcels of land for sale, but they had no interest in developing the railways. I think that the current Government are interested in that and they should review that land.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend addresses an important issue which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Since the general election, there has been a series of auctions of land in which rail operators expressed an interest for rail use. However, that land was sold to developers for other uses. In the context of the Government working towards an integrated transport strategy and making better use of the railways, it makes no sense to remove future development potential for rail services.
  Mr. Baker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that when the Minister replies, she will address that point.
  The movement of freight by rail has been a sorry tale over the past 10 years and the service has been greatly damaged by the uncertainty of privatisation. In 1986, 9 per cent. of freight was moved by rail, but by 1995, that figure was down to just 6 per cent. In 1985, British Rail or its customers owned 54,500 wagons, but by 1994, the number had dropped to 27,500—a halving of the number of wagons. Freight has been badly hit.
  In view of the situation that it inherited, English, Welsh and Scottish Railways is doing a reasonably good job. However, it is not sufficient for the Government simply to rely on rail freight grants, welcome as they are. I welcome the fact that they have been increased, but there is only so much that the rail freight company can do in terms of flexible, customer-focused services or investment in rolling stock or competitive pricing—which it has to do.
  The problem of the infrastructure needs to be addressed. For example, the width of tunnels presents a problem. Some of the rolling stock cannot use Railtrack tunnels. A contract to move a commodity from Newhaven port through this country was lost because of unsuitable Railtrack tunnels north of Lewes. Similar problems must be happening throughout the country and there is a need to look at Railtrack's infrastructure if there is to be a revival of rail freight.

  95
  There is the question of signalling and track, and the consistency of track between this country and others with regard to the channel tunnel. What are the Government doing to deal with the infrastructure problems that rail freight companies face? What is the Government's strategic plan for freight? Are they prepared to set a target for the amount of freight that will be carried by rail, in either gross or percentage terms, in, say, the next five years? Unless they are prepared to set an objective, they are unlikely to get anywhere near it.
  What is the Government's position on the tendency to move towards bigger and bigger lorries? Will they once and for all halt the move from 32-tonne to 44-tonne lorries, and possibly 48-tonne lorries? Notwithstanding access to freight heads, the bigger the lorries, the bigger the tendency to move freight by road at the expense of rail.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) has said, it is important that the channel tunnel is sorted out as soon as possible. I have considerable sympathy for the Government, who have inherited a complete mess from the previous Administration, but it is important to achieve the right economies of scale and distance, so that the channel tunnel is an attractive through route for rail freight, otherwise the problems involving distance will reoccur.
  I have travelled on Eurostar. It is a national embarrassment that people can travel from Paris or Brussels to the channel tunnel at high speed, only to have to clank behind commuter trains all the way to Waterloo. I feel ashamed to have to experience that with people who have come from France. What on earth do they think? However, the Government are right not to be held to ransom by private piranhas. I hope that the Government will continue to adopt that policy, but I shall also look for a constructive way forward to ensure that the channel tunnel works in future.
  Language is not everything, but it is important. Over the years, I for one have become fed up of hearing money that is put into roads called investment and money that is put into rail called subsidy. We must change that use of language.
  I look for an assurance from the Government tonight that, when they conduct their review of trunk roads, they will look at all the alternative means of delivering transport along particular corridors, rather than simply, as the previous Government did, look at the potential for a particular road. I give one example. I declare an interest because I live next to a level crossing on a trunk road—next to the rail line and the A27 between Lewes and Polegate.
  The previous scheme, which was identified by the previous Government, was for an horrific flyover through an area of outstanding natural beauty, next to a site of special scientific interest, next to a national nature reserve, and through the most beautiful countryside in Sussex. They wanted to add another four lanes to the existing two lanes between Lewes and Polegate at a cost of some £90 million. However, at no point was any assessment made of the potential of the existing parallel dual carriageway—that is to say, the railway line from Lewes to Polegate, on which the trains trundle along three-quarters empty, and which could meet significant transport needs.
  96
  Whenever anybody tried to raise the matter—Members of Parliament, councils or whoever—the Department of Transport told them that the railway line was not relevant and had to be considered separately. Roads and railways must be examined together. I argue, unusually for a Member of Parliament, not for lots of money to be spent on a big trunk road in my constituency; I want it spent on the parallel railway, to achieve a transfer of traffic, particularly passenger traffic, from road to rail. The stations along that line are based in town centres and near employment centres. That means that it is possible to achieve a transfer in this case.
  Are the Government committed to capital investment in new rail lines, and not simply to moving the goal posts financially for train operating companies, rolling stock companies or whatever? In the same way as Governments have often been prepared to invest real money in roads, are this Government prepared to invest that money in railways as well?
  I think in particular of a case with which the Minister is familiar—the Lewes-Uckfield line. I am sorry to be so parochial, but these examples reflect the position nationwide. One piece of rail land—the track bed is still there—six miles long was removed by the county council in 1969 to build a road bridge. That has left Uckfield straggling down from London, with a short gap to the junction at Lewes. The county council has put together a case for the re-establishment of that line, which could be done at relatively little cost compared with the cost of building new roads.
  If the Government are serious about getting people back on to rail, they need to identify, first, all the lines that are at present run for freight purposes only—there are many of those—and to find out whether they could be used for passenger traffic as well. Secondly, they need to find out where track beds are in place and rail lines can be re-established. I would welcome a Government commitment to examine those two things.
  The Government need to examine rolling stock. I will not repeat points about rolling stock companies, which have been well made. Suffice it to say that, like the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon, South, I travel on Connex South Central and the trains that I travel on are similar to the ones that appeared in the Beatles film "A Hard Day's Night"—I think that they are probably the same ones—from the early 1960s. The ones on the Uckfield-Oxted line further north probably come from "Brief Encounter" because they are almost pre-BR. That is a national disgrace, as well as unsafe.
  Connex South Central is in many ways trying hard, but it has a policy of eliminating bicycles from trains. It is making integrated transport well-nigh impossible. People cannot take the bike to the station, get on a train and use the bike at the other end, which is an important transport pattern for many people. I hope that the Minister will consider some means of ensuring that bicycles can be kept on trains and that train operating companies are not allowed to bar them, as I fear will happen.
  The public need safe stations, particularly at night and for women. They need frequent, reliable services, new, attractive rolling stock, and available timetable information that they can access with the knowledge and confidence that it is correct. They need cheap fares. One of the key ways in which to get people back on to rail is to

  97
  have cheaper fares. At present, the most expensive public transport journey in the world is one stop on the London underground. It is more expensive per mile than Concorde. That is nonsense and needs to be dealt with. We need investment in track and signalling, and the reopening and reuse for passengers of lines, where applicable.
  Socially, economically and especially environmentally, the future is rail. I hope that the new Government, who I think understand the issues and mean well, will have the courage to follow that through and ensure that their application is as good as their words have been.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Clive Efford: The description by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) of the operation of the rail services since privatisation would not be recognised by anyone who uses the rail services to travel to and from London. The undue haste with which they were privatised and sold off very cheaply has resulted in passenger service requirements that are too low and in rail operators receiving bonuses for operating at levels that are lower than those that were provided by British Rail.
  There is also an enormous cost to the taxpayer. The arrangements for sell-off cost the taxpayer about £550 million. On top of that, with debt write-offs, it cost the taxpayer £2.3 billion just to privatise British Rail. Its book value at the time of privatisation was set at £4.3 billion, and it was sold for £1.9 billion. That led to a cash bonanza for one or two people who took over some of the franchises.
  For example, the Porterbrook rolling stock leasing company was sold for £527 million; seven months later, it was sold for £825 million, a profit of about £300 million. Similarly, Eversholt was sold for £580 million and sold on for £726 million, a profit of about £140 million, only one year later.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South described the rail services in his constituency as having improved. A September article in The Independent said that 300 trains had been cut from one flagship route, which I assume serves the area that the hon. Gentleman represents. He described Connex South Central, which runs the line, as a model of privatisation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents would make the same defence of privatisation that he made.
  My constituents are forced to suffer the services provided by Connex, which in December was the worst performing rail operator and, as a result, suffered the highest penalty. Two or three trains a day are either cancelled or are more than five minutes late, with only 70 per cent. arriving less than five minutes late.
  Overcrowding is an enormous problem across London—certainly on Connex trains. When I investigated the matter before I was elected, I was surprised to discover that pixies really do exist—people in excess of capacity. People travelling to work in the rush hour would take little comfort from being described as pixies as they squash themselves on to trains that have been reduced in length since privatisation.
  My constituents have horror stories about their travel to work. One said that he arrived at New Cross station only to be told that his train was no longer heading in the
  98
  direction he thought it was, and that he would have to change trains. He then discovered that a similar fate had befallen a number of other people. It was virtually impossible to step out of the train on to the central platform, which had rail tracks on either side, because it was packed with people waiting for trains.
  Someone working in my office travels out from New Cross to Eltham in the rush hour. She was surprised to find that her train was packed as she was travelling towards Kent when most people were travelling towards central London. She then discovered that trains to Cannon Street were no longer stopping at New Cross, so if people wanted to get a train to Cannon Street, they had to go back to Lewisham, get off and then get on another train to their destination.
  Nine out of 10 companies run overcrowded trains, especially during the rush hour. For London services, the average length of a train is now eight coaches, whereas it was 10 under British Rail. Overcrowding is usually based on a two-day study of a rail service. However, because it is such a short sample period, that does not take into account any overcrowding due to delays or cancellations.
  Connex fares have risen by 2.9 per cent., and would have been greater had they not been held down because of the operator's appalling performance. Had it performed better, it would have been allowed to charge even higher fares.
  People are now forced to pay extra for railcards, on the basis that they are travelling across several different operator services. They do not—most travel only on the rail service from their point of embarkation to central London, and then continue their journey on London Transport rather than by rail. Only a limited number of people should be forced to pay the additional costs that have been imposed on the assumption that passengers travel across a range of operator services.
  The number of complaints has also risen. During the first six months, there were more complaints about rail services than there were for the whole of the previous year under British Rail.
  Drivers of both network trains and freight trains tell horror stories about their daily experiences. One driver who works for English, Welsh and Scottish Freight complained to me because the flexible rostering that applied until July last year has been changed and he is being forced regularly to work a 12-hour shift—on a train that weighs several thousand tonnes. He claims that driver fatigue is now a serious problem.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take that issue on board in any future monitoring of operator services. People should listen to the day-to-day concerns of the drivers, who say that we are playing a game of Russian roulette on London's rail network—not just with freight trains, but with passenger trains.
  I understand that one operator has an attendance management scheme that means that, if a driver is off work for even a single day due to sickness, his pay is immediately stopped. That results in drivers deciding that, if they are going to have that amount of pay stopped, they might as well take an equivalent number of days off sick. I will not name the rail operator concerned, as I do not want to cause problems for the drivers, but the knock-on effect of that practice is a disrupted and unreliable service.

  99
  Freight drivers are given personal facilities breaks, but often in places where there are no facilities—no toilets and nowhere to eat. They have to make their own arrangements.
  Privatisation of the rail service has led to all those problems, which go against health and safety needs and the interests of the public. Those problems need to be tackled. We should be aware of the concerns felt by those employed in the rail services, so that we can tackle some of the dangers.
  Rail privatisation has led to a worse service, and, I believe, increased danger for both the public and the people who work on the railways. Hit squads have been sent into local authorities to tackle education problems. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to think about sending hit squads into rail operators if they cannot fulfil their contracts. We should put in managers who will deliver the sort of services that the people of London who travel or work on the service want and deserve.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: We heard a very interesting speech by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor)—sadly, he is no longer in the Chamber—who said that everything wrong with the rail service had resulted from 18 years of under-in vestment by the Conservative party. Those who travelled on British Rail before May 1979 will be astonished to hear that services were so excellent—or that they constantly ran on time, trains were clean and there was never industrial action.
  The hon. Member went on to say that another failing of 18 years of Conservative government was that we had not built the channel tunnel high-speed rail link. It is worth noting that, although a channel tunnel had been talked about since the time of Napoleon, the tunnel was built only under the previous Conservative Government. Therefore, before we start complaining about a link to the tunnel, we should note that a Conservative Government built the tunnel.
  The hon. Member was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on how he would pay for his grand ambitions. It turned out that his strategy for paying for those grand Liberal Democrat ambitions was to enable local authorities to use the ticket fees and fines generated by car use. Therefore, doubling passenger numbers and rebuilding thousands of miles of track will be accomplished by using fees from car parking tickets. That is a little unusual.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) also favoured us with a very entertaining speech. Sadly, she, too, is no longer in the Chamber. I hope that she will forgive me if I use a technical term for her speech: it was utter tosh. She said that, if British Rail had carried on exactly as it had been, we would be living in nirvana—with a first-class service and trains that were clean, speedy and efficient and with no prospects of any problems. She seems to have forgotten what British Rail was like.
  In its heyday, in the 1960s and 1970s, British Rail was a service that brought people together on dirty, draughty and litter-strewn platforms, making them listen to people
  100
  on speakers who sounded as though they were gargling in battery acid. Passengers would be shepherded by surly, unco-operative and uninformative staff into a collection of cattle trucks, and would not be delivered to their destination in anything remotely approaching their timetable. At the end of their experience, they would be told that the problem lay with—in accelerating order—nature, God and the secretary general of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen.
  Let us not forget that one of the great things we have lost because of the break-up of the old British Rail is the possibility of further national rail strikes—which were recurrent if not annual events during the days of British Rail. When British Rail existed, the rail system was not run for the passenger or even for Ministers: it was run for Mr. Sidney Weighell of the National Union of Railwaymen, who was subsequently the ASLEF secretary general. We have made progress in moving beyond that situation.
  I would not argue—any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) would—that the current system is perfect. I myself have had some complaints about local services, and believe that there is considerable scope for improvement. None the less, I believe that some positive developments are already occurring, and I agree with my hon. Friend's comments on the InterCity west coast main line.
  Like the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, I represent a constituency that is some distance from the House—rather more than 250 miles away—and, like him, when I can, I prefer to travel by train. I am an unabashed fan of rail and think that, at its best, rail can be cleaner, faster, cheaper and more effective and relaxing than almost any other available mode of transport. I will therefore continue to argue very strongly for better progress on the InterCity west coast main line. However, I believe that, in Richard Branson and Brian Barrett—the twin heads of Virgin Rail—we have people who are far more likely to deliver more progress on the line over a period of years than British Rail management would ever have achieved.
  Only today, I received in my post an invitation from Railtrack to attend the unveiling of a spectacular new project to rebuild and refurbish the grade 2 listed Victorian station at Grange-over-Sands in my constituency. That project was possible only because of a combination of private sector money from Railtrack, national lottery funding and co-operation by both Grange town council and South Lakeland district council. Such imaginative public-private partnerships—to use a phrase that often rings from the lips of Ministers—have been possible because of privatisation, and would not have happened without it.
  We have to notice that privatisation is always controversial, and always resisted. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South quite rightly pointed out how, in the early stages, every privatisation has been criticised and attacked—invariably by Labour Members and almost invariably by Liberal Democrat Members. However, after the passage of five or 10 years, we discover not only that they do not attempt to reverse privatisation, but that they do not repeat their original opposition to it; such is the success that almost always accompanies privatisations.

  101
  I believe that, in time, rail privatisation will take its place with the privatisations of British Telecom and British Airways.
  Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the people of Inverness are happy with the state of the British Airways privatisation?
  Mr. Collins: Undoubtedly the hon. Gentleman knows more about the people of Inverness than do I. However, before British Airways was privatised, it was the nation's most embarrassing airline. Now—to coin a phrase—it is the world's favourite airline. If he is saying that it is now the Liberal Democrats' policy to renationalise British Airways, their magic penny on income tax—which has already managed to pay for education, transport, health and all the rest of it—is being stretched even further. Now the magic penny will apparently stretch to renationalise British Airways. I think not. As I was saying, rail privatisation will take its place alongside the privatisation of British Airways and British Telecom not only as a proven success and something that leads to a better service for British businesses and citizens alike, but as something that is envied and increasingly copied around the world.
  I conclude by making four points to the Minister, who has listened patiently throughout the debate. The first is a genuine "thank you" to her for helping a constituent of mine who had difficulty obtaining a railcard after some benefit changes. I am grateful to her for her assistance in dealing with that problem.
  The second thought that I should like to leave with the Minister is that I hope she will not take from this debate—I am sure she will not—the view that the enthusiasm for rail, which has been expressed by all parties, is an excuse for a war against the motorist. Many people have no realistic alternative to road transport to meet their daily needs. In that connection, 1 received a letter this very morning from a constituent, Mr. D. Harrison of Sedgwick, who wrote:
  "The problem is 'What Public Transport?'. I live in the village of Sedgwick which is four miles south of Kendal. There is one bus on Wednesday morning but how do we carry a weeks shopping on a mini-bus? I am registered disabled and have to run a car, otherwise I would be a virtual prisoner at home. I cannot walk any great distance without becoming very tired so you can see why a car is essential."
  This is not someone who is making a party political point. Of course he would like to use public transport if it was a viable alternative, but it is not and will not be. The same is true for many of my constituents and others. We would all like bus services to be improved and investment in rail increased, but for many people the car will remain essential.
  I ask the Minister to pass on to her colleague in another place, the Minister for Roads, my enthusiastic support and that of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) for the A590 bypass improvement. Again, there is no possible rail alternative for the link between Barrow and the rest of the United Kingdom—it is going to be that road and no other. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that rail must play its part in the overall transport package; in many circumstances, it cannot be a substitute for road transport.
  Thirdly, the InterCity west coast main line has many uses to Members of all parties who represent that side of the country. Naturally, I take a particular interest in the
  102
  station of Oxenholme on that line. It is the gateway to the Lake district and serves the town of Kendal, the main population centre in my constituency.
  When the Minister is reviewing future provision on that line with Virgin and Railtrack—something that has excited many of my constituents—I ask her to bear in mind the need to make sure that trains continue to stop at Oxenholme, and that progress on accelerating journey times between London and Glasgow is not obtained by cutting some of the stops en route. That form of progress would not commend itself to my constituents or to the many tourists from this country and beyond who wish to stop at the Lake district.
  Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a role for the Government in the management and running of the railways, given his appeal to the Minister to intervene?
  Mr. Collins: I have never doubted that for a moment. The hon. Gentleman has been a party to the extraordinary attacks on private and free enterprise—"private piranhas" was the memorable phrase used. We have heard much about the terrible lack of investment in the railways—I think that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned a century—but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider how the railway system was built 100 years ago, which was when his party was last in power. His party often invokes the memory of William Ewart Gladstone, but he would be spinning in his grave at the thought that the private sector, which built the railway network in his day, should now, according to the vision of his own party, be completely supplanted in favour of the state sector.
  There is a value and a virtue in, and a role for, both the public and private sectors in rail and all other forms of transport. The Conservatives came to that recognition a long time ago. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats appear trapped, not in the 19th century, when the Liberal party had more common sense than it has now, but in a sort of 1942 or 1943 time warp. There was a time when most things had to be run by the public sector, but we are not at war now—time has moved on.
  Fourthly, I have been in correspondence with the Minister on several occasions on behalf of my constituent Mr. David Kelly of Oxenholme, who has been mounting a sensible campaign on rail transport and the dangers of over-carrying. People are unable to get off trains on time at certain stops because they are not given sufficient warning time.
  Mr. Kelly's sister, an elderly lady, was over-carried from Oxenholme to Carlisle, and died some time later of a heart attack that he believes was brought on by that terrible event. The Minister has been very helpful to me in correspondence, and has answered some parliamentary questions on the matter. However, I ask her again to bear in mind the case for providing proper equipment, so that staff on the station platform can communicate with train drivers and thereby minimise the chance of over-carrying.
  It has become clear during the debate that no party can claim a monopoly of care or concern about rail. Everyone is concerned about rail. However, it is also clear that a safe future for rail will not result from the embarrassed and quiet socialism of the Government or the overt socialism of the day trippers on the Liberal Democrat

  103
  Benches; it will come only from the Conservative party, which has a clear strategy for rail and—in the policies that we introduced before the election and are being carried forward now—has set out a realistic strategy for producing a better British rail system for the future.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the fluid speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). However, he should know that the great W. E. Gladstone, who lived in my constituency, produced a scheme to nationalise the railways in Britain. I thank the Liberal Democrats for shrewdly choosing the subject of the debate. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), which was engaging but rather too sanguine. I very much support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friends.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made a very convincing speech. The previous Government's privatisation of the railways made a large profit for a few but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer and the passenger and has fragmented the rail network.
  One of Britain's biggest problems is traffic pollution, and my constituency suffers massive traffic jams day in, day out. I cannot accurately estimate the impact on the health of my constituents, but I know that it is serious. The more that the Government can implement policies that will put more car drivers on to our railways, the better. That is one reason why I shall support the Government tonight.
  The railway line in my area runs from Wrexham through my constituency to Birkenhead on the Wirral. There are many stations and most of them are located in my constituency. They include Shotton, Hawarden, Buckley, Penyffordd, Hope, Caergwrle and Cefn-y-Bedd. They are in dire and urgent need of modernisation, development and investment. They are cold, dark, windswept and desolate. They have no closed circuit television, no security whatsoever and the parking is often dire. There is no staff member to turn to and no modern means of communication with another centre that can give advice and assistance to any luckless passenger. I want those stations to be served by a rail service that is more punctual, has more frequent trains and rolling stock that is modern and up to date. I should like the advertised services to be reliable.
  North West Trains has small plans for some meagre investment. I thank it for that and welcome the proposed investment, but it will not come early enough to satisfy my constituents. I want the Welsh Office, Railtrack, the Welsh Development Agency and North West Trains to get together urgently and come forward with a convincing, up-to-date development strategy for my constituents' rail line. Nothing less will do. I urge the authorities to bear that in mind.
  Buckley is a key station, serving one of the biggest towns in north-east Wales, but it is found at the end of a long, dark, lonely lane. It has no efficient lighting, no waiting room and no members of staff. Most of the time, it is a ghost station. It is uninviting and forbidding and is a daunting prospect for any of my constituents early in the morning or in the evenings when it is dark and very lonely.
  104
  Alongside the station is a factory owned by Optec. It is soon to close and the 70 or 80 workers will lose their jobs in a month or so after nearly 10 years' loyal service. We should have a better chance of finding a new tenant for the soon-to-be-vacated factory if the station across the road from it were modern and had up-to-date facilities. The county council and the Welsh Development Agency would then be able to attract investment to the factory. I am sure that that would result in more customers for Buckley station. I want the development agency and the county council to find a new tenant and work on plans to upgrade the ancient and uninviting station.
  As I have said, the line links Wrexham and Birkenhead. It is used by commuters, shoppers, students and workers. It goes through many communities in my constituency and can enhance my constituents' prosperity if North West Trains puts in adequate and urgent investment. It runs beside the famous Deeside industrial park, which I believe is the finest in western Europe. I have suggested to the Welsh Development Agency, Flintshire county council, North West Trains and Railtrack that a station should be built on the industrial park, which employs more than 4,000 people. It would not cost the earth and would make the industrial park even more inviting for inward investment.
  Wales badly needs the railways that it has. In addition to the Wrexham to Birkenhead line, the Shrewsbury to Newport line, the central Wales line and the Cambrian coast line are vital to the future of Wales, its society, its communities and its economy. I ask my right hon. Friend and his Ministers to bear that in mind in their plans.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: For two reasons, I am glad that I changed my mind and decided to listen to, and partake in, the debate. First, it has convinced me that the Liberal Democrats have lost their touch on community politics. I shall come back to that later. Secondly, we have heard some good speeches. The Minister gave a clear exposition of the Government's position and difficulties. Then we heard a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It is always a pleasure to hear her in full sail on those issues. As usual, I disagreed with much of what she said, but she spoke with great knowledge and commitment, which is worth hearing in the House.
  In these debates, we are always likely to hear complaints and whinges and the trivialisation of very serious issues. I have for some years believed that transport as a political issue has been far too low down the political agenda over the past 50 years. I therefore look forward to the Minister's winding-up speech. I look forward even more to her Department's White Paper on integrated transport. I hope that it will get the nation thinking about priorities and not just—justifiable—whingeing about many of the problems that we all have to face daily. This debate has been rather sad. Both the motion and the amendment are pretty silly.
  I was a sceptical convert to privatisation. I believed that the rail system had gone too far for the private sector to be able to reclaim it, but the more that I understood the issues in my time as a Transport Minister, the more I realised that privatisation was the only realistic option if we were to achieve the sort of revolution in transport that I am convinced is necessary. I thought, too, that the cruel Beeching cuts had done far too much damage to our network to make it possible to reclaim the railway system.

  105
  People sometimes think that there was a golden age of the railways; I do not think that there ever was. Perhaps there was the golden age of steam, but that is about as far as it goes. There was certainly a romantic age of the railway. Indeed, we have heard several stories about little two-coach trains puffing across the countryside on picturesque branch lines. I suppose that the Rev. W. V. Awdry has a lot to answer for. There was romance in the great express trains of my youth and that of many hon. Members, with the Flying Scotsman, with sleepers to Mallaig and Fort William and observation cars, or the Cornish riviera express, which was a regular mode of transport for me for some years. There was less romance on the old Southern Railways line from Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter, which rattled along on pretty inadequate track.
  My hopes of romantic sleepers from regional railways to places such as Bordeaux via the channel tunnel with the introduction of the Eurotunnel services were dashed when it all went horribly wrong. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is laughing, but he better listen carefully to why it went wrong. Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was wasted on ridiculous coaches in the last gasps of the nationalised industry's procurement process. I went to Birmingham to see the coaches under construction. I was told by the people who were building them that they would not work. They were so badly procured that they would either have had to run the trains at full speed and switch off the compartment lights or have had the lights on and slowed down. There was not enough power; it was that bad.
  We should be concerned with the reality. I am not going to get into arguments for and against nationalisation. We have rehearsed them many times. I shall specifically leave out the great deal that I should like to say on that issue and concentrate on one aspect that has not been mentioned in the debate: the good news in our local railways. I shall not miss out some of the bad news, but I shall above all point out that the people who are running the railways—the staff, whether they drive or clean the trains, as well as the management—have an investment in the future in their own employment, and deserve our thanks and not just brickbats all the time.
  The problems are not all the fault of the private railway companies. One of my constituents wrote to me before Christmas because his granddaughter had had to stand all the way from London to Edinburgh. The chief executive of Great North Eastern wrote to my constituent pointing out that, since the company took over the franchise at the end of April 1996, the number of passengers had increased by just under 14 per cent. That was placing a great deal of pressure on the company's rolling stock; 90 per cent. of all trains were in service every day compared with just over 80 per cent. two years before. Mr. Garnett told me that he was desperately keen to order additional trains, to which end he approached the Government in October 1997 with a proposal that would require an extension to the franchise—but there had been no answer from the Government. Meanwhile, the problem of congestion gets steadily worse.
  Members of Parliament also receive complaints about Railtrack. I reckon that about a third of the delays and failures on my local line are down to Railtrack. One of the problems of the Regional Railways line between Bristol and Portsmouth is the fact that the company inherited poor track and a backlog of under-investment.
  106
  I have been mystified by Railtrack's attitude to safety, which must be paramount. I refer specifically to a bridge known as Broken Cross railway bridge, at Ford in my constituency. Laverstock and Ford parish council wrote to me on 29 December to say that the structure of the bridge comprises
  "bits of wood, rope and hazard tape".
  It is clearly very dangerous. Michael Wheway, clerk to the council, says that there is little to prevent the
  "unwary motorist driving through the flimsy structure and finishing up on the railway line. Repeated requests to Railtrack have not even produced a response."
  I wrote to Railtrack on 5 January but have not had an answer either. It is high time Railtrack attended to the problem. The remarks of the parish council clerk are no exaggeration.
  I said earlier that the Liberal Democrats have lost their touch. Let me explain: I am all for fair criticism when things go wrong—with South West Trains, with Railtrack or anywhere else—but the little campaign that the Liberal Democrats have been waging with respect to South West Trains has been unfair, badly researched and unhelpful. Of course there have been problems on the line. The campaign circulated a long list of them—selectively—to the local media and Members of Parliament. Of the 57 complaints recorded, 16 could be directly attributed to South West Trains, and 19 to Railtrack; 19 did not include enough information to know who was to blame, and three were extremely doubtful complaints. Claiming that that constituted a massive attack on South West Trains just did not wash: it was not fair and it did not work.
  We cannot afford complacency—I am certainly not complacent. For many years, I have gone with all-party delegations, including the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and many others, to discuss improvements to the line; by and large we have got what we asked for. We have had new trains, new loops, new signalling, new investment in stations. That adds up to a considerable improvement. By all means let us attack failure, but we should not blame all the problems on the company. There are suicides on the line, people are taken ill just before they are due to drive trains—for goodness' sake, let us be sensible.
  This morning, I went to Salisbury station to talk to commuters and staff. First, the Waterloo to Exeter train arrived early. The conductor, who has worked on the railway for 30 years, said:
  "Things are 100 per cent. better than they were in the old days."
  A cleaner on the trains said that more people were being employed to clean more trains at the new Salisbury depot. He did point out, incidentally, that it is customers who make the mess. I talked to a guard who had worked on the railways for 26 years. He said that they were doing pretty well now, although there had been a bad patch before Christmas. He was worried about breakdowns in the air conditioning. What irony! A few years ago, he would have been worrying about what happened when he tapped the wheel; now he worries about whether the air conditioning can cope in the summer.
  The travel centre staff at the railway station were busy when I went in. They said that their commonest complaint was about connections between trains and they are right, as that is a problem. Railway staff are almost unfailingly good-humoured now and the cheerfulness of the conductors has meant a revolution in customer relations. Let us give them credit where it is due.

  107
  Similarly, South West Trains has said that it will provide cycle facilities at Salisbury station and recognises the problems. Also on that line, Stagecoach has promised and delivered an integrated bus service and one can buy a ticket on the bus to go straight through to Waterloo station.
  I met the management of South West Trains only last week. It is happy to consider the opening of new railway stations, particularly the possibility of one at Porton to serve the Porton Down Government establishment, which is good news.
  Let us recognise the problems where they exist. However, for most people, most of the time and on most of their journeys, there is no choice of mode between car, bus, train or plane. Where there is a choice, I warmly welcome attempts to encourage the use of public transport, if and where it can cope. I must reserve judgment on the forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport. I just hope that we have more judgment and less squabbling.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: Tonight we have heard much dissatisfaction and occasional satisfaction expressed about standards of train services, disappointment at the level of investment in our railways and opposition to the previous Government's privatisation policy. I shall briefly comment on some of the contributions to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) outlined our position with clarity and forcefulness. In turn, the Minister outlined the Government's position and made an announcement that is particularly welcome to me, which is that the franchising director is to force Connex South Central to tackle overcrowding—I am a regular sufferer of Connex South Central's service.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the Opposition spokesman, concentrated a significant proportion of his speech on the privatisation of other industries. I wonder why. By recognising that if there are to be improvements, they will happen only in five or six years, he appeared to be making a grudging apology for the disaster of rail privatisation to date. His contribution was entertaining in some ways. At one point, he mentioned the 45 per cent. increase in fares between 1980 and 1995—a very damning increase in comparison to the increases introduced by the privatised rail companies, but of course, the Conservative Government were in power at that time.
  Mr. Ottaway: That is the whole point. We privatised the railways because of the increases under the nationalised service.
  Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for illuminating me on that point. He also spoke frequently of his fixation with the coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but I will not comment further on that.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is unfortunately not in her seat, underlined her knowledge and commitment.
  108
  I congratulate her on her ability to speak so fluently without reference to notes. I wish that I could do the same. She made an interesting point about the sale of land and the British Rail Property Board, which is now known as Railtrack Property. One concrete example of which hon. Members may be aware, is that of Battersea dogs' home. Although I am wholly supportive of the Battersea dogs' home, it has purchased land that could have been used for a rail exchange facility for a concrete plant. Battersea dogs do not require linking to the rail network, whereas the aggregates plant could usefully have been linked in and I am afraid that that is not going to happen.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) raised concerns about how we can achieve the shift of freight from road to rail. I will listen with interest to the Minister's response. He also called for Concorde to replace London Underground, as travel per mile is cheaper on Concorde than it is on the underground. I look forward to that improvement in service.
  As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said, driver fatigue is a major problem. The fact that the number of drivers has been reduced from 17,000 to 11,000 over the past six years may have some bearing on that.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) expressed support for the railways, but then talked about a war against motorists. Liberal Democrats are certainly not conducting a war against motorists, so I do not know to whom he is referring.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) highlighted security problems in stations in his constituency. Such problems may have been exacerbated by the fact that the number of station staff has more than halved over the past six years.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned bridges—I shall return to that point later—and suggested that Liberal Democrats in his constituency had lost touch with our campaign on rail services. Unfortunately, he was the only Member of Parliament in the area not to support the campaign.
  Mr. Key: That is misleading. I told the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that his evidence was so poor and badly researched that we should check it with South West Trains before we agreed how to proceed. He wanted to proceed before he knew the facts.
  Mr. Brake: If that were so, it applied equally to all the other Members of Parliament who supported what my right hon. Friend was saying.
  I was amused that the only maintenance problem that the hon. Member for Salisbury could identify concerned air-conditioning units. I have experienced many more significant maintenance problems on railways than that.
  Whatever hon. Members think about the privatisation of British Rail, the fact is that the expense of its implementation and the continuing costs to the taxpayer have, according to the Union Bank of Switzerland, left Britain with the highest rail fares in the world. It is essential for sustainability that the railways play a greater role in moving freight and people, but that will happen only if day-to-day operational standards improve rapidly and large-scale investment is sustained for many years.
  We welcome the National Audit Office's insistence that the rail franchising director tighten up procedures for verifying the train performance information that is supplied

  109
  by the train operating companies and Railtrack. We would go further; we believe that existing performance standards should be raised. Some of the train operating companies are meeting the standards, but the official complaints figures—which other hon. Members have cited and which were highlighted in the excellent report by Save Our Railways, "The Impact of Privatisation"—have increased by 96 per cent. since last year.
  We believe—as does the industry—that that is because the previous Government set abysmally low standards to ensure that privatisation was seen as a success. Their definition of success was not that there should be greater customer satisfaction after privatisation but that there should be sufficient private companies bidding to run services. Under the current standards regime—which, we are told, is very demanding—suburban trains that arrive up to five minutes late are considered to have arrived on time; similarly, inter-city trains can arrive up to 10 minutes late and still be on time.
  We believe not only that existing standards should be strengthened, but that other standards should be introduced and that a wider range of indicators should be used. The train operating companies should not be allowed to slacken timetables to inflate the apparent rate of train punctuality. Surveys of customer satisfaction, undertaken by the franchisees as a condition of their contracts, should be the subject of independent scrutiny. Standards of cleanliness, which are not currently measured, should be measured.
  With tougher standards should go tougher penalties. Other hon. Members have referred to the penalty that South West Trains experienced, but a £100,000 fine is a pinprick in comparison to the £63 million that the company receives in subsidy. I am sure that Connex has already shrugged off the derisory fine imposed on it.
  Train operating companies can do much to improve their services, but under-investment is a serious problem. Everyone accepts that large sums of money are needed to modernise the network. For 20 years, the west coast main line has awaited improvements. All over the country, the rail service has bottlenecks, and antiquated track layouts and signalling.
  As well as financing improvements in those areas, money must be found for other projects, such as the London underground, which creaks and groans under a £1.2 billion backlog of outstanding repairs. Only today, we heard that it has suffered a further setback with the Jubilee line extension being delayed by another six months, making it more than a year late.
  The official Opposition have no solution other than the privatisation of London Underground. One would have thought that with the collapse of London and Continental's channel tunnel link, the creation of yet more fat cats after the sale of the docklands light railway and the high levels of customer dissatisfaction with the train operating companies, the Conservatives would have made their praise of privatisation less conspicuous. The new Government still maintain a deathly silence on the issue of London Underground and the tube's future.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the fast link to the channel tunnel. The sums involved are beyond the financing capacity of the Government, who today ruled out—until 2003, at the earliest—the possibility of using daily congestion charges, thereby discarding a possible source of revenue that could be used to finance transport
  110
  improvements. Therefore, private sources must be tapped, and we recognise that. In such circumstances, it is the Government's duty to create conditions in which the private sector will invest. The limited public funds that are available should be used to lever in private funds on the best possible terms.
  The good intentions expressed in the objectives and the concordat that the Minister of Transport mentioned will not help to secure private funding. For instance, the document mentions providing
  "guidance and assistance … to local authorities … about securing finance for railways".
  That will be useful, but with local authorities facing a shortfall in their budgets of up to £1 billion they are hardly in a position to fund substantial improvements in the railways. We will therefore be dependent on the private sector.
  In a few weeks, Railtrack will publish its third network management statement. We sincerely hope that it will accept the role in which it has been cast and act as the steward of the network. We will expect an imaginative plan from the company to enhance the capability of the network and we look to it to use the strength of its balance sheet to finance improvements.
  We remind Railtrack that its primary duty is to the existing railway network, which includes 55,000 bridges. Many of those bridges are reaching the end of their design life and will cost no less than £11 billion to maintain and renew. Railtrack has allowed just over £1 billion for such work, but it must fulfil its principal duties before directing its efforts to other projects.
  In return, the Rail Regulator must consider access charges and must ensure that the network is prioritised, instead of profit for shareholders. It may be necessary to extend franchises, if that is the only way to obtain investment. If the Government will not provide investment, it must come from somewhere and franchise extensions may be a possible source. Many hon. Members mentioned the rolling stock companies. Their fat cats have already lapped up the cream and the saucer is now empty.
  It is too late to do anything about the vast sums that were extracted by the people who originally bought the ROSCOs. Now, we must work with the companies to find out how we can secure the investment necessary to deal with the 1,300 mark I carriages that still operate and that, according to the Clapham disaster inquiry, should be phased out by the end of the century.
  We look forward to the challenging performance standards, the creation of conditions for greater private sector investment and a quick resolution of the position of the ROSCOs. We look forward to what we hope will be a far-sighted and comprehensive network management statement from Railtrack that will show that the company has the foresight and strength to think strategically and beyond its shareholders.
  I believe that none of the measures that I have outlined requires legislation. We hope that they will all be well in hand by the time that the White Paper is published. By then, the Government will have been in office for nearly a year. Any subsequent legislation will no doubt take a further year, and setting up a strategic rail authority may take even longer. We cannot wait that long for an upsurge of investment in our railways. We call on the Minister—the fat controller of the railways, if he will pardon the

  111
  expression—to be bold and take on board our proposals. He should not call for another review, consultation or reorganisation but accept our proposals so that we can get the train out of the station, in comfort and on time.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): This has been an interesting debate, inasmuch as, with, I think, three exceptions, every contribution has been critical of the previous Administration's policy of rail privatisation, and very critical of the services that are being provided on our railways; underlined the failure in respect of the investment level that the previous Administration promised would flow from their policies; and highlighted the importance of a properly integrated, fully functioning railway system for our people. We share those views. We regard our railways as central in carrying both more passengers and more freight and in playing an ever increasing role in an integrated transport strategy, to ensure that we can begin to offer real choices to the travelling public and move away from over-dependence on the private car.
  As I said, with three exceptions, every hon. Member has criticised, with no small expertise, the previous Government's rail privatisation policy and highlighted the desperate situation that flowed from it. The identity of those who did not accept what we regard as a proven fact was hardly remarkable; it came as no surprise. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) decimated in her inimitable way the contribution of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). He said that his was the only party that was looking to the future. His ability to rewrite history and his inability to acknowledge the damage caused to our country by the political dogma of rail privatisation suggest that the future for his party is bleak.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South seemed unaware of the fact that what he called—I am probably paraphrasing—the socialist dogma of taking back Eurostar into public ownership is a requirement of an agreement drawn up by and driven through by his party. If London and Continental Railways invokes section 77 of that agreement, as it did in saying that it could not complete its contract, and after 30 days, that is still the situation, the Government of the day are required to take back the Eurostar service and ensure that it runs and continues to carry passengers and play its part.
  The hon. Gentleman totally ignored the actual costs of privatisation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich had all those figures at the tip of her tongue. She made abundantly clear the scale of the waste that had produced services of which every hon. Member, with the exception of the hon. Members for Croydon, South and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), was critical. It is hardly surprising that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale should praise the previous Administration's policy on rail privatisation, because I understand that before he entered the House he was press secretary to a previous Conservative Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).
  I should like to refer to the themes that hon. Members have referred to tonight. The debate began with a contribution from the hon. Member for Truro and
  112
  St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who asked about the specific functions of the Government's proposed new rail authority. No firm decisions have as yet been made, but it was stated in our manifesto that that authority would combine the functions of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and some of those that are currently the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We do not necessarily regard those functions as the exclusive limitations of the authority's remit. The likely areas of responsibility for the new authority will probably also include managing existing franchise contracts; developing a strategic vision for investment in the network; promoting integration between rail and other modes of transport; promoting voluntary action by train operators to win passengers; and promoting the needs of disabled passengers. Their needs were highlighted not only by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, but by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), who, in an intervention, spoke about the difficulties of a constituent. If disabled people wish to travel, they should contact the relevant train operating company to be given advice. In general, an escort will be arranged.
  As for the more general needs of disabled passengers, the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that there must be strong consumer representation on our new rail authority, which will consider specific issues such as rail accessibility, which the regulator is also considering.
  The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich was typically pithy. She asked about appointments to rail users consultative committees. We wish to broaden their membership along the lines that my hon. Friend has detailed. We should like that membership to include people who use the railways and more young people. We also want vacancies on such committees to be filled through open advertisements, and there should be competition for those committee posts in accordance with the Nolan principles.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) spoke about rail freight and the need to ensure that railway land was available for the development of that traffic—the Government want to encourage that sector. We were asked what we were doing to stop the sale of railway land. In effect, Railtrack consults freight operators before disposing of land that might have a future use. Hon. Members also raised the possibility of a freeze on the sale of British Rail land. At the moment, BR is bound by statute to divest itself of surplus property at market value, but in the context of developing an integrated transport policy, we are examining whether planning guidance might be strengthened to protect suitable land for future rail use.
  Hon. Members also asked what we are doing to encourage more freight on to the railways. The new freight companies are winning new traffic on to rail; English, Welsh and Scottish Railways aims to triple traffic in 10 years and Freightliner aims to increase the volume of container traffic by 50 per cent. in five years.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport also outlined the measures that we have taken to improve the freight facilities grant not only in financial terms, but by cutting red tape. We have also secured commitments from the French Government and Eurotunnel to get a better deal for rail freight carried through the channel tunnel and

  113
  beyond, not only by EWS but by potential new entrants to the market. In the context of the development of an integrated transport policy, we are considering what other measures might be introduced to encourage rail freight.
  On the theme of service to the travelling public, the hon. Member for Lewes and others, including the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, raised the issue of bicycles on our trains. Only last year, I launched a code of practice providing for cyclists, and we encourage all train and station operators to adopt the code. Train operators are required by their franchise agreements to ensure that facilities are made available for the carriage of bicycles on trains, as far as is reasonably practicable; and the Government's new objectives, instructions and guidance to the franchising director now require that when a franchisee plans to order new rolling stock, he must discuss the provision of suitable space for accommodating bicycles with the franchise operator.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) raised the issue of what he perceives to be dangerous working practices, which might not only cause harm to employees, but create possible dangers for the travelling public. Employers have a statutory duty to ensure that employees in safety-critical posts do not work such hours as would be liable to cause fatigue. The Health and Safety Commission has issued a statutory code of practice interpreting that duty; and the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is aware of drivers' concerns about new working patterns and is monitoring the situation carefully. However, if my hon. Friend would like to write to me stating specific details, I should be happy to look into the matter.
  As I said, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was one of three speakers who could find nothing but good in the previous Government's practice of rail privatisation. He remarked on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who has dedicatedly served the House and her constituents for a considerable time and who honours the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Transport Sub-Committee by her chairmanship. For the hon. Gentleman to dub her remarks as utter tosh was quite outrageous and scandalous. He raised several constituency issues, not least that of over-carrying, about which he has written to me.
  The hon. Gentleman highlighted the point that if we are to win more passengers on to our railways, the service provided by the train operating companies must be of the highest possible quality. Many Labour Members made the point that vast amounts of public money are being spent on our railways. The Government are determined to ensure that that vast sum produces a high-quality service, and that view will be part and parcel of all our policies, including our White Paper.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who mentioned my birthplace, Birkenhead, more than once, raised the issue of stations. Again, there has to be co-operation between Railtrack, the train operating companies and those most concerned to ensure that stations, services and our whole railway system are improved for the benefit of individual travellers and the country as a whole.
  114
  In his balanced contribution, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) raised many of the issues that had been touched on by other hon. Members tonight. He also spoke about a bridge, but has not yet written to me on that subject. If Railtrack does not come to hear about what he said tonight, perhaps he should write to me, as a letter from me might help to move things along.
  Tonight's debate has clearly demonstrated that the privatised railway system has not been the panacea promised by the previous Administration. It has a regulatory structure that often confuses; there is no long-term strategy for the development of the network; and—most important—passengers are not getting the service that they have a legitimate right to expect. Those are fundamental problems, and the Government are determined to address and to solve them. That is not to say that private train companies have not made improvements in some areas: I welcome the initiatives introduced by several train operating companies in respect of joint ticketing for bus and rail—a point also made by the hon. Member for Salisbury.
  However, in opening the debate for the Government, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport set out in some detail the shortcomings of the railways as we found them last May. He also acknowledged that the reforms needed to remedy those failings cannot be made overnight. We shall need new legislation to establish the new rail authority and to implement some of the proposals that we plan to set out in our White Paper in the spring, on integrated transport policy. Those measures will build on the ones that we have already taken within the constraints imposed by the current complex regulatory structures. Those improvements have been widely welcomed as an important first step in creating the conditions for the railways to operate first and foremost in the public interest. That is what we have said we will do; that is what we are committed to do; and that is what we will deliver.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 296.

  Division No. 158]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Baker, Norman

  Keetch, Paul

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Livsey, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brake, Tom

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Oaten, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Rendel, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Sanders, Adrian

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

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

  Chidgey, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Cotter, Brian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Wallace, James

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Webb, Steve

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Willis, Phil

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Harvey, Nick

  Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Donald Gorrie.

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  115

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ainger, Nick

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Denham, John

  Allen, Graham

  Dismore, Andrew

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Doran, Frank

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Dowd, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Drew, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Austin, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Edwards, Huw

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Efford, Clive

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benton, Joe

  Ennis, Jeff

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Best, Harold

  Fatchett, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Flynn, Paul

  Blizzard, Bob

  Follett, Barbara

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Borrow, David

  Foulkes, George

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Galbraith, Sam

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  (Dunfermline E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Goggins, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gunnell, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Heppell, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretfotd)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hurst, Alan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hutton, John

  Crausby, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  (Copeland)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  116

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kinq, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Radice, Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lock, David

  Roy, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  McAllion, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McFall, John

  Salter, Martin

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNamara, Kevin

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McNulty, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWalter, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Mandelson, Peter

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Spellar, John

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michael, Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stringer, Graham

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Timms, Stephen

  Mountford, Kali

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mudie, George

  Touhig, Don

  Mullin, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Truswell, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Norris, Dan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Vaz, Keith

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pendry, Tom

  Watts, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  White, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Plaskitt, James

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pollard, Kerry

  Pond, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Pope, Greg

  (Swansea W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  117

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Winnick, David

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wise, Audrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. David Clelland and Mr. David Jamieson.

  Wray, James

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the previous Government's privatisation of the railways, which has made a large profit for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer and the passenger, and has fragmented the rail network; welcomes the Government's interim package of measures introduced in November 1997—new Objectives, Instructions and Guidance for the Franchising Director, new planning criteria for OPRAF and a Concordat with the Rail Regulator—which puts the interests of rail users first; and commends the Government's commitment to establish effective and accountable regulation and to set up a new rail authority so that passengers' legitimate expectations are met.

  Cancer Research
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  10.12 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Cancer remains a major medical problem in the United Kingdom. One in three people suffer some form of cancer. One in four die of it. Given the demographic changes—the population's increasing age—it is estimated that one in two people will suffer some form of cancer by 2020. A wide range of cancers was targeted as a priority in last week's Government Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation".
  Cancer research is an integral part of cancer medicine. Progress in cancer treatment has been steady, but very slow. Significant advances have been made by both scientists and clinicians working together to develop new treatments and to refine the results of such treatments. There have been important success stories in relation to testicular cancers, lymphomas and tumours of childhood, but, with common cancers such as lung, colon and breast cancer, there has been less spectacular progress. Prostate cancer has emerged as a major threat to male lives, and will require a severe strategic and clinical approach to have some form of cure.
  We are at a watershed in cancer treatment and entering a new age of entirely novel therapies, where we will be able to identify people who are genetically at risk—for example, women who are at risk from breast cancer. In the past decade, an understanding of the fundamental cell defects that cause cancer, the mutant genes, has allowed us to consider discarding conventional treatments with agents such as cytotoxic drugs, in favour of a range of new, specific and effective agents.
  Those new treatments include the use of the mutant gene, the so-called oncogene, as a target, which is thus selective; preventing cancer from spreading; and selectively re-engineering cancer cells to make them normal.
  Such specific treatments should, we hope, eliminate many of the present debilitating side effects. At the same time, we must consider research into the care of patients and the role of organisations such as BACUP—the British Association of Cancer United Patients—the Royal College of Nursing, and MacMillan Cancer Relief, which provide information, counselling, support and nursing research for individuals, families and patients, and are key players in this area of research.
  Other important research has disclosed that social class V individuals suffer more cancer than social class I; the same is true where there are marked social inequalities. That shows that environment and diet are strong influences in the differentiation between the classes, and therefore need further investigation. After all, it was in Britain that the definitive research into the link between smoking and lung cancer was carried out. The Food Standards Agency will offer support with diet and its link on cancers.
  Cancer medicine requires a rigorous, reductionist, analytical approach to the disease. A knowledge of genetics, cell biology and molecular biology is increasingly needed so that clinicians can think of the clinical problem of cancer in fundamental terms and understand the scientific rationale for new treatments.

  119
  This essential core knowledge is included only at a very superficial level in the postgraduate training of cancer specialists.
  In the past, research posts and research projects have been essential components of oncology training, but the opportunity to engage in such activities has been vitiated by the new strategies for national health service research and development introduced by the previous Government, which are heavily weighted in favour of operational and economic projects while providing very little support for clinicians wishing to pursue laboratory-based biomedical research.
  Clinical research is the most widespread research activity in which clinicians participate. Clinical trials are the only way to evaluate and validate new treatments. It is vital that they are done, and done well. In the present state of knowledge, it is important that as many patients as possible with a malignant disease are offered the opportunity to participate in clinical trials. That is especially true of patients with the rarer malignancies. It is therefore important that there is support and encouragement for clinical trial participation at central and local level.
  the last round of health service reforms by the previous Government unfortunately erected many obstacles in the path of clinical researchers. They have had the effect of severely restricting the scope for trial participation by non-academic departments. A recent article in the British Medical Journal by a senior consultant—sadly unsigned, even in this day and age, for fear of reprisals—illustrates the frustrations of trying to be both a clinician and a researcher. The lack of central support for and local commitment to clinical research activities, with NHS chief executives regarding clinical research with suspicion and as a potential drain on resources, is a major problem awaiting a solution.
  Cancer research gets huge support from charities, and millions of pounds are donated each year by a generous British public. The Government can work with those private sources to underwrite long-term support. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry—one of the success stories, we are told, in this country—seeks interaction with the wider scientific base in universities and research institutes.
  I avidly await the views of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham on the effect of their proposed merger on these scientific issues—and, indeed, whether it will better the development of treatment for patients. The ground rules for applications to the National Lottery Charities Board need to be widened to support some of the initiatives that are needed.
  We have a model—the National Cancer Institute in the United States. It supports cancer research and medicine throughout the USA. It supports a huge research and development operation in oncology, including laboratory science and clinical science at the highest level. It has pilot plant arrangements for the production of new compounds to be used in clinical studies.
  Where there is co-development of new drugs with a pharmaceutical company, it has a degree of control over the pricing of the drug when it comes to market. That is extremely important for new drugs such as the Taxanes, which have been the subject of concern and rationing on
  120
  ground of cost. Some women have been denied treatment for breast cancer because NHS trusts have run out of money. We need some control nationally over that process.
  Moreover, the NCI is a comprehensive organisation for conducting and monitoring clinical trials. It makes comprehensive information resources available to clinicians and patients on the Internet—at www.nih.gov—and not only provides but maintains those information resources in the light of emerging data. In some cases, information is reviewed and re-edited monthly. The United Kingdom has no comparable resource.
  The United Kingdom urgently needs a national cancer institute that could and should work in concert with its US counterpart. The idea has support from the director general of the Imperial Cancer Research team, in London, from many consultants, and locally, as demonstrated today in our newspaper. The local Norfolk and Norwich Big C charity each year collects some quarter of a million pounds from the good people of Norwich and Norfolk, and supports the initiative to establish a national organisation.
  The Royal Marsden hospital is an obvious candidate centre, but the site of the new flagship hospital, in Norwich, which is so beloved by my hon. Friend the Minister, might also be a fine place to site such an institute.
  There certainly needs to be a national research initiative with support rather than obstruction at central and local level. In the USA, Clinton has given a massive budget increase to the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute to boost scientific and clinical research. Those organisations have strong links with the Imperial Cancer Research laboratories, in London, and many individual scientists and clinicians collaborate with each other on both sides of the big pond.
  There is currently a great opportunity to forge links and engage in jointly funded projects—all it needs is central organisation and political momentum. The failure of Nixon's so-called war on cancer will be forgotten if our new knowledge of the causes and biological basis of cancer is accepted and applied, and a proper infrastructure is established to move discoveries from laboratory to clinic to bedside.
  10.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am grateful—as I am sure that the House is—to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for raising an extremely important subject, and for giving me the opportunity to stress the Government's determination to improve cancer services and our commitment to cancer research.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, cancer is a major problem. Each year, more than 200,000 new cases of cancer are diagnosed in England and Wales. Most of us are likely to know someone who has suffered from cancer. Tragically, in the United Kingdom, one in four people currently die from cancer. After coronary heart disease, cancers are the most common cause of death in our country. All that makes it vital that the Government have a strategy both for cancer care and for cancer research.
  Before outlining the Government's strategy, I should like to record—I hope on behalf of the whole House—my thanks to all the organisations that help in tackling cancer,

  121
  whether they work in the field of research—organisations such as the Cancer Research Campaign or the Imperial Cancer Research Fund—or in helping patients and their families to deal with cancer, such as the services offered through MacMillan Cancer Relief and Marie Curie Cancer Care.
  As hon. Members will know, cancer has an impact on the lives of most people in the United Kingdom, whether as patients, relatives, friends, neighbours or workmates. I know that the work of those organisations has often proved invaluable. I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating members of the public who each year donate huge sums to help in the fight against cancer.
  Over the next 20 years, there are likely to be a number of major changes that will impact upon cancer care and cancer research. Research will have an important role in addressing those developments. The pattern of cancer incidence, for example, will change as the population becomes older. Cancer is mainly a disease of older age, with the majority of people in the UK who develop it aged over 70. We need also to ensure that our screening programmes continue to meet high-quality assurance standards, and that other potential population screening methodologies for other specific cancers are considered as research becomes available.
  Just as important, with an increasing older population, it is likely that more people will have to live with cancer. This means that we need to ensure that research continues to improve our knowledge of palliative care so that we can further develop our support systems and improve the control of symptoms and side effects following treatment, thereby allowing patients, as far as possible, to lead a fulfilling, pain-free life.
  Research can help to identify ways of preventing cancer, or spotting it in its early stages. Not all cancer deaths are preventable, but many are. Factors such as diet, smoking or the environment can cause cancer. As my hon. Friend rightly said, just last week the Government set out in the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" proposals to reduce the death rate from cancer among people aged under 65 years by at least a further one fifth.
  That is a very challenging target, but one that it is important to meet. Had that reduction taken place in 1996, it would have resulted in some 6,000 deaths in this age group being avoided. We set out proposals for concerted action by the Government as a whole, in partnership with local organisations, to improve people's living conditions and health.
  The Government believe that all cancer patients should be confident of uniform access to high-quality services, regardless of where they live. The care and treatment of cancer patients forms a substantial part of NHS work in both the primary and secondary care sectors—it accounts for around 7 per cent. of NHS resources. We want to ensure that the good working practices that already exist in many areas are developed more widely, so that we can get rid of some of the unacceptable variations in provision.
  That is why the Government wish to progress the Calman/Hine framework set out in the document "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services". As my hon. Friend will know, that recommended a strategic framework for delivering cancer services so that variations are eliminated.
  122
  A great deal of work has already been undertaken within the NHS to implement the recommendations of the Calman/Hine framework, with much being achieved locally. A key element has been the identification of cancer units and centres and local agreement on where and what cancers should be treated at individual hospitals. In many regions, this has involved site visits by multi-disciplinary teams to assess cancer provision against agreed cancer standards, to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to agree a time scale for change.
  Full implementation cannot be achieved overnight, but we are determined to see some early improvements in services. We have set out a commitment in our White Paper "The New NHS" to
  "improve prompt access to specialist services so that everyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their GP deciding they need to be seen urgently and requesting an appointment".
  We will guarantee these arrangements for everyone with suspected breast cancer by April 1999 and for all other cases of suspected cancer by 2000. As my hon. Friend also knows, we have already made £10 million available to be used specifically for breast cancer services. It is being used already to give women rapid access to good diagnostic services and shorter waiting times for treatment. Indeed, some £120,000 of this investment has gone into services in Norwich.
  The current reorganisation of our cancer services, based on the Calman/Hine recommendations, will enable patients to move through the system more effectively and to benefit from earlier diagnosis and treatment given by specialised multidisciplinary teams. It has been estimated that this alone could increase survival by as much as 10 per cent. when fully implemented. The publication of evidence-based guidance in support of the cancer strategy and the guidelines issued by the professions for the various cancer sites is allowing the benefits of research to be disseminated and translated into practice across the country.
  I deal now with some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend. Let me assure him that the Government remain committed to encouraging research into the causes, prevention, early detection and treatment of all cancers. There are three main routes by which the Government currently fund research: through the Department of Health policy research programme, the NHS research and development programme, and the Medical Research Council.
  First, the Department of Health's policy research programme funds high-quality research to provide a sound knowledge base for health services policy, social services policy, and central policies directed at the health of the population. It has an extensive portfolio of work on research into cancer. It provides long-term funding for two well-established and highly regarded research groups: the cancer screening evaluation unit at the Institute of Cancer Research, and the childhood cancer research group at the university of Oxford.
  The programme also contributes to research external to the Department of Health. For example, it is making a substantial contribution to the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research's breast cancer screening trials, one of which is studying the potential value of screening women from the comparatively earlier age of 40. Other cancers being

  123
  researched include lung cancer, liver cancer and childhood tumours, and there are also studies on smoking and radon in houses.
  Secondly, there is the NHS research and development programme which funds more than 300 studies and plays a key role in strengthening the scientific basis of health care. There is a specific NHS research and development cancer programme, which, after a detailed consultation process with key organisations in the cancer field, identified 25 priority areas including aetiology, palliative care, screening and treatment. Through the NHS research and development levy, the NHS also provides service support for externally funded clinical and basic research undertaken in NHS trusts. About £30 million was spent on service support for cancer research.
  Thirdly, there is the main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research—the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Trade and Industry. The council is an independent body, deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment.
  In 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available, the council spent almost £15 million directly on research into cancer. The figure would rise considerably if a proportion of the council's spend on metabolism, molecular structure, genes and chromosomes, the immune system and other areas of basic medical research that may yield results relevant to cancer were included. The Department of Health has a concordat with the Medical Research Council that ensures discussion between the two organisations on their priorities for research.
  The Medical Research Council is currently funding a number of research projects that will have a significant impact on the future of cancer services. For instance, the MRC is funding research looking at the application of new technologies, including imaging and molecular pathology, for improving tumour diagnosis, and for the prediction of tumour behaviour and response to therapy.
  As my hon. Friend said, invaluable work is undertaken by the cancer research charities, such as the Cancer Research Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. In 1995–96, it is estimated that charities affiliated to the Association of Medical Research Charities spent £124 million on cancer research. Together with the estimated £115 million spent each year on cancer research by the pharmaceutical companies, that means that, in total, an identified £263 million a year is spent on cancer research. It is a considerable sum of money, but it is not simply a matter of funding. We must be confident that appropriate research is undertaken, and that we build on the lessons from research.
  124
  My hon. Friend has called for a strategic body for cancer research. The National Cancer Institute in the United States of America is a well-respected and effective organisation. It is an interesting proposal, but the current arrangements in the United Kingdom are different, although equally effective.
  Here, we have a national forum with representatives from the NHS, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical research charities and the research councils. It was established to ensure that the NHS fully understands the priorities, strategies and requirements of its research partners, and in turn ensures that they understand where NHS priorities lie. It covers research generally, but provides a forum for sharing information and taking a strategic overview of research activity.
  On cancer in particular, there is the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research, which is jointly funded by the Cancer Research Campaign, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Medical Research Council. It provides a useful forum for the exchange of views and information among funding bodies and other organisations specifically on cancer. It plays a major role in facilitating and co-ordinating joint initiatives. Importantly, it recommends proposals for the co-ordination of policies to sponsors, and advises on issues of relevance to the conduct of cancer research.
  The co-ordinating committee also has a number of site-specific sub-committees developing basic science and clinical trial initiatives, including ones on breast, colorectal and gynaecological cancers and melanoma, as well as ad hoc groups advising on the current status of biomarkets and new technologies in clinical cancer research. I assure my hon. Friend that the co-ordinating committee maintains close links with my Department, and we have observer status on it.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that clinical trials are the best way of evaluating and validating new treatments. All treatments in the NHS should be subject to clinical trials. We have recently appointed a clinical trials adviser to support and develop trials.
  The debate has highlighted the potential for cancer prevention and, we hope, cure. Our knowledge of cancer is increasing year by year—indeed, day by day. We need to be confident that we have in place co-ordinated and appropriate research, and, most importantly, that we have the ability fully to exploit the results of that research for the benefit of the population. That is the challenge for the national health service and the country. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we shall work with all concerned to help meet that challenge.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Pride of Bilbao
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the Marine Safety Agency's report into the recent crossing to Spain of the Pride of Bilbao. [24057]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. R. M. Bradley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 9 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question about the vessel "Pride of Bilbao".
  The MSA's findings on this matter were not in the form of an official report but a Note has been prepared summarising the sequence of events, the actions taken and our conclusions. A copy of this Note is enclosed; in view of the public interest a copy has also been sent to the Editor of the Portsmouth News.

  Note by the Marine Safety Agency
  Passenger Ferry Pride of Bilbao: Voyage in rough weather: Portsmouth-Bilbao 3–6 January 1998
  1. The Marine Safety Agency has followed up complaints received about the voyage of the Pride of Bilbao from Portsmouth to Bilbao, departing from Portsmouth on 3 January 1998. Inquiries have included a visit by a Marine Safety Agency surveyor to the ship, an interview with the Master and telephone discussions with a number of passengers. This note summarises the main findings.

  Pride of Bilbao
  2. The Pride of Balbao is a UK registered ro-ro passenger ferry, managed and operated by P & O European Ferries. It has a passenger certificate issued by the Marine Safety Agency entitling it to carry up to a maximum of 2,335 passengers and up to 220 crew. It operates principally on the route from Portsmouth to Bilbao, and is also used on the Portsmouth to Cherbourg crossing. The usual crossing time from Portsmouth to Bilbao is about 36 hours.
  3. In terms of weather and sea state, there are no operating restrictions placed on the vessel. It is fully capable of withstanding the most severe weather conditions. During the winter months, gale force winds and rough seas are a common occurrence on the Portsmouth to Bilbao crossing; the Bay of Biscay in particular is renowned for storms. The ship is fitted with stabilisers and normal precautions including lashing lorries and freight to ensure that they do not shift in heavy seas.

  Voyage on 3 January
  4. In advance of the sailing at 2000h on 3 January, the Master of the Pride of Bilbao, took account of the weather forecast information, in line with the usual practice. The forecast weather was for gale force winds for the proposed route; consequently, the crew were advised to take normal heavy weather precautions, including double lashing of lorries. At the beginning of the voyage the usual passenger sailing announcements were made; passengers were warned that the crossing would be rough and that they should proceed with care when moving around the vessel. There were some 800 passengers on board, together with cars, caravans and freight.
  2
  5. The Pride of Bilbao was due for drydocking immediately on its return from Spain. Since it was apparent that the voyage was likely to take longer than usual, the Master did discuss with P & O shore staff the question of whether the vessel should sail and agreed that it should continue as planned. However, this discussion related to scheduling the advice to passengers on the forecast conditions. No questions were raised as to whether it was safe to sail; that decision was left, as is proper, to the Master.
  6. At mid-day on 4 January the weather became more severe and the Master informed the passengers that he would be slowing down and slightly altering course to ease sailing conditions. Passengers were also informed that the outside upper deck doors would be secured to avoid them causing injury or being damaged by the strong winds. At its peak the storm reached force 11 to 12, with waves of 30 metres.
  7. At 0130 on 5 January passengers were informed that the ship would be resuming its usual course for Bilbao. It subsequently reached port at 0030 on 6 January; this was some 16.5 hours later than timetabled.
  8. Accident reports concerning injuries to people sustained during the voyage were submitted, the most serious being a broken arm. These are being considered by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. 2 or 3 damage reports were filed for minor damage to cars. A foc's'le ladder came adrift; the piano was damaged and a plate glass window was crazed. Overall, damage to fittings was minor and no damage to the structure of the ship was sustained.

  Conclusions
  9. It is clear that the crossing on 3–6 January was very stormy and that many passengers found the rough seas exceptionally unpleasant. However, the Marine Safety Agency has concluded that the safety of the ship, its passengers and crew was not compromised by the decision to sail, which was taken in the knowledge that bad weather was forecast. Having interviewed the Master, the Agency is satisfied that he acted in a fully competent manner, in preparing for the voyage and during it, in accordance with the principles of good seamanship. There is no evidence that he was placed under any commercial pressure to sail against his judgment.

  Airprox Incident, Heathrow
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those measures taken by NATS following their internal review of the Airprox incident at Heathrow airport on 15 April 1996. [27016]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  NATS have supplied the following details about measures taken in response to their internal review of the Airprox incident in question:Controller simulation training was modified—additional "go-around"' events were added to simulator training and a specific video on go-arounds in a parallel runway situation was included in classroom training;
  Controller competency requirements were modified to require controllers to practise regularly calls to the Terminal Control facility in the event of a go-around;
  The layout of the telephone indicator system was reviewed and found to be optimum.
  1 A "go around" occurs when a pilot either decides (in liaison with Air Traffic Control), or is instructed by Air Traffic Control, to pull out of one landing and is repositioned for a further approach.

  Belfast International Airport
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects an SSR system to be introduced at Belfast International Airport; and what contingency plans he has in the event of late installation. [27015]
  3
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The decision whether or not to provide Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) facilities at Belfast International Airport is a matter for the airport authority, Belfast International Airport Limited. I understand that the present plan is for an SSR system to be introduced in the summer of 1999, after the radar display system has been up-dated to handle SSR data.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice has been given by IBM to the Civil Aviation Authority on the work required to ensure that core air traffic management systems will be millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [27872]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In conjunction with IBM, National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) has carried out extensive test and assessment programme on its IBM machines and has established that, within the context of their use in NATS, these machines represent a minimal risk with respect to the millennium.

  Remedial work on CAA and NATS systems to deal with the millennium bug problem should be completed by July 1998. The systems will then be subjected to validation tests. The testing of all operational systems, and non-operational systems with significant impact, is scheduled for completion by the end of 1998.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that low-level radioactive waste disposed of in landfills or by incineration or recycling under European Commission Council Directive 96/29/Euratom does not create a health hazard. [27473]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 376.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each major new computer system that(a) his Department, (b) non-departmental bodies and (c) agencies under his 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 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. [27842]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what Government financial help is available to local authorities in England and Wales to encourage tree-planting schemes within their areas. [27635]
  4
  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities may plant trees themselves or support planting schemes carried out by others. Any financial help is given at the discretion of each local authority from resources available to them through the local government finance system. Authorities may also be eligible to apply for the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme, which offers grant aid for the establishment and management of woodlands.

  In addition, local authorities may be partners in Government sponsored programmes which involve tree planting as part of a wider strategy to improve the local environment, such as the Community Forest Programme and the Single Regeneration Budget. They may also work with voluntary organisations supported financially by the Government to encourage tree planting (such as the Tree Council) or who are engaged in planting trees (such as Groundwork and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers).

  Hedges
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend building regulations to limit the height to which hedges and trees around residential property may be allowed to grow. [27503]

  Angela Eagle
  I am considering whether some form of Government intervention in relation to such hedges and trees is justified, but there are no powers to limit their height under building regulations, which apply only to the design and construction of buildings.

  Mottram Tintwistle By-pass
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of land on the proposed route of the A625/A57 Mottram Tintwistle by-pass is currently in the ownership of the Highways Agency. [27447]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highways Agency owns 13 of the 15 properties which should have to be demolished to build the road. The rest of the land, about 40 hectares, would be acquired under compulsory purchase powers, following the completion of the statutory procedures, if the scheme goes ahead. The scheme is included in the strategic review of Trunk Roads, the results of which we aim to announce later this year.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the structure of regional development agencies. [27686]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since the publication in December of the White Paper, "Building Partnerships for Prosperity", and of the Regional Development Agencies Bill, I have received a number of letters about various matters relating to RDAs. In addition, I have regularly had meetings with interested parties, both in London and in the regions, to hear at first hand what people think about our proposals.
  5

  Rail Investment
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on levels of investment planned by(a) Railtrack and (b) the private train operators in 1998. [27638]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack publishes its levels of investment for the maintenance, renewal and enhancement of the network in an annual Network Management Statement. The next statement is expected in March. No organisation is currently responsible for monitoring the total investment levels planned by all train operators, though the Franchising Director monitors contractually committed investment. Our proposed Rail Authority will help to meet the need for proper strategic planning in the industry.

  Roads
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities on the adequacy of funding for(a) outstanding maintenance work on local authority roads and (b) improvement of transport infrastructure to meet current needs. [27886]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced the local transport capital settlement on 17 December 1997,Official Report, columns 198–99, my Department has received eight written representations from local authorities about, inter alia, the adequacy of funding for the structural maintenance of local authority roads. A further 11 written representations have been received about the funding of other transport capital infrastructure in the local transport capital settlement. Officials of the Government Offices of my Department have also held a number of routine meetings with local authorities to discuss the settlement.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has sought advice from the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment for the purposes of the(a) Roads Review and (b) Integrated Transport White Paper. [28452]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In July, we asked SACTRA to contribute advice in time for the Roads Review and White Paper timetables. We are pleased to confirm that we have now received an interim report from the Committee and this will be taken account of in our deliberations on the Roads Review and Integrated Transport White Paper. Copies of the report will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Public Access
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the locations of privately-owned land which has been opened up to public access since 1996 as a result of a voluntary access agreement with a member of the Country Landowners Association. [27484]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not held centrally.

  Property Standards
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he 6
  has to introduce legislation to require owners to maintain their properties in a reasonable and safe state of repair. [27711]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Owners are first and foremost responsible for maintaining their properties in a reasonable and safe state of repair. Statutory provisions exist for local authorities to take enforcement action against owners whose properties are unfit for human habitation or in a state of disrepair. In the private rented sector we are committed to introducing a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation where poor fire and safety and other health and safety standards often apply. Primary legislation will be needed to introduce a licensing scheme.

  Royal Bournemouth Hospital (Clinical Waste Incinerator)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the cost to public funds of the public inquiry into the appeal by White Rose Environmental against the enforcement notice of Dorset County Council Ref T/APP/C/97/C1245/646229/P6 and T/APP/C1245/A/96/275779/P6 regarding the clinical waste incinerator at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital. [28183]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Hanchet to Mr. David Atkinson, dated 6 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your question on the cost to public funds of the public inquiry into the appeal by White Rose Environmental against the enforcement notice of Dorset County Council (Ref. T/APP/C/97/C1245/646229/P6 and T/APP/C1245/A/96/275779/P6) regarding the clinical waste incinerator at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital.
  The Planning Inspectorate's cost in dealing with these appeals was £7,827.60 but as I have no record of the expenditure incurred by Dorset County Council I am unable to give the total cost to public funds.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has responsibility, in (A) 1995–96, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 to date and (D) 1997–98 full year. [26656]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]The information requested is as follows:

  £000

  A 1995–96

  B 1996–97

  C 1997–98 (to date)

  D 1997–98 (estimate)

  Department

  (incl. Executive Agencies)

  Cost of empty property

  .5

  43.5

  46.4

  61.9

  Value of empty property Executive agencies

  5.0

  158.0

  377.0

  377.0

  Cost of empty property

  .5

  43.5

  8.9

  11.9

  Value of empty property

  .5

  158.0

  127.0

  127.0

  Note

  Information on NDPBS is not held ceatrally.
  7
  Buildings Refurbishment

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in(a)1995–96, (b)1996–97,

  (c)1997–98 to date and (d)1997–98 full year; and if he will make a statement. [26658]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]The answer is as follows:

  £000

  (a) 1995–96

  (b) 1996–97

  (c) 1997–98 (to date)

  (d) 1997–98 (estimate)

  Department (including

  Executive Agencies)

  13,427

  38,422

  9,073

  12,605

  Executive Agencies

  4,321

  4,337

  2,952

  5,102

  The main costs are due to the need to relocate out of 2 Marsham street.

  Development (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total acreage of brown-field sites available for development for(a)industry, (b)housing, (c)leisure and(d)reclamation in the district of Easington indicating the location of such sites. [28245]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally. I understand, however, from the information held by the local planning authority, Easington District Council, that the total acreage of brown-field sites available and their location are shown in the following table.

  Brown-field sites

  Location

  Hectares

  (a) for industry, 156 hectares in total located at

  Blackhall

  5.0

  Cold Heseldon

  0.3

  Dalton Flatts, Murton

  16.0

  Dawdon Colliery

  14.0

  Hawthorn Cokeworks

  42.0

  Murton Street. Murton

  4.0

  Peterlee North East

  2.4

  Peterlee North West

  26.0

  Peterlee South West

  18.0

  Seaham Grange

  7.6

  Sea View, Horden

  15.0

  South Hetton

  2.2

  Thornley Station

  3.3

  Wingate Grange

  0.5

  (b) for housing, 123 hectares in total, located at

  Peterlee

  16.9

  Seaham

  50.0

  Castle Eden

  2.6

  Easington

  6.8

  Haswell

  3.7

  Hawthorn

  0.5

  Hesleden

  1.5

  Horden

  3.0

  Murton

  7.3

  South Hetton

  1.0

  Shotton

  3.3

  Thornley

  5.1

  Trimdon

  11.2

  Wheatley Hill

  4.8

  8

  Brown-field sites

  Location

  Hectares

  Wingate

  5.3

  (c) for leisure, 85.5 hectares in total, located at

  Easington Colliery

  30.0

  Haswell, Durham Lane

  3.5

  Murton Colliery

  7.0

  Dalton Flatts, Murton

  20.0

  Adjacent Leisure Centre, Peterlee

  3.0

  Vane Tempest Colliery, Seaham

  6.0

  Seaham Colliery

  8.0

  North Dock, Seaham

  3.0

  Parkside, Seaham

  2.0

  East of Seaham Town Centre

  3.0

  (d) for reclamation, 171 hectares in total, located at

  Easington Colliery

  30.0

  Hawthorn Cokeworks

  82.0

  Seaham Collier

  14.0

  Vane Tempest Colliery, Seaham

  25.0

  Easington Colliery, Spoil Heap

  10.0

  Horden Colliery Spoil Heap

  10.0

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total acreage of brown-field sites and green-field sites in the district of Easington proposed for housing development in the next five years indicating the location of such sites. [28244]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally. I understand, however, from the information held by the local planning authority, Easington District Council, that the total acreage of brown-field sites and green-field sites proposed for housing development in the next five years and their locations are shown on the following tables.

  Brown-field housing sites, 122.79 hectares in total

  Site

  Hectares

  Peterlee, Beverley Way

  3.19

  Peterlee, Acre Rigg

  4.04

  Peterlee, Westcott Road

  0.28

  Peterlee, Eden Lane School

  1.80

  Peterlee, Oakerside West

  5.00

  Peterlee, Edenhill Road

  0.10

  Peterlee, South of Yoden Way

  2.50

  Seaham, Seaham View

  0.30

  Seaham, Deneholm Miners' Centre

  0.67

  Seaham, Embleton Street

  0.18

  Seaham. Viceroy Street

  0.22

  Seaham, Dawdon Crescent

  0.15

  Seaham, Deneside

  2.90

  Seaham, Dalton Grange

  2.60

  Seaham, St. Mary Magdalene School

  0.85

  Seaham, Seaham Colliery

  13.44

  Seaham, Vane Tempest Colliery

  25.00

  Seaham, Deneside

  3.20

  Seaham, Lawnside

  0.20

  Seaham, Parkside

  0.37

  Castle Eden, south of Haswell—

  Hart Walkway

  1.70

  Castle Eden, Castle Eden Golf Club

  0.86

  Easington, Wordsworth Road

  0.66

  Easington, Easington Colliery

  2.00

  Easington, Cadwell Lane Depot

  1.50

  Easington, Village Green

  0.30

  Easington, Comet Hill

  0.10

  Easington, Cornwall Street

  0.40

  Easington, Thorpe Nursery

  1.77

  9

  Brown-field housing sites, 122.79 hectares in total

  Site

  Hectares

  Haswell, east of George Street

  0.30

  Haswell, west of Blossomfield

  3.10

  Haswell, Durham Lane

  0.25

  Hawthorn, West Farm

  0.47

  Hesleden, east of Station Road

  1.50

  Horden, former colliery site

  3.00

  Murton, Rex Cinema

  0.30

  Murton, Murton Colliery

  5.27

  Murton, Northern Bus Depot

  0.70

  Murton, west of The Avenue

  1.00

  South Hetton, Windermere Road

  0.27

  South Hetton, north of Fallowfield Terrace

  0.68

  Shotton, Victoria Street

  0.60

  Shotton, Windsor Place

  2.00

  Shotton, Dene Terrace

  0.10

  Shotton, Salters Lane

  0.38

  Shotton, Dene Crescent

  0.17

  Thornley, Thornley House

  0.75

  Thornley, north of Hartlepool Street

  2.04

  Thornley, School Green

  0.46

  Thornley, south of Hartlepool Street

  1.89

  Trimdon Station, east of Margaret

  Terrace

  0.50

  Trimdon Station, Margaret Terrace

  and east of Malvern Crescent

  1.66

  Trimdon Station, land north of Wingate Road

  9.04

  Wheatley Hill, Numbered Street

  1.50

  Wheatley Hill, Scrapyard, Back Lane

  0.50

  Wheatley Hill, Weardale Park

  1.40

  Wheatley Hill, Wingate Lane

  0.22

  Wheatley Hill, Church Park

  0.88

  Wheatley Hill, Quilstyle Road

  0.30

  Wingate, north of Rodridge Street

  2.50

  Wingate, Market Crescent

  0.62

  Wingate, former Auction Rooms

  0.90

  Wingate, Rodridge House

  0.46

  Wingate, Station Lane, Station

  Town

  0.80

  Green-field sites, 59.13 hectares in total

  Site

  Hectares

  Peterlee, north of Lowhills Road

  19.90

  Peterlee, Thorpe Hospital Site

  1.28

  Blackhall, land north of the B1281

  1.00

  Blackhall, land north of Hesleden Road

  3.10

  Castle Eden, Bankside

  0.10

  Castle Eden, south of Village Hall

  0.30

  Castle Eden, east of Dene View

  1.34

  Castle Eden, grounds of large dwellings

  1.00

  Castle Eden, The Paddock

  1.09

  Easington, land south of Seaside Lane

  6.22

  Haswell, west of Plough Farm

  0.20

  Hawthorn, Coop Farm

  1.88

  Seaton, north of Seaton Lane

  1.65

  South Hetton, Fallowfield Terrace

  2.00

  South Hetton, Oakwood/Hawthorn Rise

  2.10

  Shotton, north of Station Road

  3.64

  Trimdon Station, land south of Wingate Road

  4.70

  Wingate, Moor Lane

  2.55

  Wingate, north of A. J. Dawson School

  2.60

  Wingate, south of Wellfield By-pass

  2.48

  10

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what inspections of Sellafield have taken place by Euratom inspectors since 1 May 1997. [28173]

  Angela Eagle
  Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty requires Member States to establish facilities for the continuous monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in the environment. The European Commission periodically arranges for groups of experts to visit Member States to verify the operation and efficiency of these facilities.

  The most recent verification visits to the UK took place in May and December 1993 and evaluated monitoring facilities in the vicinities of Dounreay and Sellafield respectively. The Commission concluded that the monitoring facilities met the required standard on both occasions.

  Sapphire
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made so far on the consultation process he announced following the loss of the fishing vessel Sapphire; when this consultation began; how many officials in his Department have been involved in the consultation process; which organisations have been contacted; and when he expects the findings to be announced. [27533]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]The Consultation document which we propose to publish will address many complex issues and it is necessary to have the input of a number of Government Departments beforehand to ensure that it is as comprehensive as possible and correctly addresses all the relevant issues.

  This process is naturally taking some time and consequently I am not as yet in a position to be able to inform the hon. Member when the paper will be published or the findings of the consultation announced.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will install speed cameras in South Newton on the A36(T); and what additional traffic management measures he will introduce there. [28120]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 6 February 1998]I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Robert Key, dated 9 February 1998 Glenda Jackson has asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to write to you in reply to your recent PQ about the installation of speed cameras on the A36 at South Newton. Lawrie Haynes, the Chief Executive, has asked me to reply as he is away from the office at present.
  You should have now received Lawrie Haynes' letter of 3 February on this subject. We plan to replace the traffic activated sign on the Salisbury bound carriageway of the A36 with a speed camera. We also plan to install signs on the A36 indicating the

  11
  presence of speed cameras. We have consulted the Parish Council and residents of South Newton on the environmental aspects and we hope that the equipment will be in place by the end of March.

  We are still awaiting the full report from Wiltshire County Council and we will look at further measures, including 'gateway' treatment, when we consider that report.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's response to the representations from English Nature for a three-year ban on the cultivation of genetically modified herbicide-resistant crops; and if he
  will make a statement. [28130]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department invites English Nature to comment on all applications for research trials or marketing of genetically modified organisms. Their representations are taken into account in the Secretary of State's decision. In commenting on the specific genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops which have gone forward for marketing approval in the European Union, English Nature raised various concerns, but did not at that stage call for a three year ban.

  In responding to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a discussion paper on genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops in September 1997, English Nature stated that
  "until the consequences of using GMHT crops become clearer through research the conservation agencies recommend that the precautionary principle is applied and that no commercial releases are approved for at least the next five years. With research not being available before 2000, we find it difficult to justify the addition of GMHT crops to the UK national list until 2002".

  The Ministry, along with my Department, is considering the large number of comments received about the discussion paper and will announce its conclusions as soon as it can.

  In response to the concerns of English Nature and other conservation bodies about the widespread introduction of genetically modified crops and the resulting changes in pesticide use and agricultural practice; off
  icials in my Department are considering the implications for the environment, particularly possible indirect effects on wildlife. We shall be having further discussions with English Nature and others on how these concerns may best be addressed.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's research into genetically modified herbicide resistant crops. [28131]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's research to monitor releases of genetically modified oil seed rape is being carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany. This study started in 1995 and we expect to receive the final report in March. We will assess the implications of the research and the results will be published by the Department as a research report.

  In September 1997, the Department commissioned NIAB to carry out a further three-year study into monitoring large scale releases of genetically modified
  12
  crops. This will include crops entered into the national list trials such as winter oil seed rape and sugar beet. The results of this study will be published in due course.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at what stage the HSE review into the disposal of non-reproductive genetically modified organisms has reached; and if he will make a statement. [28129]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consulted interested parties last year on a proposal for an exemption certificate which would allow disposal of untreated liquid waste containing GMOs when, on the basis of a thorough risk assessment, they are judged not to pose a risk to human health and the environment. The sort of GMOs concerned are those which are capable of only limited survival in the environment. Non-reproduction would be one of the factors considered in the risk assessment. The consultation also included detailed related guidance on risk assessment.

  The Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification have evaluated the outcome of the consultation exercise. They advised that while no new issues about risk assessment had been raised in the consultation an independent review of the scientific literature should be commissioned, given the continual advances in knowledge in this area, to ensure that the very latest scientific information is taken into account. HSE has accepted this advice. Further consideration of the proposed certificate and guidance, by HSE and the Government Departments with an interest, has therefore been deferred pending completion of that review.

  Council Tax Discount
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend discretion to local authorities in determining the level of council tax discount to second homes. [28393]

  Mr. Raynsford
  All dwellings in England which are no-one's sole or main residence, including second homes, attract a 50 per cent, discount. Local authorities do not have any discretion to vary this. Since the election, we have received a number of representations about the council tax liability of second homes. We are considering these as part of our review of the council tax.

  Boundary Committee (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will implement the recommendation of the Local Government Boundary Committee in Hertfordshire prior to 1998 local elections. [28480]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. The intention is to introduce the new electoral arrangements in Hertfordshire for the local government elections in 1999.

  Publications
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, by title, the publications produced by his Department and by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26329]
  13
  Angela Eagle
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) produces a wide variety of publications covering the full range of responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department. I am placing in the Library of the House a list of titles for DETR from its formation on 16 June 1997 to 31 January 1998. The list also includes titles produced by the former Department of the Environment from May 1997, and the former Department of Transport from June 1997.

  Homelessness (Southampton)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the total number of registered homeless people in the Southampton City Council area; [27555]

  (2) how many people have been accepted on to the homeless register of Southampton City Council in each of the last five years. [27554]

  Year

  Homelessness acceptances

  1992

  474

  1993

  442

  1994

  579

  1995

  584

  1996

  538

  19971

  398

  1 data for the first 3 quarters only.

  Under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, authorities must establish and maintain a housing register for the purpose of allocating their housing accommodation but there is no statutory obligation for local housing authorities to hold a register of homeless applicants. Accommodation secured as a discharge of a homelessness duty need not be a tenancy allocated under part VI of the 1996 Act.

  Housing (Southampton)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are on the housing transfer list of the Southampton City Council; and what were the equivalent figures at the same time in each of the last five years. [27899]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are on the housing waiting list of the Southampton City Council; and what were the equivalent figures at the same time in each of the last five years. [27558]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing register/waiting list (excluding existing tenants awaiting a transfer) at 1 April each year in their annual Housing Investment
  14
  Programme (HIP1) returns. The data reported by Southampton City Council for 1997 and the previous five years are as follows:

  Year

  Waiting list

  1992

  5,915

  1993

  5,721

  1994

  5,704

  1995

  4,504

  1996

  6,233

  1997

  2,329

  Local authorities have different practices for compiling and managing their housing register/waiting lists which mean that simple comparisons between authorities can be misleading. The substantial change in the figures between 1996 and 1997 resulted primarily from a review exercise linked with revisions to the housing register in order to meet the requirements of the 1996 Housing Act.

  Government Property (Southampton)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties formerly owned by Government Departments have been made available to(a)the council and (b)housing associations in the Southampton City Council area. [27560]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally.

  Government Properties (Winchester)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties formerly owned by Government Departments have been made available to(a)the council and(b)housing associations in the Winchester City Council area. [28332]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally.

  "Rural England 1996"
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list,with reference to the consultation exercise carried out prior to the publication of "Rural England 1996" Cm 3444, those individuals and organisations who attended each of the public consultation meetings, where each meeting was held and when. [28536]

  Angela Eagle
  A large number of conferences and seminars were held following the publication of the Rural White Paper, "Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside" in 1995. "Rural England 1996" reported that these events were arranged by voluntary agencies, parish, district and county councils. Government Ministers participated in over 50 of such meetings. Records of the individuals and organisations who attended each of the meetings are not held centrally.

  Local Democracy
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish his proposals for reforming local democracy; and if he will make a statement. [28962]
  15
  Mr. Prescott
  I have published today the first in a series of papers inviting discussion on proposals to modernise English local government. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  This first paper—on local democracy and community leadership—sets out proposals for modernising local electoral arrangements, for developing new ways in which councils can listen to their local communities and involve them in their decisions, for devising new ways in which councils can work, and for strengthening councils' roles as leaders of their local communities.

  Other papers in the series will cover our proposals for best value in service delivery, a new ethical framework for local government, and aspects of the local government finance system. Following what I hope will be a wide public debate, we will set out our firm proposals in a White Paper. Our aim is a reinvigorated local government playing its full part as a partner with central government in laying the foundations for stable economic growth and improving the quality of people's lives.

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23251]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]My wife accompanied me on the following official overseas visits.

  20–23 June 1997: Denver and New York

  29 June-1 July 1997: Hong Kong

  8–13 January 1998: Japan

  4–7 February 1998: Washington

  Any additional costs incurred are minimal as was the case under the previous Administration.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of the trip to the Seychelles and Nairobi for(a) the travel and accommodation of accompanying staff and (b) the Prime Minister and Mrs. Blair. [23478]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a)
  officials and (b) security staff accompanied him on his trip to the Seychelles. [27151]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]The costs of travel and accommodation for myself and my family were met by the Blair family. Other costs related to the Prime Minister's security and secure telecommunications. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to detail such expenditure for security reasons.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when it was decided, and by whom, that the term spouse in paragraph 83 of the Ministerial Code should be extended to permit those not married to a Minister making an overseas trip to accompany him or her at public expense; [25773]
  16
  (2) when permission was first granted for someone not married to a civil servant making an overseas trip to accompany the civil servant at public expense; [25775]

  (3) when it was decided, and by whom, that the term spouse in the rules that govern the granting of permission for someone not married to a civil servant accompanying that civil servant on an overseas visit at public expense including partners. [25774]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 483.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the public interest justification under paragraph 83 of the Ministerial Code when he granted permission to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), to take his wife to Australasia and the Pacific from 12 to 22 September; [25771]

  (2) what was the public interest justification under paragraph 83 of the Ministerial Code when he granted permission to the Minister of Agriculture to take his wife to the Netherlands from 25 to 27 May; [25864]

  (3) what was the public interest justification under paragraph 83 of the Ministerial Code when he granted permission to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), to take his companion to Luxembourg from 25 to 26 October. [25770]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5 February 1998, Official Report, columns 732–33.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister what clear public interest was served by the visit of Miss Geraldine Daly when accompanying the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to Luxembourg. [26247]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 5 February 1998,Official Report, columns 732–33.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list Government expenditure on Ministerial overseas visits at current prices(a) for the financial years (i) 1993–94,
  (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96 and (iv) 1996–97 and (b) from
  1 May 1997. [28964]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on Ministerial overseas visits in real terms for the periods requested is estimated as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  6.5

  1994–95

  6.6

  1995–96

  6.9

  1996–97

  7.5

  1 May 1997 onwards

  4.7

  These figures do not include some expenditure falling to the Scottish Office, the Ministry of Defence, and the Welsh Office where the information is not available for the earlier years. Full information is available from

  17
  1996–97 and the full cost for 1996–97 was over £7.8 million and for the period since 1 May was less than £5 million.

  Ministerial Hospitality
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list Government expenditure on Ministerial hospitality at current prices(a)for the financial years (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96 and (iv) 1996–97 and (b)from 1 May 1997. [28965]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on Ministerial entertaining and hospitality for official purposes for 1993–94 is not available. For the later years in real terms it is estimated as follows.

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  2.0

  1995–96

  1.8

  1996–97

  2.0

  1 May 1997 onwards

  0.9

  These figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 do not include expenditure falling to the Ministry of Defence as figures are not yet available.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 342, what was the total cost of Government hospitality between 1 May 1997 and 1 February 1998; and what was the figure for the equivalent period in 1996–97. [26855]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) today.

  Ministerial Residences
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of maintaining and refurbishing Ministerial residences at current prices for the financial years(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96, (d) 1996–97 and (e) 1997–98. [28963]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on Ministerial residences in real terms for the periods is estimated as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  1.1

  1994–95

  1.1

  1995–96

  1.4

  1996–97

  1.2

  1997–98 (forecast)

  1.1

  These figures include running costs and refurbishment costs of the residential areas of buildings.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to answer the letters from the right hon. And learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe dated 22 and 28 January. [27268]
  18
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 February 1998]My office have no record of letters dated 22 and 28 January.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he is taking with other Governments to tackle the problem of the millennium compliance of computer systems. [27870]

  The Prime Minister
  We are continuing to encourage other Governments to take action following the lead of the Government's Action 2000 campaign in the United Kingdom. The issue will also be discussed at the group of Eight Foreign and Finance Ministers in May.

  Departmental Spending Review
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the composition of the Departmental Spending Review steering groups set up as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. [27490]

  The Prime Minister
  The terms of reference have been published and the final conclusions and the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be announced to Parliament in the summer. Secretaries of State and Departmental Ministers are overseeing the reviews in their respective departments but it is not the usual practice to identify individual civil servants providing advice to Ministers.

  MI5 Files
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 1998,Official Report,column 307,if the Data Protection Registrar will require MI5 to register files held on individuals and to make them available to them. [27483]

  The Prime Minister
  The Data Protection Registrar is independent of Government in the exercise of her functions under the Data Protection Act 1984 and it would therefore not be appropriate for Ministers to comment upon her intentions or actions in this regard.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [27806]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]Records of the cost of cars and drivers for my Office are shown below. Figures for taxis were not recorded separately until the current year.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]Records of the cost of cars and drivers for my Office are shown below. Figures for taxis were not recorded separately until the current year.

  £

  year

  Cars

  Taxi

  1995–96

  414,269

  —

  1996–97

  373,930

  —

  1997 to date

  252,164

  3,947

  19
  It is not our normal practice to provide an estimated outturn for the full year.

  Central Media Monitoring Unit
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1998,Official Report, column 668, if he will ensure that the output of the Media Monitoring Unit is be placed in the Library, as soon as it is produced. [28465]

  The Prime Minister
  The Media Monitoring Unit will add the Library to its automatic fax list as soon as the Unit is fully operational.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list each major new computer system that(a)his Department, (b) non-departmental bodies and (c) agencies under his 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 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. [27851]

  The Attorney-General
  The position in relation to the Departments and other bodies for which I am responsible is as set out. All rely heavily on computers for such matters as word processing, case management and accounts. While equipment and software has been updated and upgraded as necessary this has not, in most cases, amounted to the acquisition of a major new system. The details given concern major new systems.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  For the purposes of this question as it applies to the CPS I have taken a major system to be one costing over £1 million.
  The installation of the case management system (SCOPE) was concluded in April 1997. The system was installed in 53, rather than the planned 93, branches at a final contractual cost of £10.6 million. The planned date of commissioning was April 1994 and the estimated cost £8 million. Variations between planned and actual costs and dates arose because of new requirements and organisational changes.
  A replacement finance system was also installed in April 1997 at a cost of £1.7 million. The cost and timing was according to plan.
  No major new systems (over £1 million) are planned for the year 1998–99.

  Serious Fraud Office
  In January 1998 the Serious Fraud Office awarded a contract for the provision of IT services under the Private Finance Initiative. Future IT systems will be provided under this contract. The cost of the services will depend on usage, but is forecast to be in the region of £800,000 in the financial year 1998–99.
  Treasury Solicitor's Department (including Government Property Lawyers) and Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
  Future IT requirements in these Departments are currently under consideration. The outcome will be known shortly but current expectations are that work on replacement systems will take place in 1998–99 at a total cost in the region of £540,000.

  Diarmuid O'Neill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Police Complaints Authority, in its investigation into the 20
  shooting of Diarmuid O'Neill, is required to take into account the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in McCann and others v. UK. [27417]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply. The Police Complaints Authority investigation will consider all the circumstances leading to the shooting of Mr. O'Neill and any matters arising. It will take into account the issues arising from McCann and others v. United Kingdom.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Publications
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list, by title, the publications produced by her Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26324]

  Clare Short
  We have produced the following publications since 1 May.

  White Paper

  Eliminating World Poverty: a challenge for the 21st Century (White Paper on International Development presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for International Development by Command of Her Majesty November 1997 Cm 3789)

  Eliminating World Poverty: A Summary

  24 pages

  Country Strategies

  British aid to Ecuador: Working to improve the quality of life for Ecuadorean people

  24 pages

  Development Partners: Britain and Pakistan

  14 pages

  Support for Transition Countries: A new strategy

  16 pages

  Issues

  Developments: The International Development magazine (issue 1 first quarter 1998)

  36 pages

  UK@earth. People: Poverty and the Environment

  64 pages

  Forests Matter: The DFID approach to forests

  5 pages

  Time for Action: Reducing the dangers of pregnancy in poor societies

  18 pages

  Towards 2015 Together: How the UK will use its Presidency of the European Union to work for a fairer world

  4 pages

  Six monthly newsletters on Water, Energy Efficiency, Urbanisation, Transport and Earthworks

  8–12 pages Reports

  Reports

  Gender and school achievement in the Caribbean (serial no. 21)

  126 pages

  Good practice in developing sustainable information systems

  74 pages

  Integrated Coastal Management: South Asia

  95 pages

  21

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what amount of Brazilian mahogany has been(a) acquired and (b) specified by her Department in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997; and for what purpose. [28387]

  Clare Short
  No Brazilian mahogany has been acquired or specified by the Department for International Development in 1996 or 1997.

  Development Education
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to recognise and support development education at a local level. [28234]

  Clare Short
  We attach great importance to strengthening our work in promoting development education and public awareness of development issues in the UK. Our strategy in this area will consider carefully the many different potential channels and partners for delivering our objectives, including at a local level. Local level groups will also be well represented on the new Development Awareness Working Group, which will advise us on our work in this area.

  EU Aid
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her EU partners, concerning aid to(a) India, (b) Nepal, (c) Sri Lanka, (d) Pakistan, (e) Afghanistan, (f) Bangladesh and(g) other South Asian countries. [27946]

  Clare Short
  I have had discussions with EU partners about Afghanistan on which a common position was agreed at an early stage of the Presidency on 26 January. In particular, I discussed women's rights with Emma Bonino, EC Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs when the Commissioner visited London last month.

  In respect of India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh, my officials maintain regular contact with EU partners in Brussels, in other development forums and particularly in-country, both in the context of general donor co-ordination and in relation to specific projects and sectors.

  Congo
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives she has taken to encourage the regulation and auditing of mining investment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [28966]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We continue to work closely with the World Bank as they seek to agree policy and economic frameworks with the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) which will ensure the environment needed to encourage private investment. In my own discussions with DRC Government Ministers, I have emphasised the importance of efficient and effective Government regulation wherever appropriate.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to improve the openness and accountability of the funding of further education colleges. [22270]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have completed over the last 8 months a thorough review of the way further education colleges are funded, followed by a widespread consultation with the further education sector on proposed changes to that methodology. The process itself has been conducted in an open and accountable way, with representatives of the colleges being involved at all stages, and our intention is that the end product will be a system which is as open and accountable as possible.

  Housing
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1978–79 the total amount of(a) public and (b) private money invested in public housing in Scotland in 1996 prices. [22399]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]The table contains information about the public resources invested in public housing in Scotland since 1978–791. No private finance has been invested in the housing stock while in public ownership.

  Year

  £ million

  1978–79

  941.162

  1979–80

  862.723

  1980–81

  724.993

  1981–82

  645.207

  1982–83

  652.726

  1983–84

  691.379

  1984–85

  540.998

  1985–86

  563.097

  1986–87

  612.002

  1987–88

  789.684

  1988–89

  698.059

  1989–90

  773.050

  1990–91

  717.613

  1991–92

  635.933

  1992–93

  576.777

  1993–94

  570.991

  1994–95

  575.924

  1995–96

  612.738

  1996–97

  432.000

  1 The term 'public housing' is taken to mean housing owned by local authorities, Scottish Homes (formerly the Scottish Special Housing Association), and the New Town Development Corporations. This does not therefore include investment by the Housing Corporation (pre-1989) and by Scottish Homes (since 1989) in housing association stock, in the private rented sector and in housing for sale. All amounts are in £ million at 1996–97 prices.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many advocates are QCs; and what percentage of the Scottish Bar this represents. [27833]

  Mr. McLeish
  141 advocates are QCs, which represents 23 per cent, of the Scottish Bar.
  23

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the average net annual income for farmers in Scotland from 1989–90 to 1996–97. [28282]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 6 February 1998]Results from the Annual Survey of Farm Accounts in Scotland, averaged across all farm types are set out in the table.

  £ per farm

  Year

  Net farm income

  1989–90

  14,915

  1990–91

  14,143

  1991–92

  10,706

  1992–93

  14,974

  1993–94

  16,559

  1994–95

  21,151

  1995–96

  23,707

  1996–97

  19,482

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long each transfer of prisoners to the Republic of Ireland has so far taken to complete; if he will list the stages in the transfer operation for which he is responsible; and what targets he has set for each stage and for the total average transfer time. [27409]

  Ms Quin
  Since 1 November 1995, 26 prisoners have been repatriated from England and Wales to the Republic of Ireland. Each case took the following number of days respectively to complete: 379, 764, 203, 779, 379, 379, 412, 764, 807, 757, 794, 196, 185, 178, 179, 178, 178, 555, 612, 644, 425, 618, 331, 463, 79, 316.

  Because each case is considered on its individual merits, and circumstances vary from case to case, it is not considered appropriate to set targets for the completion of individual stages in the repatriation process. As a second jurisdiction is also involved in the consideration of repatriation applications, it is similarly inappropriate to set a target for final completion.

  The United Kingdom authorities are initially responsible under the terms of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons for obtaining and collating relevant documentation required in support of each repatriation application, and where a particular request appears to meet the requirements of the Convention, for referring it to the receiving jurisdiction.

  If the other jurisdiction agrees to receive the prisoner, the United Kingdom is responsible for ensuring that the prisoner's sentence will continue to be enforced in the receiving jurisdiction, and for deciding whether to agree to the transfer. The United Kingdom is then responsible for providing the prisoner in writing with the details of the basis on which repatriation will take place, for obtaining the prisoner's written consent to repatriation, and for forwarding this to the receiving jurisdiction.
  24
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for prisoner transfer to the Republic of Ireland have been withdrawn or resolved without a transfer. [27412]

  Ms Quin
  Fifty-three applications for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland submitted by prisoners in England and Wales have been withdrawn or resolved without a transfer.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) of 22 January 1998,Official Report, columns 639–40, (1) if he will publish the available evaluation in respect of the relative effectiveness of the experimental regime at Colchester Young Offenders Institution against other initiatives; and with which initiatives the experimental regime at Colchester Young Offenders Institution has been compared; [26289]

  (2) how many offenders have passed through the programme at Colchester Young Offenders Institution experimental regime; and how many of these reoffended following their release; [26299]

  (3) if he will give an analysis of his costings of a place (a) in the experimental regime at Colchester Young Offenders Institution, (b) at Thorn Cross Young Offenders Institution and (c) in a typical young offenders institution. [26288]

  (4) what is the average rate of reoffending for offenders aged 17 to 21 years on release from (a)young offenders institutions, (b) Thorn Cross Young Offenders Institution experimental regime and (c) Colchester Young Offenders Institution experimental regime; [26296]

  Ms Quin
  At 20 January 1998, 36 young offenders had completed their sentence at Colchester Young Offender Institution, and information to date indicates that, of those, one is known to have been reconvicted. The reconviction rates for Colchester and Thorn Cross will not be available for some time. Home Office statistics indicate that 73 per cent, of male young offenders (ages 17–20) who were discharged in 1993 were reconvicted within two years. The cost per place is based on dividing the running costs by the certified normal accommodation (CNA) for the establishment. The CNA for Colchester, Thorn Cross High Intensity Training and a typical Young Offender Institution are 32, 72 and 363 respectively.

  It is our intention to publish the study of the experimental regime at Colchester Young Offender Institution carried out by the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge when it is complete.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect on asylum applicants of his decision to withdraw special funding to the Immigration and Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre in 1998–99.[27168]
  25
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A final decision will be taken when representations from both organisations have been fully considered.

  A very small proportion of those appealing against the refusal of asylum would be affected by a decision to discontinue the funding under the Spend to Save initiative. This funding is presently provided on an annual basis, in addition to their ongoing grant in aid, to the Refugee Legal Centre (RLC) and the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS). IAS and RLC were aware of the short-term nature of the provision when they accepted it.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people currently awaiting a decision upon their application for British citizenship have been waiting more than a year since their application form was received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [26517]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 23 January 1998, there were 37,029 applications for British citizenship in the Nationality Directorate which had been outstanding for more than one year.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal advice he has received regarding the compatibility of the Anti-social Behaviour Orders proposed in the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords] with the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will publish it. [27679]

  Deaths in police stations (1987–1996)

  Year

  Dyfed-Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  1987

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1988

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1989

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1990

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1991

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1992

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1993

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1996

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Total

  0

  2

  3

  6

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce modifications to the law to empower police to take positive steps to arrest and convict child abusers who entrap children into prostitution. [27175]

  Mr. Michael
  We are very concerned about the existence of child prostitution and the tragedy of the involvement of any child in prostitution. The principal aim of the law in this area is to protect the children concerned and to ensure that all those who
  26
  Mr. Michael
  I am satisfied that our proposals for establishing Anti-Social Behaviour Orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The question of the compatibility of the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders with the European Convention on Human Rights has been carefully considered by Government lawyers but it is not normal practice to publish legal advice and we see no reason to breach this principle in this case.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1998,Official Report, columns 66–67, on the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], if he will make a statement on the compatibility of the proposed legal procedure for the Anti-social Behaviour Order in the Bill with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [27678]

  Mr. Michael
  We consider that the legal procedure for the Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in the Crime and Disorder Bill complies with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Application for an order is a civil procedure. An order has prohibitory force only and involves no criminal record. Breach of an order is a criminal offence and carries with it the full safeguards of the criminal law.

  Police Cell Deaths
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have died in police cells over the last 10 years in each of Wales's police forces. [27442]

  Mr. Michael
  The table gives figures on the number of deaths occurring in police stations for each force area in Wales. From the information collected centrally it is not always possible to ascertain how many persons actually died in police cells.

  encourage, control or exploit the prostitution of children, are liable in the criminal law. It is, of course an operational matter for the police to investigate any allegations of a crime.

  We are satisfied that the law is adequate to deal with the evil of child prostitution. We will, however, consider any particular proposals to tighten the law further in this area if deficiencies are identified.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with chief
  27
  constables on ways in which police forces can more effectively protect children from abusers who entrap them into prostitution. [27174]

  Mr. Michael
  I have had no specific discussions with chief constables on this particular aspect of child prostitution.

  Under section 46(1) of the Children Act 1989, police have powers to take into protective custody any child at risk of significant harm. The child can then be referred to appropriate agencies. The Association of Chief Police Officers has now issued best practice guidelines for the police that emphasise that children caught up in prostitution should normally be treated as victims and in need of help rather than criminals. These guidelines were drawn up in discussion with the Children's Society and other agencies, and the Home Office.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure local authorities adopt best practice in their measures to tackle domestic violence. [27374]

  Mr. Michael
  The provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill will place a statutory duty on local authorities and the police service to develop local crime and disorder reduction partnerships with other agencies. These will assess local crime problems, develop a strategy for tackling them and publish crime reduction targets. In areas where the local crime audits identify domestic violence as a problem, the local crime and disorder reduction strategy should address it.

  Care Homes (Crime)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will ensure that crimes committed within care homes are incorporated within the British Crime Survey; [28356]

  (2) if he will introduce a category into the British Crime Survey to cover crimes committed against people with learning difficulties who live in residential care homes. [28355]

  Mr. Michael
  The British Crime Survey (BCS), which the Home Office conducts, is a survey of people living in domestic households in England and Wales. In its present format and structure, it would be inappropriate for the BCS to include offences committed against people who live in residential care homes. This would require a specialist survey. A feasibility study into a possible survey of communal establishments is being undertaken by Social Survey Division of the Office for National Statistics. As yet, no decision has been taken on the types of communal establishment that this would cover, whether victimisation will be covered or the funding arrangements for the survey.

  World Cup
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) of 30 January 1998,Official Report, columns 395–96, on policing at the World Cup, if he will provide a list of the
  28
  representatives from Scotland and their organisations who (i) were invited and (ii) will be attending the Blackburn seminar; and if he will make a statement. [27905]

  Mr. Michael
  Invitations to attend the Blackburn seminar on the policing of football have been sent to a number of Scottish organisations and individuals, including the Scottish Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Federation of Football Supporters Clubs. I am pleased to say that all these organisations have agreed to send representatives.

  Publications
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26325]

  Mr. Straw
  The list is being placed in the Library. The Home Office is the originating body for all the items listed. The material is either published internally or by a commercial publisher, in most cases the Stationery Office Ltd.

  The list includes publications available in print, but excludes audiovisual material, ephemera and the reports produced by the Constabulary, Fire Service, Prisons and Probation Inspectorates between the specified dates for which a separate list is being prepared. New editions and new titles published during this period are listed, but reprints are not. Publications produced by the non-departmental bodies and four executive agencies of the Home Office (Her Majesty's Prison Service, United Kingdom Passport Agency, Fire Service College and Forensic Science Service) have not been included.

  The list of Inspectorate reports will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

  Handguns
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects compensation to be paid to Mr. Michael We llum of Wren well Farm, Denbury, Devon, for his handguns surrendered on 18 August and whose claim for compensation was submitted on 21 August 1997; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay. [28352]

  Mr. Michael
  The Option A and B elements of Mr. Wellum's compensation claim in respect of large calibre handguns and his accompanying ex gratia application in respect of small calibre pistols were processed on 23 January 1998. The Option C elements of the claim and application will be considered at a later date under the published arrangements for processing compensation claims. There has been no "delay" in this case. I have explained to the House on many occasions why firearms compensation claims take time to process.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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

  29
  (f) been offered and rejected an alternative position (i) within the Department and (ii) in another Department since 1 May. [27463]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]No senior civil servants in the pay band covering posts at the level equivalent to grade 3 or above have since 1 May 1997(a) taken early retirement, (b) taken official leave, (c) been dismissed, or (d) changed jobs with the Department. Three have (e) moved to other Departments. None have (f) been offered and rejected an alternative position (i) within the Department and (ii) in another Department during this period.

  Crime
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral answer of 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 709, if he will specify those areas of local government activity which will show resource savings as a result of the implementation of statutory duties on local authorities as contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], and estimate the amount of savings in each case. [27945]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]The nature and precise extent of such savings will vary from one local authority to the next, depending on the kind of crime and disorder problems in each area identified by the audit which the Crime and Disorder Bill will require, and the priorities of the crime and disorder strategies as agreed with key partners locally. It is not possible to put any meaningful figures on this yet, but we expect there to be potential for considerable savings. This point was broadly acknowledged by many of the local authorities which responded to our invitation to comment on these proposals before the Bill was published.

  Examples of local government activity which might benefit from these proposals include:
  Housing—reduced capital expenditure on repairs to property damaged by vandalism. Reduced time in pursuing complaints for which the remedies are adequate.
  Social Services—reductions in the costs associated with dealing with the incidence of youth crime and its aftermath.
  Education—reduced bills for repairs to school buildings, and savings arising from improved attendance rates and less disruption in the classroom.

  Just as importantly, the Crime and Disorder Bill will put local authorities where they should always have been—in the forefront of the fight against crime. Local surveys have shown time and again that this is seen as a core activity for local government by the people which it exists to serve. We are determined to give local authorities the powers they need, and want, to meet this wholly legitimate demand by local communities.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of section 11 teachers in each local education authority. [26754]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The following table shows numbers of posts (in full-time equivalent terms) approved for section 11 funding, as at 31 January 1998, which are specifically designated as to be filled by qualified teachers.
  30

  LEA

  Number of posts

  Barking and Dagenham

  18.2

  Barnet

  49.544

  Bedfordshire

  54

  Berkshire

  64.5

  Bexley

  7.04

  Birmingham

  235.19

  Bolton

  52.1

  Bradford

  235.6

  Brent

  65

  Brighton and Hove

  9

  Bristol*

  39

  Bromley

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  59.2

  Bury

  21.5

  Calderdale

  29

  Cambridgeshire

  40.5

  Camden

  91.7

  Cardiff*

  29.6

  Cheshire

  5

  Coventry

  101.5

  Croydon

  74.1

  Darlington*

  9

  Derby*

  108

  Devon

  4.5

  Doncaster

  6.4

  Dudley

  46

  Ealing

  70.8

  East Sussex

  5.3

  Enfield

  80

  Essex

  2

  Gateshead

  2

  Gloucestershire

  18

  Greenwich

  45

  Hackney

  162.5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  29.5

  Hampshire

  4.95

  Haringey

  150.05

  Harrow

  34.5

  Havering

  3

  Hereford and Worcester

  10.7

  Hertfordshire

  87.45

  Hillingdon

  18

  Hounslow

  76.5

  Hull*

  2.7

  Islington

  92

  Kensington and Chelsea

  43.5

  Kent

  71.59

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  7.08

  Kirklees

  143

  Lambeth

  128.1

  Lancashire

  163.8

  Leeds

  7.85

  Leicester

  69.1

  Leicestershire

  13.8

  Lewisham

  83

  Lincolnshire

  6.1

  Liverpool

  13

  Luton

  103

  Manchester

  96

  Merton

  18

  Middlesbrough*

  29

  Newcastle

  3.7

  Newham

  6

  Newport*

  18

  Norfolk

  8.6

  North East Lincolnshire

  2.1

  North Lincolnshire

  5

  North Tyneside

  10

  North Yorkshire

  4

  Northamptonshire

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  90.6

  Oldham

  70.75

  Oxfordshire

  37.1

  Poole*

  2

  31

  LEA

  Number of posts

  Portsmouth

  10.5

  Redbridge

  119.2

  Richmond

  4

  Rochdale

  54

  Rotherham

  18.5

  St. Helens

  0.7

  Salford

  4.6

  Sheffield

  88.5

  Shropshire

  6.89

  Somerset

  3.5

  South Tyneside

  8.5

  Southampton

  22.612

  Southwark

  45.2

  Staffordshire*

  39

  Stockport

  4.55

  Suffolk

  18.2

  Sunderland

  6.81

  Surrey

  17.5

  Sutton

  5.5

  Swansea*

  16

  Swindon*

  8.625

  Tameside

  19.4

  Tower Hamlets

  277.7

  Trafford

  19

  Wakefield

  18

  Walsall

  81.5

  Waltham Forest

  102.08

  Wandsworth

  83.5

  Warwickshire

  55.7

  Westminster

  105.5

  West Sussex

  13.5

  Wigan

  4.5

  Wolverhampton

  83.6

  Note:

  Since local government reorganisation in 1996 or 1997, LEAs marked * have managed section 11 provision in the areas of neighbouring local education authorities which are not listed separately in the table.

TREASURY

  School Children's Clothing and Footwear (Value Added Tax) Bill
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the Economic Secretary is not willing to meet the hon. Member in charge of the School Children's Clothing and Footwear (Value Added Tax) Bill to discuss its Second Reading on 6 February. [27936]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As Financial Secretary, I am responsible for the matter raised by the hon. Member. Other commitments, including preparatory work on the Budget which the Chancellor will present on 17 March, preclude a meeting at present.

  Publications
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26335]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The list of the main publications produced by HM Treasury between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998 is as follows:32
  Titles published by HM Treasury and available from HM Treasury Public Enquiry Unit
  (All titles are free unless otherwise indicated)
  Budget and Pre-Budget Publications:
  The Pocket Budget: July 1997
  (available by sending a self addressed postcard to: Freepost Budget 97)
  The pocket pre-Budget 98: November 1998
  (available by sending a self addressed postcard to: Freepost Pre-Budget 98)
  Pre-Budget Report Publications
  A code for fiscal stability: November 1997
  The Economy and the Public Finances: supplementary material (November 1997)
  Fiscal policy: lessons from the last economic cycle (November 1997)
  The modernisation of Britain's tax and benefit system No. 1: Employment opportunity in a changing labour market (November 1997)
  The Public Sector balance sheet (December 1997)
  Tax Ready Reckoner and tax reliefs (December 1997)
  Central Unit on Procurement Guidances (Now Procurement guidances) All £3.00 each

  CUP 55: Ethics in procurement (May 1997)

  CUP 56: Debriefing (May 1997)

  CUP 57: Strategic Partnering in government (May 1997)

  CUP 58: Incentivisation (May 1997)

  CUP 59a: Documentation: Model appraisal questionnaire (May 1997)

  CUP 59b: Documentation: Pre qualification (May 1997)

  CUP 59c: Documentation: Model invitation to tender (May 1997)

  CUP 59d: Documentation: Model conditions of contract (August 1997)

  CUP 60: Supplier appraisal (May 1997)

  CUP 61: Contract management (May 1997)

  Procurement Guidance 1: Essential requirements for construction procurement (December 1997)
  Procurement Guidance 2: Value for money in construction procurement (December 1997)
  Procurement Guidance 3: Appointment of consultants and contractors (December 1997)
  EMU Publications
  The UK and membership of the single currency: an assessment of the 5 economic tests (October 1997)
  EMU: Practical guide for business (July 1997)
  Available in writing from: EMU Initiative, P.O. Box 506, London, SE99 7UY
  EMU: Report from the Business Advisory Group (January 1998)
  Pros and Cons of the EMU: summary of a report by David Currie (July 1997)
  Other titles:
  Cash ratio deposits: a consultation document issued by HM Treasury (November 1997)
  Comprehensive Spending Review—Terms of Reference (July 1997)
  Explanatory Notes: Summer Finance Bill 1997 £4.50 (July 1997)
  The Future of UK Government Debt and cash management: a proposal for consultation by HM Treasury (July 1997)
  The Future of UK Government Debt and cash management: a response to consultation by HM Treasury, 22 December 1997 (December 1997)
  The National Asset Register (November 1997)
  Publications in Print (August 1997)

  33
  Regularity and Propriety: a handbook ISBN 0947819 576 £2.50 (July 1997)
  Treasury Occasional paper No. 9: The VAT shortfall: report of the Working Group on VAT receipts and forecasts (September 1997)
  Private Finance Initiative publications:
  Treasury Taskforce Private Finance—Partnerships for Prosperity: the Private Finance Initiative (November 1997)
  Bates Recommendation No 10: Treasury Taskforce approach to model contracts (November 1997)
  Interim guidance on the application of FRS5 to accounting for PFI transactions in public sector accounts (September 1997)
  Policy Statement (Draft): Public Sector Comparators and value for money (September 1997)
  Policy Statement No. 1: PFI and Public Expenditure Allocations (October 1997)
  PFI Technical Note (Draft): Standardisation of information required from prospective tenderers and OJEC Notices (November 1997)
  PFI Technical Note No. 1: How to account for PFI Transactions (September 1997)
  Taking forward PFI in local government (September 1997)
  A Step by Step guide to the PFI procurement process (July 1997)
  Titles produced by HM Treasury and Published by The Stationery Office
  The main titles produced by HM Treasury and available from The Stationery Office (TSO) are:
  Equipping Britain for our long term future: Financial Statement and Budget Report: July 1997
  House of Commons Paper 85 (1997/98) ISBN 010 263398 3 £16.80
  Pre Budget Report: November 1997: Securing Britain's long-term economic future CM 3804 ISBN 010 13804 9 £20.00
  The Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 ISBN 010 545897 X £11.00
  Summer Finance Bill
  House of Commons Bill 29 (1997/98) ISBN 010 836045 8 £8.00
  EC finances: statement on the 1997 EC budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement
  CM3700 ISBN 010 137002 4 £6.50
  Supply Estimates: supplementary

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on tax revenues of setting the cap on tax exempt savings held in individual savings accounts at(a) £30,000, (b) £50,000, (c) £100,000, (d) £150,000 and (e) £250,000. [19704]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]TESSAs and PEPs will cost about £l½ billion a year by April 1999. Under the proposals set out in the consultation document, funds currently held in TESSAs and PEPs will be able to transfer into individual savings accounts, subject to the overall £50,000 limit. People with PEPs and TESSAs whose value exceeds £50,000 will be unable to transfer the excess to ISAs.

  The estimated cost to the Exchequer of these proposals is broadly similar to the combined cost of TESSAs and PEPs, but estimates are sensitive to assumptions made eg on the level of take up. The effect on cost of varying the level of the cap will depend on the way in which people decide to invest the balance of their investments.
  34

  Agency Tax Rules
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the draft legislation to implement the changes in the agency tax rules for construction workers announced by the Financial Secretary on 31 July 1997 will be published in advance of the Finance Bill 1998. [28961]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The draft legislation, which will implement this change, will be published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. This will give agencies as much time as possible to alter their systems and procedures in advance of the change which comes into effect on 6 April 1998. The change will help to align the tax and national insurance treatment of these workers and is part of the Government's commitment to streamline and modernise the tax and benefits system.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  World Cup (Disabled Supporters)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the(a) proportion of tickets available and (b) facilities for disabled supporters in each of the stadiums in which Scotland and England will play their first round World Cup matches. [27128]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I understand that the French World Cup organisers will set aside facilities for disabled supporters in the stadia at which matches will be staged. A decision on the number of tickets to be allocated for England and Scotland supporters will be taken shortly. The English and Scottish Football Associations have applied for tickets for existing members of the England Members Club and the Scottish Travel Club, who regularly attend away matches.

  Sport (Governing Bodies)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the governing bodies for sport. [27127]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  In 1997–98, the UK Sports Council and English Sports Council will provide Exchequer grants totalling almost £11.2 million directly to governing bodies of sport to help them develop strategies and a range of activities which support the Councils' objectives.

  A number of governing bodies are also eligible to apply for funding from the Lottery Sports Fund. To date, almost £23 million has been awarded to governing bodies under the English Sports Council's 'World Class Performance' Programme.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [27464]
  35
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]None.

  Publications
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26321]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport produced the following publications between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998:

  The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (England and Wales)

  The Treasure Act: Information for finders of Treasure (England and Wales).

  The BBC and the Future of Broadcasting: Government Response to the Fourth Report from the National Heritage Committee Session 1996–97.

  Export of Works of Art 1996–97.

  Public Libraries: A Vision for the Future.

  The People's Lottery White Paper.

  The People's Lottery Summary Leaflet.

  European Audiovisual Conference: Challenges and Opportunities of the Digital Age.

  Marking the Millennium in a Multi-faith Context.

  Cultural Connections Booklet.

  Cultural Connections Poster.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Official Cars
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official cars are available for use by Ministers in his Department; and how many new cars have been acquired for the use of Ministers in his Department since 1 May. [25177]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]Five cars are provided for the five Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers under the Government Car Scheme. This Department has not acquired any new cars for its Ministers.

  Turkey
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Vice-Consul in Istanbul will be permitted to give evidence to a Turkish court regarding incidents in Istanbul on 2 September 1997. [26042]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]As set out in the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 29 January 1998,Official Report, column 385, our guidelines are that we generally expect British officials to co-operate with local judicial authorities. In this particular instance, no request has been made by the local courts. Under Article 44(3) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, members of a consular post are not obliged to give evidence on matters encountered in the exercise of their functions. We have concluded that it would be inappropriate for the British Vice Consul (Information) to give evidence because of the need for him to retain the status of impartial observer in attending subsequent court cases in his consular capacity.
  36

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration is being given by the European Union to the consequences of the failure of computer and safety systems controlling nuclear plants in the former eastern bloc to be millennium compliant. [28246]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The failure of a computer system would not directly affect the safety of any nuclear reactor power plants in the former eastern bloc. The control of these plants is carried out by analogue or electro-mechanical means. However, computers are used for data recording and plant management purposes, and the European Union has a programme to up-grade a number of these. The Health and Safety Executive publication "Safety and the year 2000" has been sent to the senior nuclear regulators in the former eastern bloc and it will form the basis of discussion at a meeting of these regulators with their EU counterparts in June 1998.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 466, what was the date of the response by the United Kingdom permanent representative to the Dutch permanent representative's letter of 16 July; and if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Dutch Minister for Europe and his Irish counterpart on 22 July 1997. [28238]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The United Kingdom Permanent Representative replied to the Dutch Permanent Representative's letter of 16 July on 25 July. At a meeting on 22 July the Dutch Minister for Europe, the Irish Foreign Minister and I discussed Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen Acquis into the Framework of the European Union.

  Video Conferencing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use has been made by the British presidency of the European Union of interactive video conferencing; what responses have been received to date; what has been the cost to public funds to date; and what plans he has to make further use of video conferencing in this area. [28204]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Video conferencing is being used extensively during the UK's Presidency of the European Union, particularly between London and Brussels. We are also exploring ways of encouraging greater use of video-conferencing for contacts with EU Partners, but it is too early to draw conclusions on the practical scope for this.

  The information requested on cost to public funds of video-conferencing is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Technology Sales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of items of British manufactured technology found by United Nations Special Commission inspectors at Iraqi sites used for the preparation or manufacture
  37
  of (a) chemical, (b) biological and (c) nuclear weapons of mass destruction; and if he will place in the Library the most recent UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council. [28169]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  British manufactured equipment has been found at a number of sites inspected by UNSCOM and the IAEA. Any evidence of wrongdoing is investigated and, if appropriate, will be a matter for the courts.

  A copy of UNSCOM's most recent (October) Report to the Security Council is already held by the Libraries of the House.

  Algeria
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the UK Government are taking to bring to the attention of the Algerian Government their responsibilities to protect the lives of civilians. [27993]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I led the EU Troika Mission to Algiers from 19–20 January 1998. We had talks with the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister. As part of the EU political dialogue with Algeria, we raised with them the need to provide adequate protection for their citizens. We believe that it is important that this dialogue should continue.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to expedite action by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings in Algeria. [27994]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During the EU Troika Mission to Algiers from 19–20 January 1998, I and my Troika colleagues urged the Algerian Government to agree to a visit by the UN Special Rapporteurs. The Algerians stated that they are not ready to do so. We will continue to press them to issue an invitation as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of the Government in relation to the future progress of the EU-Algeria Partnership Agreement with particular reference to Algeria's commitments under the humans rights clause in that agreement. [27992]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The EU/Algeria Association Agreement currently under negotiation will contain a human rights clause committing both parties to respect human rights and democratic principles. We support progress in negotiating the agreement, which will provide for political dialogue on a range of issues, including human rights, once it enters into force.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many black and Asian persons have been recruited to the Foreign Office since 1 May 1997. [27949]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  FCO staff are not obliged to report their ethnic origins. According to the ongoing voluntary and confidential survey, the FCO has received returns from 13 Black or Asian people who joined the office since 1 May 1997. We know that many new entrants have not yet returned their forms. Irrespective of the actual 38
  numbers, the FCO is committed to increasing the representation of minority ethnic, and other under-represented, groups.

  Arms Sales
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what structures for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability in member states are contained in the UK proposals for an EU code of conduct on arms sales. [28175]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our proposals develop the EU's 8 Common Criteria agreed in 1991 and 1992, using language in the UK's national criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997. Neither set of criteria includes structures for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability and we are not proposing such structures in the Code of Conduct. The role of national parliaments in the export licensing process is a matter for Member States. At a national level, we are committed to reporting annually to Parliament on the application of strategic export controls in order to ensure transparency and accountability.

  Environmental Policy Co-ordination
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting he attended in January in Latvia with heads of European Governments on environmental policy co-ordination. [28203]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Summit of the Council of Baltic Sea States took place in Riga on 22–23 January. The Deputy Prime Minister represented the UK as Presidency of the EU. The Summit discussed regional co-operation; enlargement of the EU; democracy and human rights; economic co-operation; investment; transport; energy; environment and sustainable development, including the outcome of the Kyoto Summit; information technology; and higher education.

  On the environment, the Summit supported ongoing work on sustainable development in the Baltic Sea region; reaffirmed its commitment to removal of pollution from the Baltic Sea and endorsed a strategy for improving reception facilities for ship-generated waste; and welcomed assistance from the European Union in combating pollution.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of potential damage to(a) karbala, (b) Najaf and (c) the Ziggarat at Ur in the selection of potential targets for military strikes on Iraq. [28617]

  Mr. Fatchett
  It is not sensible to speculate on potential military targets at a time when we are still actively pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis with Iraq.

  Publications
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26327]
  39
  Mr. Fatchett
  Information Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office produces a range of publications designed to project Britain and British Government policies overseas, and present Britain's viewpoint on subjects of particular interest or significance to an international audience.

  127 such publications were produced during the period 1 May 1997 to 31 January 1998, details of which are as follows:
  FCO Publications produced between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998

  Publications

  1998 Calendar

  1998 Diary

  Backpackers

  Britain and Canada (English)

  Britain and Canada (French)

  Britain and India

  Britain and Japan

  Britain and Pakistan

  Britain and the Commonwealth

  Britain in Brief

  Britain's Automotive Components Industry

  Britain's Chemical Industry

  Britain's Clothing and Textile Industry

  Britain's Clothing and Textile Industry (language versions)

  Britain's Commercial Vehicles Industry and Britain's Motorsport Industry (Korean and Chinese)

  Britain's Construction Industry

  Britain's Design Industry

  Britain's Environmental Technology Industry

  Britain's Medical Technology and Equipment Industry

  Britain's Monarchy—a factual guide

  Britain's Oil, Gas, Petro Industry

  Britain's Security in a Changing World

  Britain's System of Government

  Britain's Tax System

  Britain's Telecommunications Industry

  Britain's Tourism Industry

  Checklist (Welsh)

  Checklist for Travellers

  Consular Annual Review

  Consular Services Abroad

  Consultancy Industry

  Do's and Don'ts

  EAB Recruitment

  EU leaflets for E Europe Posts

  EU Presidency Ambassador for day

  EU Presidency Flier

  EU Presidency Handbook

  EU Presidency Logo Booklet

  EU Presidency Statement

  Exercise Blue Hungwe

  FCO Open Day leaflet

  First Post

  Forces Marriages

  Getting to Know Britain Cards

  Hong Kong

  40

  Hong Kong Con-Gen

  Justice and the Law (Spanish insert)

  Legislation leaflet

  Lisbon Expo 98 Folder

  London

  Marshall Plan 50th Anniversary

  Media in Britain

  Open Entry Point (FCO Recruitment)

  Outline Britain

  Passing Legislation

  Peter the Great Folder

  Peter the Great Leaflet Policy Entry Point (FCO Recruitment)

  Prisoner Transfer

  Protected Areas Antarctica

  Public Diplomacy News

  Publications Catalogue

  Road Haulage

  Science and Technology

  SOS Press Pack

  Sport in Britain

  Survey of Current Affairs (August)

  Survey of Current Affairs (December)

  Survey of Current Affairs (January)

  Survey of Current Affairs (July)

  Survey of Current Affairs (June)

  Survey of Current Affairs (May)

  Survey of Current Affairs (November)

  Survey of Current Affairs (October)

  Survey of Current Affairs (September)

  Tackling Drugs Folder

  Tackling Drugs Leaflet

  Talking Points August

  Talking Points December

  Talking Points June

  Talking Points November

  Talking Points October

  Telecommunications Industry

  The British Royal Family Broadsheet

  UK Government Ministers

  UK in Asia booklet

  UK: 10 Centuries in the Making

  Victims of Crime Abroad

  Background Briefs

  What the British are good at (No.9)

  The Wassenaar Arrangement

  Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

  Transatlantic Relations

  Europe and the EU's Fight against Serious and Organised Crime

  The Russian Orthodox Church

  Asia-Europe Meeting

  British Assistance to the Commonwealth

  Environment and Development: the UN Assesses

  Progress since Rio

  What the British are good at (No. 10)

  Britain and India: A Modern Partnership

  The Commonwealth Contribution

  41

  Britain and Pakistan in 1997

  The Growing Importance of China as a Regional and World Power

  Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe:

  An Implementation Update

  Religion in Russia: Legal and Constitutional Factors

  What the British are good at (No.l 1)

  Yemen: A Survey of Recent Developments

  Britain and Brazil: An Agenda for the Millennium

  Climate Change: The Road to Kyoto

  Tackling Poverty in the 21 Century: Britain's Role

  Nigeria: Human Rights, Human Wrongs

  Britain's Accession to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea

  Briefing Papers

  Enlargement of the European Union

  British Policy on Anti-Personnel Landmines

  Facts about Modern Britain

  Some Facts About the European Union

  Fact About Modern Britain (revised)

  Britain's Growing Economy

  Scotland and Wales Opt for Devolution

  Britain's Presidency of the European Union

  Briefing Note

  The EUREKA Programme

  Debt 2000 Initiative: The Mauritius Mandate

  Factsheets

  British General Election: 1 May 1997

  Spotlight on Britain

  Britain's Department of Social Security

  Britain's Department of Trade and Industry

  Britain's Department for International Development

  Cambodia
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed when he met the Deputy Prime Minister of Cambodia and the Adviser and Director of the Cabinet for Cambodia; and if he will make a statement about(a) bi-lateral British and Cambodian relations and (b) relations between the European Union and Cambodia. [28350]

  Mr. Fatchett
  When I met the Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister on 21 January, our discussions covered the internal political situation, the forthcoming Cambodian elections, human rights and other issues. These talks were part of a continuing dialogue between the UK and Cambodia. The EU also takes a keen interest in events in Cambodia and is providing 9.5 mecu in election assistance, subject to political conditionality.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what offers of assistance have been(a) received, (b) discussed and (c) accepted from the Government of Argentina to assist British troops with mine clearance in the Falkland Islands. [28224]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In 1993, the Argentine Government offered to assist with demining and to meet the cost.
  42
  The matter waslast discussed by Ministers at a meeting between the Foreign Secretary and Dr. di Telia in November 1997, and by officials at a routine meeting earlier this week.

  We are committed to meeting our obligations under the Ottawa Convention. It is currently considering how best to achieve this in the mined areas on the Falkland Islands. Comprehensive clearance work on the minefields was stopped soon after the conflict following a number of serious incidents involving clearance personnel.

  Single Market
  Miss Mcintosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to secure the completion of a single market; and to what timetable. [27682]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 February 1998]I have been asked to reply.

  The Single Market Action Plan produced last year by the Commission sets out the key priorities to ensure an effective Single Market. All Member States have committed themselves to a timetable to catching up with delays in implementing Single Market law by the end of this year. As chairman of the Internal Market Council during the UK Presidency, the Minister for Trade and Competitions in Europe will be leading the efforts to achieve this timetable. There has also been close co-ordination with Austria to ensure that momentum is kept up in the second half of the year. However, there will still be a need for work to ensure the Single Market is working effectively and responsive to new markets: also that the rales are being properly enforced and are not over-complicated. There will also be a need for legislation for new technologies as they emerge. Progress in these areas will be a top priority for the UK Presidency.

WALES

  Birth Defects
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many babies were born with serious birth defects in each health authority in Wales in(a) 1997,(b) 1987 and (c) 1977. [26988]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The number of voluntary notifications of babies born with congenital anomalies, by usual residence of mother, is shown in the following tables for the years 1977, 1987 and 1996, which is the latest year for which information is available. Data for 1996 are not comparable with the previous years as prior to 1990 all malformations were notifiable, but from 1990 onwards specified minor anomalies were excluded from notifications to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Additionally, prior to 1995 only those anomalies detected at or within ten days of birth were notified. Data for 1996 include anomalies detected after 10 days.

  Health Authority of residence of mother

  1977

  11987

  Clwyd

  89

  63

  Dyfed

  69

  —

  East Dyfed

  —

  69

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  39

  Gwent

  60

  70

  43

  Health Authority of residence of mother

  7977

  11987

  Gwynedd

  42

  48

  Mid Glamorgan

  98

  148

  powys

  26

  41

  South Glamorgan

  93

  70

  West Glamorgan

  74

  54

  Wales

  551

  602

  1 Dyfed figures for 1987 were provided by the health authorities of East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire

  Health Authority of residence of mother

  11996

  Bro Taf

  75

  Dyfed Powys

  19

  Gwent

  11

  Morgannwg

  9

  North Wales

  63

  Wales

  177

  1 1996 figures were provided by the reorganised health authorities which came into being on 1 April 1996.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many hospitals have been closed since 1979; and if he will make a statement; [27275]

  (2) how many hospitals have closed since 1 May 1997. [27274]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Since 1 January 1979, some 62 NHS hospitals have been closed and remain closed to date according to records held by the Welsh Office. Over the same period 15 NHS hospitals have been opened. No NHS hospitals have been closed, or opened, since 1 May 1997.

  NHS Ancillary Staff
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many ancillary staff are employed in the NHS in Wales. [27272]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The system used to classify directly employed non-medical NHS staff changed from groups which were based on payscales to groups which are based on new occupation codes. The staff group previously described as 'ancillary staff are now mostly in a group called 'support staff. At 30 June 1997, there were approximately 5,800 whole-time equivalent support staff directly employed by the NHS in Wales.

  Out-of-school Clubs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many out-of-school clubs there are; and if he will make a statement. [27649]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The out-of-school child care Initiative has supported the development of 206 child care clubs providing 4,500 child care places since its inception in 1993.

  I have increased the level of funding for this initiative in 1998–99 by 300% to a new level of £900,000. I anticipate that this will support a further 30 child care
  44
  clubs and 650 more child care places for school age children. This demonstrates our commitment to the development of child care in Wales to enable women in particular to re-enter the labour market or re-train. This initiative helps support our Welfare to Work programme and will contribute to the Childcare Strategy for Wales.

  Truancy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has instituted to reduce the incidence of truancy; and if he will make a statement. [27648]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office issued draft guidance on "School Attendance and the Role of the Education Welfare Service" in December. The consultation ends on 20 February. Final guidance will be issued shortly thereafter fulfilling the undertaking given in the White Paper "Building Excellent Schools Together".

  An OHMCI Report "Improving Attendance and Behaviour: An Evaluation of Welsh Office [GEST] Funded Projects in Nine LEAs" was published on 12 December 1997 with the aim of spreading good practice.

  LEAs in Wales have indicated they propose to spend about £0.5 million on truancy and discipline measures through the Department's Grants for Education Support and Training programme (GEST) in 1998–99. Authorities were informed of their individual allocations on 30 January.

  The Department's Youth Access Initiative 1998–99 has required local authorities and TECs to produce joint action plans to tackle the problems of disaffection among young people who are not receiving education or training and are not in employment. For young people below school leaving age the plans will help them to return to mainstream education. Welsh Office support in 1998–99 amounts to £1.6 million.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in Wales currently receive a Welsh language medium education. [27443]

  Mr. Hain
  At January 1997, 50,392 children in maintained primary schools were in classes in which Welsh was the sole or main medium of instruction and a further 7,649 were in classes in which Welsh was used as a medium of teaching for part of the curriculum. 49 maintained secondary schools were "Welsh speaking" schools (as defined by the Education Act 1996) but not all pupils in these schools would have been taught through Welsh. Of the 28,831 pupils in Years 7 to 11 in these schools, 21,372 were taught the subject of Welsh as a first language. This may give an indication of the number studying other subjects through the medium of Welsh.

  Town Centre Shopping
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends taking to protect town centre shopping facilities in Wales. [27445]
  45
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Government planning policy on retailing and town centres is set out in "Planning Guidance (Wales) Planning Policy" published in May 1996. This includes a commitment to sustain and enhance town centres and established tests for new retail development which favour town centres sites. A revised version of "Planning Guidance (Wales) Planning Policy" is now being prepared following consultation and it is intended that this will emphasise the need to safeguard and promote town centre shopping.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the gross cost of setting up mechanisms for the means testing of citizens of other EU member states to assess their eligibility to pay tuition fees. [27716]

  Mr. Hain
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 532, what information he has collated on the net annual income for farmers in Wales during (a) 1996–97 and (b) the current financial year. [28284]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  [holding answer 6 February 1998]The information requested is currently being collated, and will be published in a Statistical Release on Thursday 12 February 1998. I will write to my hon. Friend enclosing a copy of the Release and will also arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Publications
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26333]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Between 1 May and 31 January 1998, the Welsh Office published 831 titles and the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales, 747.

  A list of the publications will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his plans for local government revenue spending for 1998–99. [28981]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Further to my announcement on 2 February, I am laying the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1998–99 (revised) with the Limitation of Council Tax (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1998–99 (revised) today. These revised reports replace those two reports laid before the House on 2 February which have been withdrawn due to a small error in the calculation of the standard spending assessments. The Special Grant Report (No. 2) (Wales) 1998 has not been revised.
  46
  I am placing revised settlement details for individual local authorities in the Library of the House. The details for individual police authorities and the settlement aggregates have not changed. My decisions are subject to the approval of the House of Commons.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what rent his Department is currently paying to Associated British Ports for Crickhowell House in Cardiff; what is the length of the lease; and what are the break-points in the lease. [28339]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is Government policy not to disclose information about rent levels for individual properties. The lease runs for 25 years from 31 August 1993 with no break provision.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if those who made bids for the location of the National Assembly will be permitted to amend the detailed bids submitted; and if he will make a statement. [28340]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  It is open to those who made bids to amend the details as they see fit, but I expect to make a decision shortly.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will(a) publish and (b) place in the Library the full details of the bids received for the location of the National Assembly. [28341]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 3 February 1998,Official Report column 606.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Publications
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26322]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has published the following publications between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998.

  1. Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters

  Green Paper:

  Who Decides? Making Decisions on behalf of Mentally Incapacitated Adults

  Reports:

  Review of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

  Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid: Report to the Lord Chancellor by Sir Peter Middleton GCB

  Access to Justice publications:

  Civil Procedure Rules about Costs: A Consultation Paper

  Clinical Negligence Cases: Proposed New Procedures: A Consultation Paper

  Judicial Case Management: the Fast Track and Multi-Track: A Working Paper

  47

  Multi-Party Situations: Proposed New Procedures: A Consultation Paper

  Security for Costs: Proposed New Rules: A Consultation Paper

  Service of Court Process Abroad: Proposed Civil Procedure Rules: A Consultation Paper

  The Small Claims Procedure: A Consultation Paper

  Specialist Jurisdictions: Proposed New Procedures: A Consultation Paper

  Family Law Act 1996:

  Domestic Violence: The New Law: A Guide to Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 for family law practitioners

  Domestic Violence: The New Law: A Guide to Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 for agencies and professionals helping victims of domestic violence

  Help against Domestic Violence—free leaflet in English, Welsh and six other languages

  LCD Research Series:

  1/97 Monitoring the Rise in the Small Claims Limit: litigants' experiences of different form of adjudication (Professor John Baldwin)

  2/97 Delay inthe Criminal Justice System (Dr. Satnam Choongh)

  3/97 Resolving Civil Disputes: choosing between out-of-court schemes and litigation (Tamara Goriely and Tom Williams)

  4/97 Law-And-Economics: State of the Art and Questions for the Future (Professor Anthony Ogus)

  5/97 Regulating Legal Services (Professor Robert Baldwin)

  6/97 Judicial Appointments Commissions: The European and North American Experience and the possible implications for the United Kingdom (Dr. Cheryl Thomas and Dr. Kate Malleson)

  7/97 The Division of Marital Assets Following Divorce with Particular Reference to Pensions (Professor Antony Dnes)

  8/97 Household Indebtedness, voluntary and involuntary: a study of court summonses (Mike Hope)

  9/97 Expenditure on Legal Services (Mike Hope)

  10/97 Legal Aid Delivery Systems: which offer the best value for money in mass casework? A summary of International Experience (Tamara Goriely)

  11/97 Ethnic Monitoring of Defendants Appearing at Leicester Magistrates' Court in 1995 (Home Office and Professor Philip Bean)

  Magistrates' courts statistics:

  Information Bulletin Issue 2/97: Time Intervals for Criminal Proceedings in Magistrates' Courts: February 1997 (published June 1997)

  Information Bulletin Issue 3/97: Magistrates' Courts User Reaction and Waiting Times on the Day Surveys (published August 1997)

  Information Bulletin Issue 4/97: Time Intervals for Criminal Proceedings in Magistrates' Courts: June 1997 (published December 1997)

  Annual Reports:

  Judicial Studies Board Annual Report

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct Annual Report

  Others:

  Hearsay (LCD staff magazine—six issues per annum)

  2. Court Service

  Annual reports:

  The Court Service Annual Report

  The Judicial Statistics Annual Report

  Court users information leaflets:

  English and Welsh versions

  Small Claims Leaflets: Amended

  Ex 301 What is a small claim? can it help me?

  48

  Ex 302 How to make a small claim

  Ex 303 I've received a summons—what do I do

  Ex 304 No reply to my summons—what should I do

  Ex 305 The defendant agrees with the claim

  Ex 306 The defendant disagrees with the claim

  Ex 307 An arbitration hearing

  Registered Judgements Ex 320 What does it mean?

  Enforcing your Judgement

  Ex 321 I have a judgement but the defendant hasn't paid—What can I do?

  Ex 322 Warrant of execution—How do I ask for a warrant of execution?

  Ex 323 Attachment of earnings—How do I ask for an attachment of earnings order?

  Ex 324 Oral examinations—How do I ask for an oral examination?

  Ex 325 Garnishee and charging orders—How do I ask for a garnishee or charging order?

  Ex 326 I cannot pay my judgement—What do I do?

  Ex 327 I've got a maintenance order—but it's not being paid

  Ex 350 Small Businesses—A guide for small businesses to debt recovery through a county court—Going to court—can it help me?

  Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996

  Information Pack

  FL700 leaflet How can it help me?

  Family leaflets:

  D183 About Divorce

  D184 I want to get a divorce—what do I do?

  CB1 Children and the family courts

  Fees leaflets:

  Ex 50 Fees County Court Fees 15 January 1997 (amendment)

  Ex 50 Welsh version

  Attachment of Earnings Handbook for Employers

  Attachment of Earnings leaflet

  Leaflet—Ancillary Relief and you

  Leaflet—Making an application for Ancillary Relief

  Leaflet 5130 Guide to proceedings in the Court of Appeal— Criminal Division

  Ex 501 Welsh language information sheet

  Leaflet—Information about your Compensation award (Produced by Magistrates Courts Division) Welsh and English versions

  Public Information Notices: Welsh versions for Disabilities Discrimination Act

  Ex 104 Court information leaflets

  Ex 343 Complaints leaflets

  3. Public Trust Office

  Annual publications:

  Public Trust Office Annual Report

  Public Trust Office Corporate Plan

  Public Trust Office Business Plan

  Factsheets:

  Protection Division Accounts

  Protection Division Annual Enquiries

  Protection Division Investments

  Death of an Incapacitated Person

  Applications for the Direction of the Public Trustee

  A Guide to the Court Funds Office—Protection Division Payments

  49

  Booklets:

  Making an Application

  Duties of a Receiver

  Protection Division Fees

  Receiver's Handbook

  Information for Nursing Homes, Hospitals and Other Carers

  Handling the Financial Affairs of People Suffering from Mental Disorder

  Enduring Powers of Attorney Handbook

  How to Complain

  Charter Statements—for Protection Division, Receivership Division, Trust Division and Court Funds Officer

  Receivership Information Booklet for the Use of Clients

  Receivership Division Information Booklet

  Receivership Division Information for Nursing Homes, Hospitals and Other Carers

  Trust Division Executor and Trustee Services

  Trust Division Fees.

  Magistrates (Wales)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the names of those sitting on advisory committees for the appointment of magistrates in Wales. [27111]

  Mr. Hoon
  The names of the members of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace in Wales are as follows, listed by Advisory Committee:

  Clwyd

  Sir William Gladstone Bt JP (Chairman, Lord Lieutenant)

  Mrs. S. E. Glazebrook JP

  R. Evans Esq

  Mrs. C. T. Owen JP

  Mrs. L. C. Wilding JP

  Mrs. J. Jones JP

  A Blackwell Esq JP

  M. Pugh Esq JP

  T. Lloyd Esq JP

  Mrs. G. M. Peers JP

  Mrs. A. K Larsen JP

  Dr. J. P. Davies JP(m)

  Mrs. D. C. Ellis

  Dyfed- Ca rmarthen

  Sir David Mansel Lewis KCVO JP (Chairman, Lord Lieutenant)

  Mrs. D. Evans JP

  Mrs. M. Lloyd JP

  T. G. Evans Esq JP

  Mrs. P. A. Williams

  Mrs. B. M. Jones JP

  Dr. H. Edwards JP (m)

  Mrs. E. E. Jenkins JP

  G. C. Price Esq JP

  J. H. Owens Esq JP

  Dyfed- Ceredigion

  W. R. G. James Esq JP (Chairman)

  Mrs. M. J. K.Davies JP

  G. R. Evans Esq MBE JP

  Mrs. M. R. E.Roderick JP

  I. I. Griffiths Esq JP

  50

  Prof. D. H. E. Roberts JP

  G. J. Morgan Esq JP

  H. P. Williams Esq JP

  Mrs. N. E. Davies

  Dyfed-Pembroke

  Mrs. C. F. Ramsden JP (Chairman)

  Mrs. P. A. Barker JP

  D. W. Banner Esq JP

  J. D. Harry Esq JP

  D. Fellows Esq

  G. Sizer Esq JP

  S. Watkins Esq JP

  G. L. Gibby Esq JP

  Mrs. M. L. J.Firmin JP

  Gwent

  Sir Richard Hanbury-Tenison KCVO JP (Chairman, Lord Lieutenant)

  Mrs. A. Troath JP

  Mrs. J. E. Child JP

  Mrs. H. E. Murray JP

  G. Jenkins Esq JP

  W. D. Morgan Esq

  C. Perrott Esq JP

  Mrs. J. M. Anthony JP

  Mrs. P. E. Davies JP

  J. Graydon Esq JP

  Miss F. M. Hingley JP

  B. G. James Esq JP

  V. N. Waters Esq Jp

  S. J. Telling Esq

  Gwynedd Caernarfon

  R. G. Pritchard-Jones Esq JP (Chairman)

  Mrs. B. Lewis JP

  Mrs. K. Jones JP

  G. T. Roberts Esq JP

  D. Pugh Esq OBE JP

  E. Jones Esq JP

  J. Roberts Esq

  Mrs. P. A. Williams JP

  Mrs. J. BrysonJP

  H. T. Jones Esq JP

  Dr. H. Roberts (f)

  Gwynedd Meirionnydd

  R. E. Meuric Rees Esq CBE JP (Chairman, Lord Lieutenant)

  The Hon. V. F. Williams-Wynne(f)

  R. Price Esq JP

  J. W. England Esq

  A. Morgan Esq

  E. C. Roberts JP

  Ms D. J. Jones JP

  Mrs. C. Lawson JP

  Mid Glamorgan

  M. A. McLaggan Esq JP (Chairman, Lord Lieutenant)

  R. H. Knight Esq JP

  T. C. Challoner Esq JP

  C. Jones Esq JP

  A. V. Jenkins Esq JP

  A. A. Brookes Esq JP

  51

  B. W. Hancock Esq

  Mrs. J. A. Jarman

  Mrs. S. John JP

  Mrs. G. Servini JP

  Mrs. K. E. Thomas JP

  North Powys

  P. English Esq JP (Chairman)

  H. J. Tombs Esq JP

  Mrs. K. J. Hay JP

  Dr. L. H. Williams(m)

  Lady Davies

  T. D. Evans Esq JP

  Mrs. A. Jones JP

  Mrs. S. J. Jarman JP

  Ms L. Kretchmer JP

  G. S. I. Lloyd Esq JP

  South Glamorgan

  HHJ M. Gibbon QC (Chairman)

  Mrs. J. Sainsbury JP

  Mrs. M. E. Drake

  J. L. Jones Esq JP

  Mrs. M. A. Campbell JP

  Mrs. E. S. Williams JP

  Mrs. L. Pritchard-Jones JP

  M. G. Downs Esq JP

  South Powys

  M. L. Bourdillon Esq JP (Chairman, Lord Lieutenant)

  The hon. R. Gibson-Watt

  G. R. Price Esq JP

  S. Vipond Esq JP

  W. M. Thomas Esq JP

  W. J. Elliott Esq JP

  Mrs. G. M. Powell JP

  Mrs. S. E. Thompson JP

  Mrs. C. E. Harvard

  Mrs. G. M. Riley JP

  West Glamorgan

  R. C. Hastie Esq CBE RD JP (Chairman, Lord Lieutenant)

  Mrs. M. L. Daley JP

  Mrs. S. E. Davies JP

  E. M. H. Evans Esq JP

  Mrs. M. F. Goodchild JP

  D. R. M. Thomas Esq JP

  Miss M. Hughes JP

  Miss M. Lody JP

  C. G. Jones Esq JP

  D. W. W. Thomas Esq JP

  Mrs. G. Thomas

  K. Rees Esq JP

  A. R. Richards Esq JP

  J. Warman Esq

  Mrs. S. M. Waller

  Dr. N. Lloyd JP(f)

  H. F. Jones Esq

  Ynys Môn

  G I. Jones Esq JP (Chairman)

  I. O. Davies Esq JP

  Mrs. P. A. Doble JP

  52

  Mrs. M. Williams JP

  A. M. Jones Esq

  Mrs. A. Jones JP

  T. A. Hughes Esq

  G. Morris-Jones Esq

  G. Williams Esq JP.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Poor People
    Mr. Pond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will carry out an assessment of the impact of her Department's current policies on the(a) income, (b) employment opportunities and (c) living standards, of the poorest 30 per cent, of the population. [23344]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    Government policies are continually evaluated using a variety of methods. We have a range of surveys and policy evaluation methodologies in place, some of which are targeted specifically at certain low income groups. In addition, various research studies on low income and deprivation have been commissioned from leading academics.

    The best way of improving the living standards of most people at the bottom of the income distribution is to help them into work and we are implementing a range of policies under the New Deal to achieve this aim. Our objective is to raise the living standards of the many, not just the few, and to offer educational and employment opportunities for all.

    We carry out a range of policies to stimulate growth in employment and to improve the opportunities for those seeking employment—including specific Action Plans for targeting measures on areas and people objectively defined as being in greatest need. The impact of these policies is regularly assessed by their degree of success in meeting specific objectives.

    The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Right's Report on Employment Equality published in June 1997 makes over 160 recommendations, a number of which relate to employment opportunities and social deprivation. Consideration of all the recommendations is well advanced and the Government's response will be published in the coming months.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Forth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants in her Department at each grade for grade 3 or above have(a) resigned, (b) retired before pensionable age and (c) moved to different responsibilities within the department since 1 May 1997; if she will indicate the Minister to whom each was responsible; and if she will make a statement. [26928]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:(a) Nil;

    (b) One Grade 1, one Grade 1A (both responsible to the Secretary of State); one Grade 3 responsible to Lord Dubs;

    (c) One Grade 2 responsible to me; one Grade 3 responsible to Lord Dubs.

    Preparatory Schools
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the cost of withdrawal of funding to preparatory schools for the primary school sector; and if she will make a statement. [26738]

    Mr. Worthington
    I announced on 29 January that the subsidy paid towards the teaching costs of pupils attending preparatory departments of grammar schools would be reduced from 40% to 30% with effect from September 1998. This is expected to save around £250,000 to help improve standards elsewhere in the education sector.

    It is estimated that this change will mean on average an increase of about 8% on the existing level of parental contributions if a school decides to pass on to parents the full effect of the reduced subsidy.

    Security
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will withdraw the security passes to Castle Buildings of political parties connected to paramilitary organisations that admit to ending their ceasefire; and what external advice she has sought on the status of such parties. [26735]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    The Ulster Democratic Party was declared by the two Governments on 26 January to be no longer entitled to participate in the talks process, in view of the activities of a paramilitary organisation with which it is associated. Its members do not now have access to Castle Buildings. We have involved our legal advisers as necessary in considering the position of the party.

    Quangos
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the people who presently serve on more than one quango in Northern Ireland, indicating the bodies on which they serve, the position they hold on each such body, when they were first appointed and the number of terms for which they have served on each body. [26741]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    A copy of the information requested has been placed in the Library.

    Water Services
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans she has to amend the Water and Sewerage Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 in order to empower the Water Service to enter third party land for the purposes of laying a private supply pipe; and if she will make a statement; [27122]

    (2) if officials in her Department will meet the Ulster Farmers' Union to discuss the ability of the Water Service to lay private water supply pipes across a third party's land without the third party's consent; [27124]

    (3) on how many occasions in the last two years a landowner has notified her Department that he is unable to obtain water due to the refusal of a third party to allow the Water Service to enter for the purposes of laying a private supply pipe. [27123]
    54
    Mr. Paul Murphy
    Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Water Service under its chief executive, Mr. H. R. F. Plester. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from H.R. F. Plester to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 4 February 1998.
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your three recent parliamentary questions about private supply pipes. You asked if there are plans to amend the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 ("the 1973 Order") to empower the Water Service to enter third party land for the purposes of laying a private supply pipe and if the Department's officials will meet the Ulster Farmers Union to discuss the ability of the Water Service to lay private water supply pipes across a third party's land without the third party's consent. You also asked me how many occasions in the last two years a landowner has notified the Department that he is unable to obtain water due to the refusal of a third party to allow the Water Service to enter for the purposes of laying a private supply pipe.
    While the Department has a duty under the 1973 Order to supply and distribute water, its powers of entry to private land are limited to the laying of watermains, which are vested in the Department and are for the purpose of giving a general supply of water. This is district from private supply pipes which belong to the owner of the land in which they are laid and which supply individual consumers or which, by agreement, cross a third party's land to supply an individual consumer. The Department's position reflects that under which the water supply undertakers in the rest of the United Kingdom operate.
    It is, therefore, the responsibility of individuals seeking a water supply from the Department's watermains to arrange for the laying of any necessary length of private supply pipe to the watermain. This includes making any access arrangements with the owners of any private lands which may need to be crossed in order to make a connection to a watermain. The Department's current powers are sufficient to enable it to exercise its functions under the 1973 Order and it would not be appropriate for it to seek a power to enter private land to carry out work solely on behalf of a private individual. There are, therefore, no plans to seek an amendment to the 1973 Order.
    As regards a meeting with the Ulster Farmers Union, the Water Service's Director of Operations would be happy to meet the Union to discuss any difficulties its members may have because they are unable to lay a private supply pipe across third party land. Perhaps the Union would contact my office to make the arrangements.
    It is an important consideration that we must be mindful of the rights and interests of those farmers whose lands may be traversed by any proposed private supply pipes. They are affected in significant degree as well as those individuals seeking the laying of such a connection across third party lands to a watermain.
    The Water Service does not maintain records of representations made to it by individuals who have been denied access to third party lands to lay private supply pipes. As I have explained, the Water Service would not seek entry to third party lands to lay private supply pipes as this is a matter for all the private property holders involved to resolve by negotiation and agreement. I am, however, aware of difficulty being experienced by one of your constituents in laying a service pipe across third party land and I wrote to you about this on 15 August and 22 September 1997.

    Policing
    Mr. McNulty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures she is taking to implement the proposals made in the Labour Party discussion paper "Policing in Northern Ireland—A Service for All People"(a) to reform the method of appointment of members of the Police Authority and (b) in respect of the role of community police liaison committees. [28959]
    55
    Marjorie Mowlam
    As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State informed the House on 15 December 1997,Official Report, columns 100–04, I intend to issue a consultation paper before the start of the Committee Stage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, outlining some options for changes to strengthen the Police Authority, and the Community Police Liaison Committees so developing further the partnership between the police and the community, which is essential to combating crime of all kinds. Copies of that paper, "Your Voice—Your Choice", which is published today, have now been placed in the Library of the House. I have no set views on which, if any, of these options should be implemented, and I am keen to hear views on these important issues. Decisions must await the outcome of the consultation process; and developments in the talks.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Minister without Portfolio
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received on the advantages of extending the length of time available to the Minister without Portfolio to answer oral questions. [26137]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    None since I announced that the time for oral questions to the Minister without Portfolio about the Millennium Experience would be doubled with effect from Monday 16 February.

    Sitting Hours
    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received on an extension to the number of morning sittings of the House. [26139]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    Several people have suggested such a change. The Modernisation Committee is currently considering proposals to extend morning sittings and hopes to report soon.

    Members' Smoking Room
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what measures he proposes to eradicate mice from the Members' Smoking Room. [28359]

    Mr. Dennis Turner
    Pest control is the responsibility of the Director of Works; however, good housekeeping is essential in the prevention of pest infestation. To this effect, the contract cleaning of the Members' Smoking Room is carried out during the night, as soon as possible after close of business.

    Although no reports of sightings of mice have recently been made to the management of the Refreshment Department or to the Parliamentary Works Directorate, the Refreshment Department will ensure that the cleaning contractors are aware of the importance of maintaining the correct standard of cleaning, and I have asked the management of the Department to ensure that particular attention is paid to the Members' Smoking Room.

    However, in my personal capacity, I am on record as having said that the traditional way of keeping down rodent infestation is best; it may well be that if chemicals prove ineffective, the House may wish to reconsider re-introducing a cat as a more effective deterrent.
    56
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee when the Members' Smoking Room was last checked for vermin infestation. [28358]

    Mr. Dennis Turner
    Bait is set in eight places in the Members' Smoking Room as a precaution against rodent infestation. The bait is checked monthly, the last inspection being 16 January 1998. The last time the pest control contractor found evidence of the presence of mice in the Smoking Room was in August 1997.

    I understand that staff of the Refreshment Department have been reminded of the correct procedure of reporting evidence or sightings of vermin.

    British Beef Industry
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what steps the Refreshment Department is taking to support the British beef industry. [28709]

    Mr. Dennis Turner
    I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend that the Refreshment Department will be showing its support for the British beef industry by celebrating "British Beef Week" with a promotion of British beef in its cafeterias and in the Members' Dining Room during the week commencing 16 February 1998. A 'pledge' book will be provided in the Dining Room to enable all hon. Members to indicate their individual support for the industry.

    Additional Costs Allowance
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members claimed(a) additional costs allowance and (b) London weighting in 1996–97. [27321]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    (a)(b) 119 were paid the London Supplement.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the President of the Council what was the cost of administering the additional costs allowance in the last year for which figures are available. [27323]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    The cost of this area of work is not separately identified as it forms part of the workload of a section with other responsibilities for payments to Members.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members claimed additional costs allowance of more than £500 and less than the maximum in 1996–97.[27322]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    273.

  HEALTH

    Dental Services (Lincolnshire)
    Mr. Hogg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dental services in Lincolnshire. [26541]

    Mr. Milburn
    There were 135 General Dental Service dentists on Lincolnshire Health Authority's list on 30 September 1997. The health authority can refer patients to a dentist willing to register them for National Health Service treatment.
    57

    Haemophiliacs (Contaminated Blood Products)
    Mr. Goggins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be able to make an announcement with regard to the claim for recompense by haemophiliacs infected with Hepatitis C as a result of treatment with contaminated blood products. [27169]

    Ms Jowell
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to be able to write to the Haemophilia Society on all the issues they have raised in the course of the next few weeks.

    ME Association
    Mr. Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase support from his Department for the ME Association. [27253]

    Ms Jowell
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 508.

    Equity of Service
    Mr. Ivan Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the measures taken by the Government to extend equity of service provided in areas covered by individual health authorities is not used by individual health authorities as an occasion to level down available services. [27244]

    Ms Jowell
    We will take action to ensure that the most effective services are available across the country. We will work with the professions to produce national clinical guidelines and service frameworks to improve national consistency. This will be backed up by our commitment to provide real-terms increases in the resources for the National Health Service and ploughing extra resources into patient care.

    AIDS Vaccines
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage the international effort to test existing AIDS vaccines. [27246]

    Ms Jowell
    The United Kingdom is committed to encouraging international collaboration on AIDS vaccine research. The Medical Research Council and the Department are supporting collaborative research on AIDS vaccines. Although candidate vaccines are being tested, this is a complex area of research with no easy solutions; however, the UK research on AIDS vaccines is making a significant contribution to the international effort.

    HIV Testing (Pregnant Women)
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for routine testing of pregnant women for HIV. [27248]

    Ms Jowell
    We are committed to reducing the number of children born with HIV infection. Our purpose is to ensure that women are fully informed of the benefits of having an HIV test for themselves and their babies and to encourage the uptake of named voluntary HIV antibody testing on all women attending for antenatal care who may 58
    be at increased risk. We recognise, however, that knowing one is infected with HIV raises difficult issues for the individual.

    We have produced a leaflet to provide pregnant women with the necessary information to enable them to reach an informed decision about HIV testing. The leaflet will be piloted for acceptability and usefulness in the spring in a number of antenatal clinics.

    Free confidential access to HIV testing remains available to anyone who feels they may have been at risk of infection.

    Children's Affairs
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives he will bring forward on the issue of children's affairs during the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union. [27396]

    Mr. Boateng
    We have no plans to do so. The European Community currently has no legal competence to introduce measures to regulate policies affecting the child in the areas covered by my right hon. Friend's responsibilities. Such activities fall exclusively to the member states.

    Microbiologists (Visits)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates microbiologists Doctor Nasser el-Hindawi and Doctor Tharner Abdul Rahman were invited to the United Kingdom; to what extent they were party to discussions on(a) anthrax, (b) gas gangrene,(c) botulism toxin, (d) brucellosis and (e) rabbit foot and tetanus; and by whom they were invited. [26398]

    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 3 February 1998]Neither Doctor Nasser el-Hindawi nor Doctor Tharner Abdul Rahman were invited to the United Kingdom. They applied to attend an international scientific workshop on anthrax in response to publicity in several scientific publications. The workshop was held in Winchester in April 1989, and was organised by various institutions who have an expertise in the control of infectious diseases, including the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. The purpose of the workshop was to promote international understanding of anthrax as a naturally occurring disease which poses a significant threat to public health in many parts of the world. All presentations at the workshop addressed human health aspects of the disease and none contained classified information.

    The workshop contained no presentations or open discussions on gas gangrene, botulism toxin, brucellosis, rabbit foot or tetanus.

    AIDS Support Grant
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce AIDS Support Grant allocations to local authorities for the next financial year. [27376]

    Ms Jowell
    We expert to annonce the 1998–99 AIDS Supported Grant allocations to local authorities shortly.
    59

    NHS Prescriptions
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the level of NHS payments to pharmacists for dispensing prescriptions. [27471]

    Mr. Milburn
    Since October 1997, we have received in the region of 120 letters on this subject from hon. and right hon. Members, and a very much smaller number directly from individual community pharmacists and representative organisations.

    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the system of NHS payments to pharmacists for dispensing prescriptions; and if he will make a statement. [27472]

    Mr. Milburn
    We have no plans for such a review at present, but we remain keen to discuss with relevant bodies ways of making the best use of community pharmacists' skills within the National Health Service.

    Tobacco and Alcohol
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions are planned in the Health Council during the British Presidency on the effect on the health of the residents of the member states of differentials in excise duty on tobacco and alcohol. [27927]

    Ms Jowell
    There are no plans to raise this as a formal agenda item at the Health Council on 30 April 1998.

    Patient Records
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the requirement on general practitioners to maintain manual notes on patients so as to allow more efficient alternatives. [28115]

    Mr. Milburn
    The Department has been discussing with the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association a proposed change to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 which would have allowed general practitioners (GPs) to maintain patient records on a computer as an alternative to manual records. The profession have requested that further work is done to develop a standardised electronic patient record and to facilitate the transfer of patient records electronically from GP to GP before the requirement to maintain records manually is removed. We will consider changing this requirement once work in these ares is suitably advanced.

    Cervical Cancer Screening
    Gillian Merron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the quality of cervical cancer screening following the recall by Lincoln County Hospital of women whose smear test results were incorrectly reported. [28034]

    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]The regional quality assurance programme found lower than expected levels of reporting of smear abnormalities at Lincoln and Louth National Health Service Trust. On the basis of this, the trust took swift action in ordering a re-read of a number of smears, and some women have now been recalled. We are pleased that the quality 60
    assurance system in place in the Trent region did its job properly in identifying the problem, and that rapid action was taken to put it right.

    Wide ranging action to help ensure consistent high quality and dependability in cervical screening across the country was announced last year in the light of a failure of the cervical screening programme at Kent and Canterbury NHS Trust. We announced that there would be a review of the performance of all cervical screening programmes, and that, where necessary, action plans would be drawn up to help ensure national standards are met on 3 November 1997, Ojficial Report, columns 19–28. EL(97)67 was also issued. In addition, we are tightening up accountability for quality assurance. In December, we announced a package of measures to promote consistent high quality in laboratories undertaking cervical screening (EL(97)83 refers). In particular, all laboratories must apply this year for external quality accreditation and there will be targeted refresher training for staff in laboratories which do not meet key quality indicators. The Chief Medical Officer has set up an action team to monitor progress.

    Drugs
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1998,Official Report, column 614, what are the percentages of(a) females and (b) males who have used an illegal drug by the age of (i) 16 and (ii) 24 years. [28195]

    Ms Jowell
    The information available centrally is given in the table.

    Percentage of males and females who indicated that they had ever taken drugs, 1996, England and Wales

    Age 16 to 19

    Age 20 to 24

    Males

    48

    57

    Females

    42

    43

    Persons

    45

    49

    Note:

    Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figure.

    Source:

    1996 British Crime Survey

    For males and females aged 15 to 16 a schools based survey conducted by McMiller and Plant (British Medical Journal 1996, 313, 394–97) found that 45 per cent, of boys and 40 per cent, of girls aged 15 to 16 in the United Kingdom reported ever using illicit drugs.

    NHS Care (Failures)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1998,Official Report, column 3 what contribution the number of patient deaths caused by failures of NHS services will play in his future assessment of the quality of NHS services. [28196]

    Mr. Milburn
    We are committed to improving the quality of National Health Service care and to minimising avoidable and premature deaths, whatever their causes. We are consulting on a new National Framework for Assessing Performance in the NHS and on an associated set of high-level performance indicators. The proposed
    61
    high-level indicators include "avoidable deaths" and "in-hospital premature deaths", though neither necessarily relates directly to failures of NHS services.

    Neuroleptic Drugs
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of trials recently undertaken in the USA into the effects on in-patients of withdrawing neuroleptic drugs. [28134]

    Ms Jowell
    We are not aware of these recent trials.

    Publications
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26326]

    Ms Jowell
    This information is not collected centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Sodium
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what meetings his Department has hosted with non-governmental bodies or individuals to discuss the setting of targets for levels of human sodium intake; and if he will make a statement on the results of such meetings and list those who attended; [28535]

    (2) if he will publish the scientific advice presented to his Department showing the effect on health outcomes of introducing population consumption targets for sodium consumption. [28534]

    Ms Jowell
    The evidence on the relationship between sodium consumption and blood pressure was considered by the Government's source of independent expert advice, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy. It is cited in their report "Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease", published in 1994. As part of their consideration, experts were invited to present views and the names of those who gave oral or written evidence are also cited in the report. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

    The Faculty of Public Health Medicine, in collaboration with the British Heart Foundation, hosted a seminar at the request of the Department to bring together a wide spread of scientific opinion to consider the advisability of a reduction in sodium consumption for the general population. A report is expected later this year.

    Diet
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the amount by which the average per capita consumption of fruit salads and vegetables would have to increase to have a measurable impact on those causes of mortality where poor diet is judged to be a significant contributory factor. [28537]

    Ms Jowell
    The Government's source of independent expert advice, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy, recommended in its report "Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease" published in 1994 that, on average, individuals should increase their fruit and vegetable consumption by 50 per cent. Copies of the report are available in the Library. It 62
    was on this basis that we now recommend that people should try to eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

    NHS Trusts (Appointments)
    Mr. Maples
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts to which he appointed new chairs in the last round of appointments indicating the names of the new chairs. [28890]

    Mr. Milburn
    The information will be published in March in the Department's Public Appointments Annual Report.

    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letter from Councillor Brian Yates of Jubilee Terrace, Kingswear, Devon, of 14 December 1997 concerning the nomination and selection of individuals to the boards of NHS trusts. [28351]

    Mr. Milburn
    We have no record of the letter from Councillor Yates ever having been received.

  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Drugs
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received regarding the Government's strategy on the problem of illegal drug use among young people. [26134]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    Keith Hellawell—the UK Anti-Drugs Coordinator—is currently co-ordinating an extensive consultation process to inform his drafting of proposals for a new anti-drugs strategy, which he will submit to Ministers shortly. Since the announcement of his appointment last October, Mr. Hellawell and his Deputy, Mike Trace, have received over 2,000 letters from all sectors of society. They are also engaged in a comprehensive series of visits and meetings with professionals, young people and communities across the country.

    Privy Council
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Council what criteria are used in appointments to the Privy Council. [26133]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    Appointment to the Privy Council is an exercise of the prerogative. Appointments are made by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. A range of factors are taken into account. Those appointed mostly comprise Ministers, other Parliamentarians and members of the judiciary.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Correspondence
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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
    63
    the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27043]

    Dr. David Clark
    On average it takes 13 days for my Department to answer letters from hon. Members.

    The Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service) sets a target of fifteen working days from receipt to reply to all letters.

    From 1 May to 31 December 1997, 90 per cent. of letters from MPs received a full reply within the target date. A further 7 per cent. received interim holding replies within the target date.

    Once letters have been signed, they are dispatched without delay for delivery to the Palace of Westminster (or, when requested, the Member's constituency office). It is usual for letters to be delivered to the House within one working day of being signed by the appropriate Minister, and in many cases they will arrive on the same day.

    Publications
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26331]

    Dr. David Clark
    The following publications have been produced by my Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998:

    Office of Public Service

    1995 Supplement to the chronological table of local legislation

    360° Feedback for the SCS

    Advertising Protocol

    An Evaluation of Investors in People in the Civil Service

    Annual edition of statutory instruments 1995 part III

    Annual edition of statutory instruments 1996 part I

    Annual edition of statutory instruments 1996 part II

    Annual volume of public General Acts and measures 1995

    Benchmarking Human resource activities—Review of consortium report

    Charter Mark Communication Guide

    Charter Mark Guide

    Charter Mark Nomination Form

    Charter Mark Schools Guide

    Charter Mark Style Guide

    Charter News Bulletin: Issue 1

    Charter News Bulletin: Issue 2

    Chronological table of the statutes 1235–1994

    Citizen's Charter Unit Quality Network Directory

    Civil Service Fast Stream recruitment report 1996–97

    Complaints Handling 1997 summary

    Compliance cost assessments 1 January 1997 to 30 June 1997

    Crown copyright in the information age

    Crown copyright in the information age, Cm 3819

    Development and training for Civil Servants—A framework for action—Update on key white paper statistics

    Direct Access Government

    Early retirement

    Equal opportunities handbook

    Evaluating Investors in People

    64

    Excellence in Action

    Finding Your Way Round Whitehall and Beyond

    Getting the best out of 360 degree feedback—A guide for Departments and Agencies

    Government Study Fellowship leaflet

    Guidance on CVs

    Increasing your benefits

    Injury at work

    Interlink

    Interview Training Programme for the SCS

    Introducing modern apprenticeships in the Civil Service

    Investors in People

    Jigsaw—Equal opportunities magazine

    Joining the PCSPS

    Leaving or opting out of the PCSPS

    List of ministerial responsibilities (including Agencies)

    Local Charter Guide: A Consultation Exercise

    Management matters magazine (quarterly)

    Opening up quangos

    Pensions manual revised versions (Volumes 2,4,5 and 6)

    Pensions update newsletter, 3 editions

    Principles of good regulation

    Public bodies 1997

    Re-packaging—making the most of your early retirement benefits

    Report of the working group on the Government Information Service

    Supporting the individual to manage and develop a career

    The Citizen's Charter: A Consultation Exercise

    The Courier (bi-monthly newsletter)

    Training and Development in the SCS "A Route Map"

    Various amendments to Pension scheme manuals

    Various amendments to Pension scheme rules

    Windsor Leadership Trust leaflet

    Your Pension scheme explained

    Your right to know—The Government's proposals for a Freedom of Information Act, Cm 3818

    Agencies of the Office of Public Service

    Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency:

    ITIL Service level management

    Prince 2 pocketbook

    Prince 2 outline

    Tackling the year 2000 (6 volume guide):

    Volume 1 An executive overview

    Volume 2 Managing the programme

    Volume 3 Kick starting the organisation

    Volume 4 Assessing the size of your problem

    Volume 5 Testing and compliance

    Volume 6 The legal implications

    Civil Service College

    Capability (newsletter)

    Civil Service College Scotland course directory

    Development for internal auditors folder

    Development Opportunities for consultants leaflet

    Directory update (4 editions)

    Equal opportunities brochure

    Financial and Accountancy training brochure

    Government Group promotional folder

    HSE training prospectus

    Marketing Folder

    65

    Personal development brochure

    Purchasing Folder

    Report and Accounts

    Senior Entrants programme leaflet

    User role in systems development

    Government Car and Despatch Agency:

    None.

    Property Advisers to the Civil Estate:

    CAV technical index

    Crown fire standards part (A-D)

    PACE leaflet—Planning post election

    PACE brochure—Adding value, saving money

    PACE Annual Report and Accounts

    Security Facilities Executive:

    Annual Report and Accounts 1996–97

    The Buying Agency:

    Pathfinder brochure

    TBA News—two editions

    Central Office of Information (COI):

    COI Annual report and Accounts 1996–97

    IPO Directory

    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list, by title, the publications produced under the authority of the Office of Public Service between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26336]

    Dr. David Clark
    The following publications have been produced under the authority of the Office of Public Services between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998.

    Produced jointly with other organisations
    Exploring Citizenship (A school's pack on the use and provision of Public Services), produced by the Centre for Citizenship studies in Education at the University of Leicester.
    Complaints Handling 1997, produced by MORI

    Produced under the authority of the Controller of HMSO

    15 Public General Acts

    4 Local Acts

    1 Church of England measure

    249 Statutory rules of Northern Ireland

    1,030 Statutory instruments

    7 Monthly lists of Statutory Instruments

    274 The London Gazette and supplements

    76 The Belfast Gazette and supplements

    153 The Edinburgh Gazette and supplements

    Independent Commissioners and Committees

    OPS also provide support for independent commissioners; for completeness their publications are listed here.

    Office of Civil Service Commissioners

    Civil Service Commissioners Annual Report 1996–97

    The Commissioner for Public Appointments

    Commissioner for Public Appointments: Second Report (1996/97)

    Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

    None

    Committee on Standards in Public Life

    Third Report on Standards of conduct in Local Government in England, Scotland and Wales

    Volume 1: Report cm3702-I

    Volume 2: Transcripts of oral evidence cm3702-II

    Summary of the Nolan Committee's third report on standards of conduct

    66

    Misuse of Public Office: A new offence? (Consultation paper)

    Fourth Report: Review of standards of conduct

    Issues and Questions: The funding of political parties.

  DEFENCE

    Strategic Defence Review
    Mr. Borrow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of the Government's defence diplomacy initiative for the Strategic Defence Review. [26108]

    Mr. George Robertson
    Defence Diplomacy is the use of our Armed Forces to promote conflict and crisis prevention, and more generally support and promote wider British interests. It is a major theme of the Strategic Defence Review and its importance will be clearly reflected in the United Kingdom's defence policy when we publish the conclusions of the Review in a White Paper.

    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the White Paper on the Strategic Defence Review. [26124]

    Mr. George Robertson
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 25 November 1997,Official Report, columns 499–500.

    European Defence Industry (Restructuring)
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made towards European defence industry restructuring in response to the peace dividend. [26109]

    Mr. Spellar
    Since the end of the Cold War, the defence industries of the USA and Western Europe have seen major changes in structure and organisation. These changes have proceeded further and faster in the USA, and a similar process needs to take place urgently within Europe. This was reflected in the 9 December trilateral statement on restructuring which calls on industry to submit clear plans and a detailed timetable for restructuring and integration by 31 March 1998. In preparation for this, discussions are continuing between European companies, and between industry and Government officials.

    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responses he has had from industry regarding the joint British, French and German call for restructuring of military aerospace manufacturing capacity; and if he will make a statement. [26128]

    Mr. Spellar
    The trilateral statement of 9 December 1997 called on companies to present a clear plan and detailed timetable for the restructuring and integration of the European aerospace and related defence industries by 31 March 1998. In preparation for this, discussions are continuing between European companies, and between industry and Government officials.
    67

    Merchant Fleet
    Mr. Bill O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest defence estimates in respect of British merchant shipping for defence purposes. [26111]

    Mr. Spellar
    Current defence estimates on the availability of British merchant shipping indicate that there are, in general, sufficient militarily useful vessels for perceived defence needs. The position will, of course, be reassessed following the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review.

    British Beef
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure domestic sourcing of food for the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [26112]

    Mr. Spellar
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 4 February 1998,Official Report, column 654.

    Mrs. Betty Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of meat purchased by his Department has been produced in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years. [26096]

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

    Mr. Spellar
    Although unfortunately figures do not exist for previous years, our contractor, Booker Foodservice estimate that some 40% of meat procured over the 12 months ending September 1998 will be from UK sources.

    As the House has shown particular interest in our procurement of beef, I should add that in recent weeks we have been working with Booker, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and fanners' representatives on how the position might be improved. Furthermore, I am glad to tell the House that Booker's estimate of 13% for the percentage of beef we buy from UK sources and which I gave to the House recently has now been revised by Booker to around 30%.

    NATO Enlargement
    Mr. Donald Anderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the application of Slovenia to join NATO. [26113]

    Mr. George Robertson
    NATO has undertaken to review the process of its enlargement in 1999; the considerations set forth in NATO's 1995 Enlargement Study will continue to apply with regard to all aspirants. The UK views Slovenia as a strong candidate for any future enlargement of NATO. The priority for now is to ensure the successful military and political integration of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary into NATO.

    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [26122]
    68
    Mr. George Robertson
    The protocols for the accession of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to NATO were signed in December by NATO Foreign Ministers: all Allies now need to ratify them. NATO is continuing its work with the invited countries to ensure their effective military and political integration into the Alliance. The UK is also providing bilateral defence assistance to facilitate this process.

    Defence Diversification
    Mr. Savidge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government expect to publish their Green Paper on defence diversification. [26114]

    Ms Moran
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish his Green Paper on defence diversification. [26126]

    Mr. Spellar
    We will publish the Green Paper in March.

    Satellite Communications System
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce his decision between Trimilsatcom and Skynet 5 as a procurement option for the next generation military satellite communications system; and if he will make a statement. [26115]

    Mr. Spellar
    The planned next generation of UK military communications satellites is known as SKYNET 5. In December 1997, the UK, France and Germany signed a Memorandum of Understanding envisaging a collaborative programme, TRIMILSATCOM, for the procurement of a common solution for all three nations' operational requirements. Proposals from industry for a Project Definition phase have been invited and are due to be submitted shortly. Currently, TRIMILSATCOM is the preferred approach for meeting the UK's SKYNET 5 requirement, although a national programme remains an option. It is expected that a decision on the way ahead will be taken later this year.

    Ballistic Missile Defence
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his Western European Union counterparts on European ballistic missile defence. [26116]

    Mr. George Robertson
    I have had no discussions with my Western European Union counterparts on ballistic missile defence.

    Armed Forces Pay Review Board
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Board. [26117]

    Mr. George Robertson
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) on 29 January 1998,Official Report, columns 307–10.
    69

    Bosnia
    Ms Dari Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of troops currently serving as part of Britain's contribution to SFOR in Bosnia. [26125]

    Mr. George Robertson
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 12 January 1998,Official Report, column 10.

    Heavy-lift Aircraft
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning his plans for heavy-lift aircraft. [26127]

    Mr. Spellar
    One of the aims of the Strategic Defence Review is to ensure that the Armed Forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks asked of them. Our air transport requirement is, therefore, being scrutinised closely in the Review.

    Courts Martial
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the future effectiveness of the court-martial system. [26129]

    Mr. George Robertson
    We are satisfied that the recent changes to the court-martial system will ensure its continuing effectiveness into the next millennium. However, we know that we cannot afford to be complacent and the system is kept under constant review to ensure its efficiency.

    Sexual Assault and Harassment
    Mr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) officers and (b) non-commissioned officers have been found guilty in (i) courts of law and (ii) courts martial of sexual assault or sexual harassment in the last three years; and in which of the services they served. [26095]

    Mr. George Robertson
    Between 1995 and 1997, one naval and one RAF officer, three naval ratings and eight RAF non-commissioned officers were found guilty of sexual offences by the civil court. In the same period, three naval officers, five naval ratings, nineteen Army NCOs and four RAF NCOs were found guilty of such offences by Courts Martial.

    Firing Ranges
    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the announcement made by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency on 23 January on the rationalisation of land ranges in the United Kingdom. [26120]

    Mr. Spellar
    The rationalisation of the land ranges operated by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency announced on 23 January is the outcome of the second stage of a review to address the problems of overcapacity and underutilisation. Subject to consultation with Trade Unions and MOD customers, the main changes proposed are that Pendine and Shoeburyness ranges would be 70
    maintained for access to their unique facilities on a trials campaign only basis, and as much work as possible would be undertaken at Eskmeals.

    RNAD Broughton Moor
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends next to visit RNAD Broughton Moor to discuss the future use of the site. [26119]

    Mr. Spellar
    I visited the site on 13 August 1997 and have no current plans to do so again. However, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the future use of the site.

    Christmas Island (Nuclear Testing)
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the dossier of information on the health effects of nuclear testing in the 1950s atomic test programme at Christmas Island, a copy of which has been sent to him. [28201]

    Mr. Spellar
    I assume my hon. Friend is referring to a letter from The People newspaper dated 13 January 1998, addressed to the Secretary of State for Defence, which enclosed copies of their recent articles about nuclear test veterans and letters from a small number of ex-Servicemen who had served on Christmas Island in the 1950s–60s. The letter invited a response on nuclear test veteran issues, with particular reference to work carried out at Dundee University.

    'My officials responded to the newspaper on 6 February. The reply drew attention to the fact that the studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) had proved conclusively that participation in the testing programme had not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases: and also referred to those matters which were covered in my response to my hon. Friend on 22 January 1998, Official Report, columns 625–26.

    Radiation-related Illnesses
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on potential linkage between illness and radiation exposure for workers at (i) Rosyth and (ii) Faslane; what is his policy on levels of compensation for workers who have radiation-related illnesses; and what medical checks he is undertaking in respect of these workers. [26070]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 3 February 1998]: The risks of disease, including cancer, as a result of exposure to ionising radiation are well documented. Risk estimates for the UK population are published by the National Radiological Protection Board whose evidence is used to formulate national legislation. The exposure of MOD radiation workers at both Rosyth and Faslane has always been monitored and controlled in accordance with this legislation, the purpose of which is to limit the risk to workers to tolerable levels. As required by legislation, my Department's policy is to reduce risks to the lowest reasonably practicable level.
    71
    My Department's policy on compensation for radiation workers is to be a member of the nuclear industry's Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases. This is a no fault scheme where there is no requirement for claimants to prove negligence on the part of the Department in order to receive compensation. The Scheme was set up and is run jointly by the participating employers and Trade Unions and does not affect the claimant's right to seek legal redress. It provides for the assessment of a case, on an agreed technical basis, in order to determine the probability that a cancer contracted by a radiation worker could have been caused by occupational radiation exposure. The amount of compensation payable in a successful case is determined by negotiation between the solicitors representing the parties, using as a basis the same guidelines as would apply if the case had proceeded to Court. However, the Scheme provides for payments to be made at lower levels of causation probability than would be allowed by the Courts. It does this by making a "full" payment at 50 per cent. causation probability similar to the Courts, and in addition making lesser payments down to a 20 per cent. causation probability. In this way the assessment of a case recognises that even below the balance of probability there is a chance that occupational exposure to ionising radiation played a role in causing the disease.

    Within my Department, medical checks are undertaken at the discretion of the Appointed Doctor when considered necessary as part of the annual health review of classified radiation workers.

    Precision-guided Weapons
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that United Kingdom precision-guided weapons cannot be blinded by enemy multi-spectral smoke shells; [26776]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which multi-spectral smoke shells will obscure targets from targeting systems of precision-guided munitions. [26774]

    Mr. Spellar
    Research has been carried out into means of countering the effects of multi-spectral smoke shells on UK precision guided weapons. The effects of multi-spectral smoke shells on targeting systems have also been assessed in field trials using representative target acquisition equipment. The potential effects will be taken into account, where appropriate, in our future requirements for precision munitions. To release further details would harm national security or defence and I am therefore withholding them in accordance with exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Computer Hackers
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many attempts by hackers to breach security in his Department's computers were detected in 1996 and 1997; and how many of these were successful. [27871]

    Mr. Spellar
    A comprehensive security policy on connectivity to public data networks is enforced throughout the MOD. There is no evidence of a successful incursion, from an external source, into any Departmental 72
    computer system in the period 1996–1997. There has been one instance known to us of a failed attempt over this period.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what years Army personnel from 43 Command Workshop were ordered to dispose of low grade radioactive waste at Hilsea, Portsmouth; and what plans are available relating to the disposal. [27881]

    Mr. Spellar
    Army personnel from 43 Command Workshop disposed of low grade radioactive waste at Hilsea lines during 1978. Records dating from 1977 for this work are held in MOD files. The burial of the waste at Hilsea lines was approved by the Radiochemical Inspectorate of the then Department of the Environment. The Inspectorate then granted unrestricted access to the sites. Maps showing the locations at Hilsea lines of the buried waste were passed by the Ministry of Defence to the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment in 1985, prior to the sale of the site to Portsmouth City Council in 1986.

    Arms Sales
    Ann Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the value to Britain of arms sales to each of the top 10 recipient countries in each year since 1990. [26842]

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

    Tomahawk Missiles
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department made of the(a) United States Navy exercise in January and June 1993 to test the accuracy of Tomahawk missiles and (b) the United States Defense Department publication Gulf War Air Power Survey findings in procuring Tomahawk missiles for Royal Navy submarines. [27505]

    Mr. Spellar
    The US Department of Defence has assured us that no Tomahawk exercise firings were conducted during either January or June 1993. The US Government reported in both January and June 1993 that Tomahawk attack operations were conducted against targets in Iraq under the auspices of UN Security Council Resolution 688. Information received from the US DoD about those operations was used with much other information in reaching the decision to procure the Tomahawk weapon system for the Royal Navy.

    There is no record of the US DoD publication entitled 'Gulf War Air Power Survey' being used in relation to procurement of Tomahawk.

    Publications
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26330]

    Mr. Spellar
    The information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The vast majority of MOD
    73
    publications, both those published internally and externally, are however processed centrally. In the period specified they dealt with 12,335 Computer controlled publications and 2,713 Manually controlled publications.

    MOD Publications are primarily Instructional Manuals/Technical Manuals and general Regulations including Complete Equipment Schedules, Naval Engineering Standards, Illustrated Parts Catalogues and Defence Council Instructions.

    The Manually Controlled category includes in excess of 300 Classified Publications.

    Conduct (Codes and Standards)
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the dates of publication of(a) the two previous and (b) the current paper from the Adjutant General on codes and standards of conduct. [28346]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Standards and Discipline paper for Army personnel was published by the then Adjutant General in October 1993. There were no previous papers specifically entitled codes and standards of conduct; but 'Man Management', a document which covers similar material, was published in September 1977 and was revised in 1986 and again in 1988.

    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the current edition of the Adjutant General's paper on codes and standards of conduct. [28347]

    Mr. Spellar
    Yes. A copy of the Adjutant General's current Discipline and Standards Paper will be placed in the Library shortly.

    Military Law Manuals
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when revised editions of the manuals of military law for each of the three services will be available; and if he will place them in the Library. [28342]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Royal Navy issued a revised edition of the Manual of Naval Law in April 1997. The Army's amendment to the Manual of Military Law is currently being printed and will be distributed shortly. The RAF are undertaking a major revision of the Manual of Air Force Law and Volume I, which contains the bulk of the primary legislation, is due to be published in early 1999. Each will be placed in the Library of the House.

    Tank Transporters
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) main battle tank and (b) light tank transporter vehicles are (i) in service and (ii) operationally deployable; and if he will make a statement. [28349]

    Mr. Spellar
    The Army has 121 main battle tank transporters in service of which 112 are currently in unit hands.

    There are 194 vehicles capable of being used to transport light armoured vehicles of which 43 are actually used for this purpose; of all these are unit hands.
    74
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tank transporter vehicle drivers are(a) in service and (b) operationally deployed; and if this is designated protected A Trade employment. [28345]

    Mr. Spellar
    There are 477 tank transporter drivers in the Army. 39 are currently operationally deployed. This is not a protected trade, and I understand that the A Trade designation is no longer in use.

    Departmental Cars
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ford Mondeo cars his Department has purchased in the current financial year. [28488]

    Mr. Spellar
    Up to 6 February this financial year, my Department has purchased 134 Ford Mondeo cars.

    Sponsored Reserves
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on sponsored reserves in Her Majesty's forces; and if he will make a statement. [28343]

    Mr. Spellar
    We believe that the Sponsored Reserve concept has much potential, and we have been encouraged by the interest shown by Industry. My Department is taking forward the concept in a number of areas as one of the ways of supporting operationally essential services in partnership with the private sector. As part of the Strategic Defence Review, we are actively progressing the application of the Sponsored Reserve concept in a thorough examination of the costs and operational risk. No decisions have yet been reached.

    Armed Forces (Morale)
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of morale in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [26123]

    Mr. George Robertson
    From my regular visits to Service units and those of my Ministerial colleagues, and discussions within the Ministry of Defence, I assess morale in the Armed Forces at present to be satisfactory. I greatly admire the achievements and sense of purpose of our Servicemen and women. In my experience, they are keen to get on with their jobs, are aware that they are highly valued by the nation and are committed to the operational challenges they face. There are undoubtedly some feelings of uncertainty, and problems in some areas caused, in large part, by longstanding overstretch and undermanning inherited by this administration. One of the main aims of the Strategic Defence Review is to balance our operational commitments and the needs of Service personnel and their families. The openness of the review process will have reassured our forces that it is different from other reviews.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Farm Tenancy Agreements
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the operation of the new farm business tenancy agreements; and if he will make a statement. [26995]
    75
    Mr. Morley
    An independent policy evaluation of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, commissioned by this Department and the Welsh Office, was carried out last year by the University of Plymouth, and the report was recently published. A copy was placed in the Library of the House. The results provide data for England and Wales separately and indicate that uptake of farm business tenancies has been encouraging.

    Food Standards Agency
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure that the Food Standards Agency levy will be structured in such a way as not to penalise disproportionately small food producers and retailers. [27144]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Government will consult closely with key interested parties, including representatives of small businesses, in drawing up detailed proposals for a mechanism that would allow a greater part of the costs of food safety work to be passed from the taxpayer onto the food industry. In formulating their proposals, the Government will consider carefully the need to take into account the size of the business, among other factors.

    BSE
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the Enfer scientific test available in the Irish Republic. [28622]

    Mr. Rooker
    We understand the test is capable of detecting abnormal PrP in central nervous system tissues of cattle which are already showing clinical signs of BSE. It has not been shown to be capable of identifying infected cattle early in the incubation periods as far as we are aware.

    The Department has been in touch with Enfer Scientific since March 1997, but has been unable to obtain detailed information due to intellectual property issues. Tissues from experimentally infected cattle at known stages of incubation has been offered to Enfer to validate the test by the Department, but the offer has not yet been taken up.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Benefit Integrity Project
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her policy in respect of the timescale and opportunity for future reassessment of the benefit payments for those claimants who have had their benefit reduced or set aside as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project. [27908]

    Industrial injuries disablement benefit—chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema unsuccessful claims from 1 April 1997 to 31 December 1997 by reason

    Area Directorate

    Failed FEV1 test

    Failed 20 year1

    AD1

    East London and Anglia

    1

    6

    AD2

    Chilterns

    1

    2

    AD3

    London South

    110

    18

    AD4

    West Country

    14

    12

    AD5

    Mercia

    2,885

    183

    76
    Ms Harman
    The Benefit Integrity Project helps ensure the correctness of awards of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Up-to-date information is being gathered from beneficiaries about their care and mobility needs, so that we can check that they are receiving the correct amount of DLA.

    It is important that decisions about benefit entitlement are made fairly and are seen to be fair. I am taking action to improve the quality of decisions made by the Project which involve a reduction or removal of benefit. In future, no decision resulting in reduction or removal of entitlement to DLA will be made solely on the evidence provided by the claimant—there will always be additional evidence to support the decision.

    We have been liaising closely with organisations of and for disabled people from the early stages of the Project. This new initiative underlines our determination to act properly to get the benefit right and to listen and act upon any concerns. We will continue to involve these groups in the evaluation of the Project as it develops.

    This Project is operating under the normal assessment and adjudication rules that are applied to all DLA cases. Anyone dissatisfied with a decision made in their case may ask for a review of that decision, on any grounds, within three months of the decision having been made. If they remain unhappy following review, they have the opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal within three months of the review decision being made. Of course, a claimant may ask for a review of their entitlement at any time if they believe that there has been a change in their circumstances that may affect their entitlement to DLA.

    Publications
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list, by title, the publications produced by her Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26337]

    Mr. Field
    A list of publications, by title, produced by this Department between I May 1997 and 31 January 1998 has been placed in the Library.

    Respiratory Diseases
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants for an award in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema have failed the FEVI test since April 1997; and how many have been rejected since April 1997 because they did not meet the service qualification, broken down by coalfield area. [28265]

    Mr. Denham
    Figures are not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
    77

    Industrial injuries disablement benefit—chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema unsuccessful claims from 1 April 1997 to 31 December 1997 by reason

    Area Directorate

    Failed FEV1 test

    Failed 20 year1

    AD6

    West Midlands

    246

    33

    AD7

    Wales

    1,606

    253

    AD8

    North West Coast

    146

    24

    AD9

    Greater Manchester

    276

    21

    AD10

    Yorkshire

    2,107

    75

    AD11

    Tyne Tees

    1,811

    102

    AD12

    West of Scotland

    595

    49

    AD13

    East of Scotland

    1,078

    75

    Total

    Great Britain

    10,876

    853

    1 Relates to those who failed to meet the 20 year underground work rule.

    Note:

    1. Data are not collected by coalfield area, but are available by Benefits Agency Area Directorate.

    Source:

    100 per cent. count.

    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of applicants for chronic bronchitis and emphysema awards(a) between September 1993 and April 1997 and (b) since April 1997; and what was the number of awards made in each of those periods. [28266]

    Mr. Denham
    The total number of claims for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema for the period 13 September 1993 to 31 March 1997 was 50,195 and in the same period 5,428 awards were made. Since 1 April 1997, a further 22,984 claims have been received and 6,752 awards made.

    Source:
    100 per cent. count of claims and awards.

    Industrial injuries disablement benefit—chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema, by area directorate and level of disablement assessment. Awards made in the period 13 September 1993 to 31 March 1996

    13 September to 1 October 1994

    2 October 1994 to 31 March 1996

    Assessment percentage

    Number of awards

    14–24

    25–34

    over 34

    14–19

    20–25

    over 25

    Anglia

    3

    0

    0

    3

    0

    0

    0

    Chilterns

    4

    0

    3

    1

    0

    0

    0

    South London and West Sussex

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    West Country

    6

    1

    0

    2

    0

    3

    0

    East London and Essex

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    South East

    34

    4

    3

    25

    0

    0

    2

    Wessex

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    East Midlands

    736

    38

    52

    521

    5

    16

    104

    Midlands and South West

    56

    3

    2

    50

    0

    0

    1

    West

    409

    22

    43

    315

    4

    8

    17

    Wales

    1,530

    203

    223

    891

    4

    48

    161

    Merseyside

    50

    5

    18

    26

    0

    0

    1

    Greater Manchester

    32

    4

    8

    19

    0

    1

    0

    Lancashire and Cumbria

    157

    18

    25

    104

    1

    3

    6

    Tyne Tees

    640

    33

    83

    467

    2

    7

    48

    South Yorkshire and Humberside

    878

    57

    96

    620

    3

    15

    87

    North and West Yorkshire

    447

    61

    65

    294

    1

    3

    23

    Glasgow and Paisley

    8

    0

    2

    6

    0

    0

    0

    North, Central and West Yorkshire

    64

    3

    12

    45

    0

    0

    4

    East Scotland

    103

    1

    10

    83

    1

    1

    7

    Note:

    Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

    Source:

    1. 100 per cent. counts from the BA Bronchitis and Emphysema computer system 13 September 1993 to 1 October 1994.

    2. BA Central Data Unit 2 October 1994 to 31 March 1996.
    78
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will provide a breakdown of the awards for chronic bronchitis and emphysema made between September 1993 and April 1997, by(a) coalfield area and (b) the level of disablement assessment, together with the same information for the period from April 1997 to date. [28264]

    Mr. Denham
    Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

    Data are not collected by coalfield area, but are available by Benefits Agency Area Directorate. The Area Directorates were altered from 1 April 1996.
    79

    Awards made in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

    Assessment percentage

    Area Directorate

    Number of awards

    14–19

    20–25

    over 25

    East London and Anglia

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Chilterns

    —

    —

    —

    —

    London

    1

    1

    0

    0

    West

    2

    0

    0

    2

    Mercia

    85

    2

    14

    69

    West Midlands

    2

    0

    0

    2

    Wales

    54

    4

    11

    39

    North West Coast

    7

    2

    0

    5

    Greater Manchester

    18

    1

    12

    5

    Yorkshire

    84

    2

    5

    77

    Tyne Tees

    12

    0

    1

    11

    West of Scotland

    —

    —

    —

    —

    East of Scotland

    6

    0

    1

    5

    Note:

    Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

    Source:

    100 per cent. counts from the BA Central Date Unit.

    Awards made in the period 1 April 1997 to 31 December 1997

    Area Directorate

    Number of awards

    14–24

    25–34

    Assessment percentage over 34

    East London and Anglia

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Chilterns

    2

    —

    1

    1

    London

    66

    16

    10

    40

    West

    22

    5

    4

    13

    Mercia

    1,765

    119

    164

    1,482

    West Midlands

    127

    6

    15

    106

    Wales

    1,406

    163

    214

    1,029

    North West Coast

    112

    25

    22

    65

    Greater Manchester

    181

    18

    27

    135

    Yorkshire

    1,224

    75

    134

    1,015

    Tyne Tees

    963

    79

    161

    723

    West of Scotland

    257

    37

    46

    174

    East of Scotland

    628

    30

    115

    483

    Note:

    Figures are provisional and subject to change.

    Source:

    100 per cent count of BA Bronchitis and Emphysema computer system.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of disability living allowance for each month since May 1997. [27534]

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

    People in receipt of disability living allowance in 1997 by month.

    Number

    30 June

    1,915,600

    31 July

    1,930,600

    31 August

    1,943,700

    30 September

    1,955,000

    31 October

    1,968,200

    30 November

    1,979,900

    31 December

    1,988,600

    31 January

    1,996,200

    Notes

    Figures relate to all people with entitlement to benefit and include those where payment has been suspended.

    Source:

    Analytical Services Divisions: 100 per cent. data.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants for disability living 80
    allowance, whose predominant disability is deafness, are in the age groups (a) 0 to 4, (b) 5 to 15, (c) 16 to 24, (d) 25 to 29, (e) 30 to 34, (f) 35 to 39, (g) 40 to 44, (h) 45 to 49, (i) 50 to 54, (j) 55 to 59, (k) 60 to 64, (1) 65 to 69, (m) 70 to 74, (n) 75 to 79 and (o) over 80 years. [28357]

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

    People in receipt of disability living allowance whose main disabling condition is deafness1 2

    Number

    All ages

    17,580

    0–4

    1,740

    5–15

    7,340

    16–24

    1,980

    25–29

    820

    30–34

    840

    35–39

    880

    40–44

    680

    45–49

    680

    50–54

    880

    55–59

    660

    60–64

    700

    65–69

    280

    81

    People in receipt of disability living allowance whose main disabling condition is deafness1 2

    Number

    70–74

    100

    75–79

    —

    80 and over

    —

    1 Unrounded figures relate to 30 November 1997

    2 People who are deaf but do not list this as their main disabling condition may also receive Disability Living Allowance

    Source:

    Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. O'Hara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the percentage and number of pensioners who have an annual income of £2,000 or less in addition to state benefits including the state pension. [28625]

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

    If pensioner units received a weekly income of £38.50 for 52 weeks of the year then their annual income would be £2,002.

    Pensioner units with weekly income of less than £38.50 excluding state benefits

    Percentage of pensioner units

    Numbers (million)

    52

    3.7

    Notes:

    1. The information is based on gross unequivalised weekly income before housing costs and benefit income at July 1995 prices.

    2. The Pensioners' Income Series gives estimates for pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over State Pension Age (SPA) or a couple where the man, defined as the head, is over SPA.

    3. Numbers of pensioner units are rounded to the nearest 50,000, percentages to the nearest 1 per cent.

    Source:

    Pensioners1 Income Series 1995–6.

  CABINET OFFICE

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Wilkinson
    To ask the Minister without Portfolio in what capacity he attended the British-Spanish Tertulias in Cambridge in November; what public expenditure was incurred by his participation; and if he will make a statement. [27892]

    Mr. Mandelson
    I attended the British-Spanish Tertulias following official advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The cost to public funds of my visit was approximately £21.

    Ministerial Meetings
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) how many meetings he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer since 2 May 1997; [28025]

    (2) how many press briefings he has attended since 2 May 1997; [28015]
    82
    (3) how many meetings he has had with the Secretary of State for Health since 2 May 1997; [28014]

    (4) how many meetings he has had with the Prime Minister since 2 May 1997; [28026]

    Mr. Mandelson
    I attend meetings with the Prime Minister and other Ministerial colleagues on a regular basis in the course of my duties. I have attended very few press briefings.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Achievement Targets
    Mr. Dorrell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons he uses data based on eligibility for, or uptake of, free school meals in setting achievement targets for primary and secondary schools. [26802]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    [holding answer 4 February 1998]: The Government view is that poverty is no excuse for failure. It is for individual schools, in discussion with their LEAs, to set appropriately challenging achievement targets, which reflect national targets such as those for literacy and numeracy. All schools, regardless of the socio-economic characteristics of their pupils, are capable of improvement.

    Local Authority Budgets
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the(a) overall education budget, (b) general schools budget and (c) aggregated schools budget for each local education authority in 1997–98. [27541]

    Mr. Byers
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The following table sets out, for each local education authority in England, its education budget, General Schools Budget (excluding capital) and Aggregated Schools Budget for the year 1997–98. Capital and related expenditure has been excluded from GSB figures to ensure consistency with the education budget figures, which represent revenue expenditure only.

    1997–98

    £ million

    Local authority

    Education Budget1

    GSB less Capital2

    2ASB

    City of London

    3.2

    1.0

    0.6

    Camden

    83.7

    67.9

    51.1

    Greenwich

    112.5

    102.0

    83.3

    Hackney

    99.9

    83.4

    61.5

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    63.1

    48.7

    37.3

    Islington

    82.7

    70.4

    56.1

    Kensington and Chelsea

    50.8

    32.2

    24.7

    Lambeth

    104.7

    65.0

    49.9

    Lewisham

    114.6

    97.7

    78.0

    Southwark

    109.9

    82.2

    63.2

    Tower Hamlets

    126.3

    113.9

    82.1

    Wandsworth

    89.0

    60.2

    46.8

    Westminster

    73.1

    56.2

    42.5

    Barking and Dagenham

    75.2

    71.0

    56.6

    Barnet

    123.8

    87.1

    69.0

    Bexley

    86.0

    72.2

    58.9

    83

    1997–98

    £ million

    Local authority

    Education Budget1

    GSB less Capita2

    2ASB

    Brent

    103.8

    59.9

    46.9

    Bromley

    116.5

    48.6

    38.7

    Croydon

    127.8

    91.1

    71.1

    Ealing

    114.2

    86.7

    66.3

    Enfield

    123.3

    99.4

    77.3

    Haringey

    98.0

    95.5

    68.1

    Harrow

    77.8

    70.4

    58.8

    Havering

    90.8

    73.2

    62.2

    Hillingdon

    92.7

    49.2

    40.6

    Hounslow

    92.1

    86.1

    68.6

    Kingston

    53.2

    33.5

    27.8

    Merton

    58.3

    54.9

    44.7

    Newham

    126.7

    111.8

    82.9

    Redbridge

    101.0

    91.1

    74.5

    Richmond

    50.1

    46.6

    39.8

    Sutton

    69.9

    45.1

    36.7

    Waltham Forest

    97.7

    85.7

    67.9

    Birmingham

    475.3

    414.0

    327.1

    Coventry

    130.6

    123.2

    98.6

    Dudley

    112.1

    96.2

    79.9

    Sandwell

    123.9

    117.0

    93.4

    Solihull

    77.5

    77.9

    64.9

    Walsall

    112.6

    88.4

    70.3

    Wolverhampton

    104.7

    94.5

    72.0

    Knowsley

    74.9

    67.0

    53.5

    Liverpool

    206.1

    176.1

    140.0

    St. Helens

    73.2

    69.5

    54.0

    Sefton

    110.5

    109.8

    87.3

    Wirral

    128.6

    117.3

    91.0

    Bolton

    104.9

    96.4

    73.1

    Bury

    61.5

    62.2

    49.0

    Manchester

    178.3

    173.3

    133.0

    Oldham

    99.1

    98.3

    77.2

    Rochdale

    83.5

    70.4

    55.2

    Salford

    90.8

    83.7

    65.3

    Stockport

    91.3

    90.9

    73.1

    Tameside

    81.0

    73.0

    56.5

    Trafford

    87.3

    60.9

    47.1

    Wigan

    117.4

    120.5

    96.1

    Barnsley

    72.6

    73.4

    55.7

    Doncaster

    119.2

    121.0

    91.2

    Rotherham

    97.8

    97.3

    78.7

    Sheffield

    167.1

    159.5

    120.9

    Bradford

    201.8

    180.2

    135.7

    Calderdale

    77.8

    50.0

    37.4

    Kirklees

    145.8

    141.4

    105.2

    Leeds

    278.7

    260.3

    212.4

    Wakefield

    111.7

    112.1

    85.1

    Gateshead

    75.9

    71.5

    54.8

    Newcastle

    112.4

    96.0

    75.0

    North Tyneside

    71.9

    69.6

    54.9

    South Tyneside

    58.6

    55.6

    43.4

    Sunderland

    112.9

    108.5

    90.5

    Isles of Scilly

    1.3

    1.1

    0.8

    Bath and NE Somerset

    61.5

    56.3

    44.9

    Bristol

    134.6

    127.2

    101.0

    North Somerset

    64.8

    64.5

    50.8

    South Gloucestershire

    85.9

    87.7

    71.2

    Hartlepool

    35.6

    34.6

    27.4

    Middlesbrough

    55.7

    56.9

    44.4

    Redcar and Cleveland

    57.3

    57.4

    44.8

    Stockton on Tees

    69.2

    72.4

    56.8

    Hull

    102.9

    97.8

    76.1

    East Riding

    112.1

    114.5

    88.5

    North East Lincolnshire

    64.0

    65.1

    51.1

    84

    1997–98

    £million

    Local authority

    Education Budget1

    GSB less Capital2

    2ASB

    North Lincolnshire

    61.7

    60.3

    44.9

    North Yorkshire

    200.6

    197.0

    157.0

    York

    53.4

    53.2

    43.0

    Luton

    82.2

    63.0

    46.0

    Milton Keynes

    74.7

    59.2

    47.0

    Derby City

    84.1

    64.9

    47.0

    Poole

    45.0

    28.5

    23.4

    Bournemouth

    52.9

    34.0

    25.2

    Darlington

    33.9

    32.9

    25.4

    Brighton and Hove

    79.9

    70.8

    54.7

    Portsmouth

    64.0

    56.8

    45.3

    Southhampton

    78.5

    69.4

    56.9

    Leicester City

    117.1

    114.7

    87.5

    Rutland

    11.3

    5.2

    4.2

    Stoke-on-Trent

    86.8

    82.1

    64.1

    Swindon

    61.4

    48.2

    37.9

    Bedfordshire

    144.4

    125.5

    99.8

    Berkshire

    279.0

    220.8

    187.7

    Buckinghamshire

    181.0

    141.9

    115.4

    Cambridgeshire

    250.9

    184.4

    139.2

    Cheshire

    390.1

    350.8

    288.2

    Cornwall

    166.6

    157.1

    122.6

    Cumbria

    184.8

    134.9

    106.5

    Derbyshire

    242.9

    207.8

    156.0

    Devon

    352.4

    325.4

    256.9

    Dorset

    131.4

    104.7

    84.6

    Durham

    192.3

    179.4

    138.4

    East Sussex

    155.9

    151.1

    121.5

    Essex

    582.8

    326.8

    254.7

    Gloucestershire

    183.4

    107.1

    88.1

    Hampshire

    408.3

    356.6

    291.9

    Hereford and Worcester

    236.0

    206.7

    168.4

    Hertfordshire

    393.8

    316.3

    259.2

    Isle of Wight

    46.7

    43.4

    35.0

    Kent

    579.7

    384.4

    310.4

    Lancashire

    538.6

    499.6

    382.5

    Leicestershire

    209.8

    203.8

    159.1

    Lincolnshire

    228.1

    151.0

    120.3

    Norfolk

    256.7

    223.2

    177.9

    Northamptonshire

    222.3

    184.4

    153.9

    Northumberland

    114.2

    113.5

    88.2

    Nottinghamshire

    379.9

    358.6

    273.5

    Oxfordshire

    191.7

    182.1

    147.8

    Shropshire

    152.8

    132.2

    104.3

    Somerset

    166.0

    147.8

    121.6

    Staffordshire

    285.4

    266.2

    212.7

    Suffolk

    231.3

    224.8

    185.7

    Surrey

    319.5

    256.6

    201.5

    Warwickshire

    170.6

    152.7

    118.4

    West Sussex

    247.0

    234.4

    191.4

    Wiltshire

    144.0

    100.5

    74.3

    England Total

    18,414.4

    15,749.1

    12,438.1

    1 Taken from the Revenue Account (RA) returns which local authorities make to the DETR.

    2 The figures for the GSB and ASB are taken from the LMS budget statements which LEAs are required to submit to the Department under section 122 of the Education Act 1996 (formerly section 42 of the 1988 Act). These do not include expenditure on Grant Maintained Schools budgets which is recouped from LEAs.

    Publications
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Secretary of state for Education and Employment if he will list by title the publications produced by his department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26328]
    85
    Dr. Howells
    A list by title of the publications produced by the Department of Education and Employment between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998 has been placed in the Library.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Education (Student Loans) Act 1998 will come into force; when he expects to make regulations; and if he will make a statement. [28960]

    Dr. Howells
    Sections 1, 4, 5, 6(1) and 7 came into force on Royal Assent on 27 January 1998. Sections 2, 3, and 6(2) and the Schedule to the Act will come into force on 1 March 1998. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Scotland laid the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998 before the House of Friday 6 February.

    The Regulations protect borrowers and debt purchasers by fixing the key terms of all loans taken out under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 both before and after 1 March 1998. The Regulations also provide for new repayment terms for disabled borrowers. These terms were formerly exercised at the discretion of the loans administrator.

    Employment Figures (Young People)
    Mr. Letwin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedures he proposes to establish to monitor the number of persons under the age of 25 years leaving benefit and entering work; and when those procedures will be in place. [26148]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Oliver Letwin, dated 9 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question relating to procedures to be established to monitor the number of persons under the age of 25 leaving benefit and entering work and when these procedures will be in place. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Employment Service Chief Executive.
    It may be helpful to explain that data on the reason why a claim to Jobseeker's Allowance comes to an end will continue to be collected by the Office for National Statistics. This is gathered on their statistical systems from information on the Jobseeker's Allowance Payments System and records a code categorising the reason. This process captures the number of people leaving benefit and entering work. It is possible for this information to be analysed by age and duration of claim.
    The Office for National Statistics will be publishing a summary table at a national level in "Labour Market Trends" in February 1998. Further information will also be available through the National Online Manpower Information System. This information can be obtained on request from the Office for National Statistics.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Jobmatch Scheme
    Mr. Fitzpatrick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of(a) the
    86
    costs and (b) the numbers who would gain if the jobmatch scheme was extended to people over 50 years who have been unemployed for six months. [26162]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, dated 9 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the costs and numbers involved in widening the eligible age group for Jobmatch to those aged 50 years and over, and who have been unemployed for six months. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Employment Service Chief Executive.
    Jobmatch currently targets jobseekers between the ages of 18–24 years who are unemployed for 2 years or more. Using figures from the current operational year (for the 7 months up to the end of October) and assuming similar levels of interest for those aged over 50 years and unemployed for six months, it is estimated that in the same 7 month period 3,300 clients from this latter group might have received benefit from jobmatch, at a cost of some £4.3 million.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Disabled People (Rehabilitation)
    Mr. Fitzpatrick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many disabled people have started a rehabilitation programme in the last 12 months; and what is his estimate of the average cost per place on an employment rehabilitation programme. [26163]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, dated 9 February 1998:
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question relating to the number of disabled people who started a rehabilitation programme in the last 12 months, and his estimate of the average cost per place on an employment rehabilitation programme. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Employment Service Chief Executive.
    In the 12 months to December 1997, 14,262 people with disabilities started employment rehabilitation programmes. In the same period, £9,526,000 was spent on the programme.
    Unfortunately, the Employment Service do not hold information on the average cost per rehabilitation place as this is not a particularly meaningful measure in the context of this programme. This is because employment rehabilitation programmes are individually tailored to the needs of each person. The programme can therefore last a few days or a few weeks, and can be on a part time or full time basis. Whilst the majority of employment rehabilitation programmes are within daily travelling distance, there may also be instances where a period of more costly residential rehabilitation may be necessary.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the United Kingdom Government will publish their proposals on tackling unemployment to be submitted to the EU meeting to discuss member states' plans. [28620]
    87
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    All member states have agreed to present Employment Action Plans by 15 April so that an initial assessment can take place at the Cardiff European Council. These plans will set out each member state's proposals for implementing the Employment Guidelines agreed at the Luxembourg Jobs Summit attended by the Prime Minister last November. We intend to produce and publish the UK Employment Action Plan well in advance of the deadline.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    European Labour Markets
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade which regulations and directives being negotiated in the Council of Ministers during the British presidency will(a) impose and (b) remove restrictions or controls on European labour markets. [28621]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Government intend that all relevant dossiers being negotiated in the Social Affairs and Education Councils of Ministers during the UK Presidency should reinforce progress towards its objectives of employability, flexible and adaptable labour markets, fair minimum standards and job generation.

    In the field of health and safety, proposals for a Chemical Agents Directive, a Carcinogens Worker Protection Directive, a Scaffolding Directive and proposals to amend the Asbestos Worker Protection Directive either are or will be subject to proper assessment to ensure that they are well targeted or scientifically justified. While they are not considered to have a major impact upon current practice in the UK, they should have the effect of raising standards elsewhere and in particular help to reduce the toll of 6,000 fatal accidents and thousands of cases of fatal disease each year in the EU.

    The directive on part-time work, which is likely to be extended to the UK during our Presidency, will require employers to treat part-time workers no less favourably than equivalent full-time workers. By promoting part-time work and raising its status, the directive should increase flexibility in European labour markets. The Government are also consulting publicly about whether to seek amendments to the Acquired Rights Directive to make it more flexible, e.g. by allowing derogations agreed by the social partners in certain circumstances.

    The proposal for a Supplementary Pensions Directive, the co-ordination of social security regulations for migrant workers who are EU citizens and the proposal to extend those regulations to all insured persons would neither impose nor remove restrictions on the labour market but may allow more labour market mobility within the EU, which is a positive step forward.

    The Burden of Proof Directive would make very little difference to the way in which sex discrimination cases are in practice decided in the UK, or to the outcome of industrial tribunal cases. The European Company Statute would provide an alternative form of incorporation for companies but since it will be voluntary, it will not affect restrictions or controls on European labour markets.
    88
    Finally, the Government aim to secure a common position on the Commission's proposal for a third Directive on mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which will simplify procedures for seeking work in other member states. This proposal will further ease barriers to employment.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the nature of the service to callers using the Action 2000 telephone hotline to obtain advice on millennium compliance of computer systems. [27876]

    Mrs. Roche
    The "Millennium Bug" campaign telephone hotline is run for Action 2000 by ICL Sorbus. The service is currently equipped to despatch Information Packs and direct callers to centres of expertise where they can obtain help and support. Plans are underway to increase the breadth of information available and provide on-line advice and guidance specific to a caller's needs.

    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to ensure that public sector computer systems involved in the introduction of European Monetary Union are millennium compliant. [25376]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 4 February 1998]: The Government attach major importance to tackling this problem effectively. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set up a Ministerial Group on the millennium date change (MISC 4) to drive action across the public and private sectors to ensure that the national infrastructure is not damaged by the failure of electronic systems related to the year 2000 date change.

    This objective applies to all public sector computer systems, including those which may be affected by Economic and Monetary Union.

    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has during the British presidency of the EU to propose the suspension or postponement until after 2001 of EU directives which would impede progress on the implementation of the action necessary to ensure the millennium compliancy of computer systems. [27879]

    Mrs. Roche
    I have no such plans at present, but propose to undertake a study which would enable the Government to assess the extent to which work on the millennium bug and other major tasks will absorb the skilled people available.

    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what controls her Department has on the use of the Action 2000 millennium computer compliance logo; and if she will make a statement. [27874]

    Mrs. Roche
    This scheme is the responsibility of Action 2000.

    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her Department's initiatives to encourage awareness and action to ensure the millennium compliancy of computer systems take account of 2000 being a leap year; and if she will make a statement. [27880]
    89
    Mrs. Roche
    Yes, for example, the leap year issue is picked up in the advice and good practice material disseminated by Action 2000. This directs people looking for more detailed information on this topic to specify advice from the Computing Services and Software Association, the British Standards Institute, the British Computer Society and the National Computing Centre.

    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures have been introduced to indicate the millennium compliance of computer products for sale; and if they are subject to independent certification. [27877]

    Mrs. Roche
    Action 2000 is devising a scheme based on a Millennium Safe logo. I understand that no decision has been taken on whether it would involve independent certification.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times the Ministerial Committee on the year 2000 computer problem has met. [25373]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 4 February 1998]: In accordance with long standing practice, information about proceedings of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committee is not made public.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps will be taken to prevent the Millennium Safe logo being used by businesses which are not millennium compliant. [27817]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: This is a matter for Action 2000.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what checks will be made on businesses before Millennium Safe logos are issued to them for use on their products. [27819]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: This is an issue which I understand to be under consideration by Action 2000.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what organisation is issuing the Millennium Safe logo; and how many have so far been issued. [27818]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The logo scheme is the responsibility of Action 2000. I understand that the precise operation of the scheme has not yet been finalised.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade upon what basis the Millennium Safe logo will be issued to businesses. [27816]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: This is a matter for Action 2000. I understand that it is discussing the operation of the scheme with the Consumers Association.

    Commercial Tenants (Protection)
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures are in place to prevent excessive charges by landlords to commercial tenants for electricity and gas supplies; what plans she has for additional protection of commercial tenants; and if she will make a statement. [27469]
    90
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    In the case of gas, the Director General of Gas Supply has a duty to set maximum resale prices. The Current direction requires the gas to be re-sold at no more than cost in all cases.

    The Director General of Electricity Supply has a power to set a maximum resale price for electricity. He has, so far, only seen a necessity to do so in respect of domestic tenants.

    Trademarks
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to introduce legislation requiring the National Registry of Internet Domain Names to investigate each attempted registration for possible use by dealers to obstruct the company whose trademark the registered Domain Name is related to. [27710]

    Mrs. Roche
    There are no plans to introduce legislation requiring the National Registry of Internet Domain Names (Nominet) to investigate registrations in this way. Existing trademark law applies equally to domain names as to any other use of names, as illustrated by the recent "One in a million" judgment. Competition in the registration of domain names in the UK top-level domain is fully open, and Nominet has a dispute resolution procedure in place to deal with any conflicts over domain names. Nominet is also about to enter into collaborative agreements with conventional trademark watching services, so that they will be able to add domain names to the portfolios they oversee.

    Export Licences
    Mr. Faber
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 596, what percentage of applications for export licences were processed by the Export Control Organisation according to their stated aims in the four week periods beginning (a) 15 November 1997 and (b) 13 December 1997. [26977]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 2 February 1998]: Further to my answer of 10 December 1997, the figures to the nearest percentage point for the two periods are as follows:

    4 week periods beginning

    15 November 1997

    13 December 1997

    Applications circulated to other Government departments according to their policy requirements and completed in 20 working days

    44

    41

    Applications not circulated to other Government departments and completed in 10 working days

    73

    73

    Nuclear Fuel
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total volume of reprocessed spent nuclear fuel exported for each year since 1990 broken down to show(a) high level, (b) intermediate level and (c) low level waste indicating countries of destination. [26980]
    91
    Mr. Battle
    [holding answer 2 February 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer on 5 February 1998, Official Report, column 787. British Nuclear Fuels plc have, since 1990, imported 1,700 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel of reprocessing. The fuel is stored in ponds at the Sellafield site on receipt. The majority of the fuel imported since 1990 will be reprocessed during the coming years. Reprocessing involves using a number of chemical processes to separate the reusable uranium (96%) and plutonium (1%) from the 3% waste products contained in spent fuel. Reprocessing separates out the constituent parts of spent fuel, and material for export is not regarded as reprocessed spent nuclear fuel.

    The UKAE have, since 1990, imported almost 4 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing. The nuclear material which will be separated as a result of reprocessing of this fuel (namely uranium and plutonium) may be returned to the country of origin. The total amount of nuclear material exported since 1990 is 1 tonne and countries of destination include Germany, Netherlands and France.

    Since 1976, all new contracts for reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained option for the return of wastes. The Government intend that such options should be exercised and that such wastes should be returned to the countries of origin.

    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what attempts are made by Her Majesty's Government to assess the adequacy of disposal facilities and plans for radioactive waste management in countries using United Kingdom reprocessing facilities in advance of approving applications for the import of spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing under contracts which include a return-to-sender commitment covering radioactive waste arising from reprocessing. [279891

    Mr. Battle
    It has been the practice of successive Governments to obtain, before a contract for the reprocessing of foreign spent nuclear fuel is signed, assurances from the relevant government that it will take no legislative or regulatory steps to prevent the return of arising wastes under the contract. The adequacy of the facilities for managing those wastes is a matter for their owners and the regulatory authorities of the country concerned in accordance with the relevant legislation of that country.

    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the forecast demand for the mixed plutonium and uranium oxide fuel from the MOX plant at Sellafield; and which countries(a) have signed contracts and (b) expressed interest in contracting for the purchase of fuel. [28272]

    Mr. Battle
    Details of particular contracts for MOX fuel fabrication are a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) and their customers. However, BNFL have already supplied some of their European reprocessing customers with MOX fuel from the existing demonstration plant at Sellafield. As regards the expected demand for MOX fuel from the new plant, I refer the hon. Member to the report, produced by PA Consulting for the Environment Agency, entitled "Assessment of BNFL's Economic Case for the Sellafield Mox Plant: Public 92
    Domain Version" which is currently the subject of a public consultation being undertaken by the Agency. A copy of the report is in the House of Commons Library.

    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the financial consequences of recovering plutonium from spent nuclear reactor fuel. [28278]

    Mr. Battle
    The financial case for recovering plutonium from spent nuclear reactor fuel is for the owners of the spent fuel to assess, taking into account the need to satisfy the requirements laid down by the United Kingdom's regulatory authorities.

    Theft and Fraud
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [27777]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The estimated cost of theft and internal fraud to my department and its agencies in 1995–96 was £26,000 and £20,000 respectively and in 1996–97 was £1,000 and £260,000. Without incurring disproportionate cost, the data for 1997–98 will not be available until May 1998. Since 1 April 1996, we no longer hold the relevant data in respect of non-departmental public bodies.

    The Department takes fraud very seriously. We take immediate and vigorous action if fraud is detected which also helps to deter other frauds.

    We have in place procedures laid down by Treasury and regularly reviewed by Internal Audit and the National Audit Office that are designed to prevent fraud in the first place.

    Periodicals
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [26596]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Excluding its agencies, the Department's expenditure on newspapers and mass circulation journals for the years requested was as follows:

    1995–96: £204,024

    1996–97: £208,027

    1997–98: £161,902 to date

    1997–98: £194,283 estimate of full year

    This includes expenditure on national daily and Sunday newspapers, regional newspapers, and mass circulation magazines and journals. A full list of titles cannot be supplied except at disproportionate cost. The titles taken change to meet the changing requirements of the Department. Changes in procurement procedures mean these figures are not directly comparable with those last provided to the hon. Member in January 1996.
    93

    Electricity Companies
    Barbara Follett
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what statutory provision covers changes to a public electricity supplier's licence in the event of a takeover bid for a regional electricity company. [28160]

    Mr. Battle
    Modifications to public electricity supply licences are subject to sections 11 to 15 of the Electricity Act 1989.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of bad debts ECGD is assuming on its Asian risks; and what was the corresponding figure in May 1997. [27860]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Records readily available indicate that the level of ECGD's outstanding Claims Balances on Asian markets fell from £70.2m at 31 March 1997 to £36.1m at 5 February 1998. Equivalent figures of the position at 30 May 1997 are not available.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of total Asian ECGD risk is sovereign risk. [27857]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: 84% of ECGD's exposure on Asian markets is classified as sovereign and other public buyer risk.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average premium rate for Indonesian ECGD cover(a) before and (b) after the December 1997 risk assessment. [27856]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The premium rate for a typical medium-term loan guaranteed by ECGD was £3.40% prior to the December 1997 review and £3.76 afterwards. As no business has been signed since the last review it is not possible to compare average rates.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of ECGD's Asian risk is Sovereign risk; and what proportion private sector. [28586]

    Mrs. Beckett
    84 per cent. of ECGD's exposure on Asian markets is classified as sovereign or other public sector risk, and the remaining 16 per cent. as private sector risk.

    Dounreay
    Mr. Savidge
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will assess the desirability of suspending particular categories of operations at Dounreay. [27999]

    Mr. Battle
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 484.

    Mr. Savidge
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade which nuclear waste storage facilities at Dounreay have been assessed to be unsafe; what is the estimated cost of clearing these up; which of these are still having waste added to them; and if she will estimate the effect of this on those costs. [27998]

    Mr. Battle
    All nuclear waste storage facilities at Dounreay are subject to strict independent regulation to ensure they do not pose an unacceptable risk to public 94
    health. No nuclear waste storage facilities at Dounreay have been assessed by the regulators as unsafe. Subject to continuing to meet the requirements laid down by the regulators, the operation of storage facilities at Dounreay is a matter for the UKAEA. All storage facilities on the Dounreay site, including the Wet Silo, will be emptied in due course as part of the programme of ultimate waste disposal and site remediation. As it is Government policy to ensure good value for money between a range of companies, the cost estimates for individual facilities are commercially confidential.

    Sellafield
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is her Department's normal practice to write off the capital cost of construction of a plant when considering its future viability; and what assessment she has made of the adoption of this practice by PA Consulting in its report on the MOX plant at Sellafield. [28279]

    Mr. Battle
    Responsibility for determining policy of the accounting treatment of fixed assets rests with the Board of British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL). The report by PA Consulting to which the hon. Member refers was commissioned by the Environment Agency as part of its consideration of the business case for the Sellafield MOX plant following BNFL's application to operate the plant. It is for the Agency to decide whether to accept the advice in the PA report.

    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will call in the plan to operate a MOX plant at Sellafield. [28275]

    Mr. Battle
    My right hon Friend has no powers to call in the application by BNFL for the commissioning and operation of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant at its Sellafield site. The Environment Agency is currently conducting a further public consultation on this application. It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to decide whether to call it in for his decision.

    GDP (Cornwall)
    Ms Atherton
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the gross domestic product of Cornwall for each year since 1968. [28177]

    Mrs. Roche
    GDP figures for counties are available only for selected years and from 1977 onwards. The available figures for Cornwall are as follows:

    GDP at factor cost: current prices

    £ million

    Year

    GDP

    1977

    715

    1979

    926

    1981

    1,207

    1984

    1,547

    1987

    2,105

    1989

    2,689

    1991

    2,886

    1993

    3,212

    1995

    3,625

    95

    Lost and Stolen Items
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [27778]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Details are not held centrally. The data of the year ending 31 March 1998 will be compiled from returns from each of my Department's Units and Agencies which will be used to complete the Annual Report to Treasury in May. It is the responsibility of each Head of a Management Unit or Agency to ensure that systems are in place to minimise the risk from theft and to ensure that appropriate action is taken should a theft occur.

    Photocopier Industry
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1998,Official Report, column 611, what factors led the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs to describe the BEUA as advisers to the right hon. Member for Wokingham. [28125]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to EDM 437 tabled in November last year.

    I note that there is no evidence of the right hon. Gentleman disputing the terms of the EDM which stated he relied on this organisation for his briefings.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment the Government have made of the impact of a minimum wage of £4 an hour on employment in the context of its evidence to the Low Pay Commission. [28128]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: We have asked the Independent Low Pay Commission to take into account all economic circumstances, including the likely effect on the level of employment, when formulating its recommendations to Government.

    Second-hand Gas Appliances
    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy to introduce tighter restrictions on the sale of second-hand gas appliances. [28569]

    Mr. Battle
    My Department is presently carrying out a detailed analysis following a formal consultation exercise on proposed safety Regulations for second-hand gas appliances. Decision on future policy will be made when the analysis is complete.

    In the meantime, the safety of second-hand gas appliances is currently regulated by a combination of Regulations covering specific products, the Gas Cooking Appliances (Safety) Regulations 1989 and the Heating Appliances (Fireguarding)(Safety) Regulations 1991. For other types of gas appliances the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 apply. Taken together, this legislation generally provides that suppliers of second-hand gas appliances must ensure that only safe appliances can be marketed.
    96

    Fair Competition
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines are issued to(a) the Meteorological Office, (b) Companies House and (c) the Ordnance Survey to ensure that they engage in only fair competition with private information providers who are also their customers. [26707]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    The Meteorological Office is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. The Ordnance Survey is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

    Companies House is statutorily obliged to make information on companies, submitted to it under the provisions of the Companies Act, available to all who seek it. It does so through the offer of a range of products and services which are available to all, but which include some of particular benefit to private information providers and some equally appropriate to the needs of individual searchers.

    Companies House is guided by its Framework Document, by the annual business plan that is submitted to and approved by Ministers, and by a range of other specific or generic guidelines issued to it as an Executive Agency.

    British Inventors
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals the Government have for supporting and promoting British inventors. [26708]

    Mr. Battle
    My Department has awarded the Institute of Patentees and Inventors (IPI) a grant of £30,000 for the period 1996/97–1998/99 to help them to maintain and improve the services which they provide. The Government have also introduced legislation to establish the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA). Funded by an endowment of £200 million from the National Lottery, NESTA will help talented individuals in the fields of science, technology and the arts to achieve their full potential and help to turn inventions or ideas into products or services. The Department' s expenditure programmes which support innovation in business are being reviewed as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

    Departmental Publicity
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost of media presentations and press conferences which he has given, other than those held at his Department. [25162]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 23 January 1998]: The cost of media presentations and press conferences which 1 and my Ministers have given outside my Department have normally been no more than the cost of a backdrop at most a few hundred pounds. The only occasions where the costs have been greater were the launch of the Business Link Enterprise Zone in November (£18k), and the regional events marking our EU Presidency in December (£6k).

    Agenda 2000
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government will take to ensure
    97
    those sectors of the British economy previously benefiting from European Structural Funding will continue to benefit under the new Agenda 2000 proposals, with particular reference to KONVER. [25765]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 27 January 1998]: The Government welcome the European Commission's continuing support under the proposed new Objective 2 for regions undergoing restructuring. We would like to see a fair balance, ideally determined at the national or regional level, of the available resources between deprived industrial, urban and rural areas. The communication "Agenda 2000", published on 16 July 1997, outlined in general terms the Commission's approach to these regions. However, the details will not be clear until the Commission publishes detailed proposals for Structural Fund reform in March or April. In the negotiations that follow, we will be asking the Commission how the new Objective 2 will be sufficiently flexible in its approach to areas heavily dependent on a single sector, such as defence. The Government are currently undertaking regional consultations with interested parties to hear their views on the implications in the UK of Structural Fund reform.

    Counterfeit Goods
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the extent of the trade in counterfeit goods in the north west; and if she will make a statement. [23997]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not made an assessment of the extent of the trade in counterfeit goods in the north west, but shares my hon. Friend's concern regarding the trade in counterfeit goods.

    Trading Standards Officers and the Police are responsible for the enforcement of measures against the counterfeit trade. However, my Department is in regular contact with groups representing the interests of trade mark and copyright owners to ensure that the legal framework is supportive of their efforts.

    Some information on the extent of counterfeit trade is available from the annual returns provided by Trading Standards departments.

    From the 133 reports

    Successful prosecutions

    received for 1996–97

    Total

    North West

    Trade Mark Acts 1994

    217

    41

    Copyright, Patents and Designs Acts

    91

    17

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the extent of the counterfeit trade in automotive and aerospace spare parts. [23999]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not made an assessment of the extent of the trade in counterfeit goods specifically in the North West, but shares my hon. Friend's concern regarding the trade in counterfeit goods.

    Trading Standards Officers and the Police are responsible for the enforcement of measure against counterfeit trade contained in the Trade Marks Act 1994
    98
    and the Copyright, Patents and Designs Act 1988. Information from the annual returns provided by trading standards departments for 1996–97 show that there were 217 successful prosecutions under the Trade Marks Act and 91 successful prosecutions under the Copyright. Patents and Designs Acts.

    No cases were reported involving automotive or aerospace parts and the Anti-Counterfeiting Group were not able to supply data on this either.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has held with(a) mining managements and (b) mining unions since 1 November. [24403]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 20 January 1998]: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Science, Energy and Industry has held several meetings with representatives from Mining Unions and Management since 1 November and will continue to do so.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the annual cost of the support staff, accommodation, personnel salaries and other overheads of her Department's special advisers. [25816]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 27 January 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), 27 October 1997, Official Report, column 685, and to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), Official Report, 12 December 1997, Official Report, column 721, in relation to the salaries of my Special Advisers, and to the answer provided by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 30 June 1997, in relation to the cost of support staff.

    These are the only cost requested that are readily separable from other Department costs.

    Design Protection Directive
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy on a repairs clause for the Parts Design Protection Directive. [26378]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 30 January 1998]: Last summer, when the Council adopted its Common Position on the proposed Directive on the legal protection of designs, following unanimous political agreement on this proposal at the Internal Market Council in March 1997, the United Kingdom made a formal statement regretting that the Council had been unable to agree harmonised provisions relating to the repair of complex products, such as motor vehicles and motorcycles. The proposed Directive is now to be the subject of conciliation which is likely to start during the current United Kingdom's Presidency.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to seek to amend the Parts Design Protection Directive to allow competition in the supply of motorcycle parts. [26379]
    99
    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 30 January 1998]: The Council's Common Position on the proposed Directive on the legal protection of designs as agreed last year already includes a provision allowing Member States to provide for competition in the supply of motorcycle parts. The Common Position gives Member States the option of maintaining in force or introducing any provision to allow anyone to copy the design of a part of, for example, a motorcycle, when that design is dependent on the appearance of the motorcycle and the copy part is used to restore the motorcycle's original appearance. This proposed Directive is to be the subject of conciliation which is likely to start during the United Kingdom's current Presidency.

    Competition Bill
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the role of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe in relation to(a) oil industry and (b) brewing industry issues in the Competition Bill [Lords]. [26390]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 30 January 1998]: The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and I have policy responsibility for the Competition Bill. The Minister for Trade and Competition in Europe is the Minister responsible for the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords. The Bill applies to the economy at large, including the sectors referred to in the question.

    Military Equipment Export Licences
    Sir George Young
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of progress towards meeting her targets for issuing export licences for military equipment. [26118]

    Mrs. Beckett
    Licences to export strategic goods are issued by the President of the Board of Trade and the Export Control Organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry is the Licensing authority. Relevant individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other government departments with an interest, as determined by them in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.

    In his announcement of 28 July 1997, Official Report, cols 26–29 of new criteria of the assessment of export licence applications my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear that the criteria would not be applied mechanistically and that individual applications would be considered case by case. In the months following the announcement, this led to an increase in the time taken to assess some applications. The Government appreciate the inconvenience and uncertainty that results from any delay in the processing of individual applications and my department together with the other departments involved, is continuing to work to reduce processing timescales generally.

    Electricity Companies (Takeover Bids)
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what methods she will use to examine bids for the Energy 100
    Group by (a) Nomura International and (b) Texas Utilities; if she will refer the bids to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if she will make a statement. [28336]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    Nomura International and Texas Utilities have separately announced publicly that each is in talks with The Energy Group which may lead to a bid for the Energy Group. Should either company make a bid, it will be necessary to establish which competition authorities have jurisdiction. If and to the extent that any bid falls to be considered under the Fair Trading Act 1973, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will decide, in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading and the views of the Director General of Electricity Supply, whether or not to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) for investigation. She has said that her general policy continues to be to refer mergers primarily on competition grounds, but that where, as part of a wider public interest scrutiny, important regulatory issues are raised, she may decide that a reference is warranted. Each case is considered on its merits.

    Publications
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list, by title, the publications produced by her Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 1998. [26334]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    A list of those publications that have been notified to my Department's Publications Unit and published by my Department during this period has been placed in the Library of the House.

    Industrial Tribunal Hearings
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial (employment) tribunal hearings were held in each of the last three years; in what categories; and what proportion of complaints were(a) upheld and (b) rejected. [27980]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    The information requested is available in published form for all years before 1996–97 in "Labour Market Trends", copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are given in the July 1996 issue; figures for 1995–96 in the April 1997 issue. Figures for industrial tribunal outcomes for 1996–97 will be available in the spring.

    Insolvency Practitioners
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if there will be a consultation process in respect of investigations into remuneration of insolvency practitioners. [27294]

    Mr. Hoon
    I have been asked to reply.

    Although policy on insolvency is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have been asked to reply to this question because my Department is responsible for providing the secretariat for a working party, chaired by Mr. Justice Ferris, which is considering the way in which the remuneration of office holders, including insolvency practitioners, should be determined.

    101
    The working party, which itself comprises members from a range of interests, has no plans to undertake a formal consultation exercise on this issue.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the progress of Mr. Justice Ferris's working party on remuneration of insolvency practitioners. [27293]

    Mr. Hoon
    I have been asked to reply.

    Although policy on insolvency is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have been asked to reply to this question because my Department is responsible for providing the secretariat for Mr. Justice Ferris's working party. The working party has met on three occasions and a further meeting is scheduled for 16 February, to consider the way in which the remuneration of office holders, including insolvency practitioners, should be determined. It intends to report to the Vice-Chancellor no later than the autumn of 1998.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Livingstone
    To ask the Minister without Portfolio what studies(a) the Government and (b) the National Millennium Experience Company have undertaken on the impact of the Millennium Dome exhibition on other visitor attractions, with particular reference to those that do not benefit from central Government grants; and if he will make them available to those attractions. [27289]

    Mr. Mandelson
    [holding answer 6 February 1998]: In response to a recommendation by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the Government have commissioned a study from the English Tourist Board, who in consultation with colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will look at the impact of the
    102
    Millennium Dome on other UK visitor attractions. The study will cover a full range of attractions, not just those that receive funding from the public purse. When the study has been completed its findings will be made public.

    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Minister without Portfolio what steps he will take to ensure that the culture of Welsh people is represented within the Millennium Dome. [27143]

    Mr. Mandelson
    The content of the Millennium Experience at Greenwich will appeal to, and be relevant to, people of all ages and interests wherever they may live in the United Kingdom. It will engage, inspire and educate all who visit.

    In addition, there will be a national programme associated with the Experience. This will have the same overarching theme of "Time to Make a Difference", and will encourage participation of individuals in all areas of the United Kingdom. The New Millennium Experience Company is setting up teams in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the nine regions of England. Once these teams are in place, I shall ensure all hon. Members have the relevant details.

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will give a breakdown by budget head of the sums allocated to the Millennium Dome projects by(a) personnel costs excluding consultants, (b) building costs, (c) external infrastructure costs, (d) consultants' costs, (e) design costs, (f) publicity costs and (g) other costs. [28133]

    Mr. Mandelson
    The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is currently finalising its Corporate Plan, which will contain budgets for the component parts of the Millennium Experience project covering the years 1997/98 (actual) and 1998/99 to 2000/01 (forecast). The aim is to publish the Plan at the end of this financial year following its approval by NMEC's Board and by the Millennium Commission. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House immediately on publication.

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

Abortion Legislation
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to introduce changes now or in the lifetime of this Parliament to the existing abortion legislation.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the simple Answer to my noble friend is none. We have made it clear that any changes to the Abortion Act should be initiated by individual Members of Parliament and that decisions would be made on the basis of free votes in both Houses.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that my Question was prompted by reports of an interview with the Secretary of State for Health on about 19th January when he said that he would welcome a change in the law to make early abortions easier to get? As we already know that he has the support of 16 out of 20 members of the Cabinet, we would be grateful for the Minister's assurance that the Government have no plans for a change in the law.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The views expressed by the Secretary of State for Health were his personal views. The Government's position is as I stated in my Answer.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the rights of the individual, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, begin with the rights of the foetus?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I have said, every noble Lord and every Member of Parliament is entitled to his or her personal views on the subject. If it came to a question of renewed legislation, I am sure that we would have animated discussions on the matter which the noble Earl has raised.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many abortions are carried out each year and whether some people use them as a form of contraception?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is difficult to say whether anybody would use abortion as a form of contraception. I suspect that for most women involved in a termination of pregnancy it is a difficult and often tragic decision to take and that probably, if
854
appropriate contraception had been available, they would have been happy to use it. That is one of the reasons why the Government are very much in favour of the fact that this week is National Contraception Week and why we are supporting the voluntary organisations involved in it. The total number of abortions for 1996 was 177,495.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, may I declare an interest as president of the Family Planning Association? Does my noble friend agree that the current provision of abortion services in the NHS is extremely variable in terms of access and quality? Does she see the new health improvement plans to be developed by health authorities as a way in which those services could be improved in the future?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend is aware that one of our primary concerns in the NHS White Paper is to make more even the provision of all services across the NHS. I am aware that there are great differences in people's experiences in different parts of the country—not only with regard to abortion but in the whole area of reproductive health.

Beef Assurance Scheme
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam. I have been specifically requested to do this. The House will wish to know that my noble friend was taken ill this morning, but he made arrangements for my name to be included on the Order Paper in due time.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made with the Beef Assurance Scheme to provide a register of beef herds that have not been exposed to BSE.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, without a live test for the disease it is not possible to provide a register of herds which have not been exposed to BSE. The Beef Assurance Scheme was introduced for herds with a very low risk of BSE in order to allow beef to be sold from animals between 30 and 42 months of age. The scheme now has 82 members.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. What steps are the Government taking to let consumers know about the Beef Assurance Scheme and to encourage the major supermarkets to use beef from the scheme?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the scheme is devised for a specialist niche market. It is for herds which are raised naturally. It is not the Government's view that it is appropriate for a major marketing exercise. It is for

855
members of the scheme to market it. On the whole, beef from the scheme is marketed locally and we believe that that is the right approach.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, did my noble friend happen to hear an item on this morning's "Today" programme which indicated that a junior researcher had identified a spongiform difficulty in cows in Kent 18 months before BSE was formally identified? If that report had been acted upon, would it have made the problem any less?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I saw the report and I thank my noble friend for drawing it to our attention. Of course, what was reported occurred under the previous administration and we do not have access to the details. However, we are conscious of the terrible cost that has arisen—the cost to taxpayers, the most terrible trouble for farmers and many difficulties for a new regime inheriting the situation. That is why we set up the commission of inquiry under Lord Justice Phillips. I should like to encourage anyone who believes that he or she may have evidence which would be helpful in explaining the sad programme of events to submit it to the commission.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I understand from the Minister's earlier reply that the scheme in question has no connection with the attempt to get the European ban lifted. What progress is the Minister making with the Commission? It is apparent to everyone apart from the Commission and its scientists that the precautions taken in this country probably make British beef the safest in Europe.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is our view that the way to get the ban lifted is to demonstrate to Europe and the world what we believe; namely, that our beef is the safest in the world. For that reason we have introduced all the controls that have been introduced, not all of which have been popular with the noble Lord. We believe that that is the way to get the ban lifted. As the noble Lord said, the Beef Assurance Scheme had nothing to do with the ban; it was in existence to provide an extra market in the domestic market.

Algeria: EU Discussions
2.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking, as holders of the presidency of the European Union or otherwise, to assist in stopping the massacres in Algeria.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we believe that in order to achieve anything in Algeria we must keep the Algerians engaged in political dialogue, discuss our points of view with them and discuss their concerns and requirements. My honourable friend the Minister of
856
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Derek Fatchett, led an EU troika mission to Algiers from 19th to 20th January 1998. The mission's report led to the conclusions that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced after the General Affairs Council on 26th January. These have given us a sound base on which to build. Future meetings of EU partners will discuss next steps which we hope will lead to a reduction in the conflict in Algeria.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Algerian ambassador, who was good enough to see me for over an hour on Friday afternoon, the reason that the troika was not successful in persuading the Algerian authorities to invite the rapporteurs on torture and extra-judicial executions was their belief that a resolution of the Commission of Human Rights was necessary before any such invitation was issued and that they would go to the commission this year with a statement, following which it would be possible to discuss the terms and conditions of such a visit? Further, will the Minister seek to persuade the Algerian authorities that that is the wrong way round and in order to arrive at a conclusion on these dreadful massacres that have taken place the commission first needs the advice of the rapporteurs, and if they cannot visit Algeria they should seek to report to the commission on such evidence as is available from such exiles, journalists, and any NGOs with an interest in the matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot accept that the troika mission was as great a failure as the noble Lord appears to suggest. We were able to express our concerns and sympathy with the suffering of the Algerian people. We also extended an invitation to the Algerian Foreign Minister, Mr. Attaf, to visit the United Kingdom during our presidency. He accepted that invitation in principle. As to the rapporteurs, as I informed the House when this matter was last discussed the Algerians' minds are not closed entirely. They wish to review the position at the meeting in Geneva on 16th March. We shall continue to press them in the intervening period and at that meeting to accept the presence of the special rapporteurs. I agree with the noble Lord that it is important to have an impartial view as to what is happening in Algeria.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is widespread hope that progress can be made on 16th March but that if progress is not made and the Algerian Government are not more forthcoming in their co-operation it may be necessary to consider conditionality in the context of economic and social relationships with Algeria in order to encourage them? Are such contingency plans being made? Can my noble friend assure the House that in the meantime because of the dreadful situation in that country particular care will be taken on the issue of Algerian asylum seekers in this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we take very great care on the question of asylum seekers given the appalling position in Algeria at the moment.

857
We know that the violence continues. Historically, that violence seems to escalate during the period of Ramadan, and it is violence that we continue to deplore. The noble Lord asks about our hopes at the meeting on 16th March. We hope that that meeting will succeed in bringing forward a resolution of this issue, but there are other opportunities. EU parliamentarians are in Algiers at the moment and no doubt they seek to persuade the Algerians on this point. A number of noble Lords will be aware that a deputation of Algerian women parliamentarians is to visit me in your Lordships' House next week. We are able to put forward a number of points of persuasion before we need to address the further questions that the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in her Answer the Minister referred to the Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who has stated that the scope for international action is limited and that this is an internal problem. Given the Government's ethical foreign policy, does the Minister agree with Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has said:
"I cannot and do not consider [the situation in Algeria] to be an internal situation",
and that human rights have no borders when such violations occur and the international community has a responsibility to end such violence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the actions of Her Majesty's Government show that we agree that this is a matter upon which all interested parties who wish for the good of Algeria must agree. That has been demonstrated not just by my honourable friend's visit when he led the troika last month but by my right honourable friend's statement after the GAC which made it clear that during our presidency we should continue to take this matter seriously, and to address it on every possible occasion, including the visits of parliamentarians of which I have already notified your Lordships.
Lord Wright or Richmond: My Lords, will my noble friend comment upon a story in yesterday's Observer, which claimed to carry an interview with a former Algerian security officer resident in London who claimed to have given the Observer details of torture facilities in Algiers? The article went on to invite the Foreign Office to contact the Observer if it wished to have further details of those claims.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government wish to know about all such allegations in detail. I hope that anyone who knows about anything approaching torture facilities in Algeria or indeed in any other part of the world will make it their business to ensure that that FCO is kept abreast of such appalling developments.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the true value of these parliamentary exchanges is not so much that they are likely to produce solutions to the present problem, which I do not believe they will,
858
but that in the longer term they will help foster the development of democratic institutions and practices in Algeria so that those who hold strongly differing views will find democratic rather than violent means of resolving their problems.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's suggestion. I hope that all of us who meet the women parliamentarians from Algeria next week—I understand that Members of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats are doing so—will take every opportunity to make those points to them.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I hope that the Government will ignore some of the articles that have appeared in some British newspapers, which, for some reason, seem to misrepresent and malign the position taken by the Algerian Government on some of the appalling atrocities that we have seen. They imply that in some way the Algerian Government condone or stand aside and let these things happen. Nothing could be further from the truth. They also accuse Algeria of being governed by a military junta. I think that Algeria—
Noble Lords: Question!
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, surely that is not true. It is an elected government.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are of course aware of the allegations that the Algerian Government are somehow implicated in the killings. There is no substantive, credible evidence to confirm those allegations. However the situation would have been helped if, when the troika visited Algeria last month, it had been allowed to visit the scene of the massacres so that it could have satisfied itself on some of those important points. We must wait to see what evidence emerges. I return to the original point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury: were we to see the UN rapporteurs in Algeria, we would at least have objective advice about the extent of anyone's alleged involvement.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the UN rapporteurs will not be allowed in, at least until after the commission has met on 16th March, and the time necessary to make the arrangements has elapsed, does the Minister agree that the rapporteurs should make an analysis of the evidence that is currently available? That includes the statements made by the former torturer who claims also to have witnessed mass murders. Could not all that evidence be brought together by the special rapporteurs so that it could be presented to the commission on 16th March to enable it better to make a decision?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The question that the noble Lord asks is essentially a matter for the UN rapporteurs. Her Majesty's Government's position remains the same. We shall encourage the Algerian

859
Government to accept the special rapporteurs. I hope that other governments will be doing the same in Geneva on 16th March.

Missing Persons Helpline
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Ludford Baroness Ludford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide public funding for the National Missing Persons Helpline.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government acknowledge the excellent work carried out by the Missing Persons Helpline, particularly in supporting the families of people who go missing. Tracing missing persons, particularly those considered to be vulnerable or those who may have been victims of crime, is, however, primarily a police task. Individual forces have in place operational procedures for tracing missing persons. There is also a central information gathering and exchange facility in respect of vulnerable persons who have been missing for more than 28 days, those whose going missing merits particular attention, and unidentified corpses. This is the Police National Missing Persons Bureau and it is funded by the Home Office. Future arrangements for missing persons are being reviewed, but there are no plans at present to extend funding to the helpline.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he keep the question of public funding under review in the light of a number of factors? The first is that the free help the National Missing Persons Helpline gives to the statutory services such as the police and coroners is increasing all the time and is overstretching its already limited voluntary resources. That help is complementary to the police National Missing Persons Bureau. Secondly, police chiefs have made numerous tributes saying that work would not exist but for the helpline; and, thirdly, the work is now entering a European scale, and, as I said, is overstretching the resources. Will he keep the door open?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in respect of the European dimension, we are taking forward within the EU discussions about the setting up of or improving of national co-ordinating points dealing with missing persons and unidentified corpses. The organisation to which the Question refers received a grant of £105,091 from the lotteries board fairly recently. I agree that this is a co-operative effort. The work of the organisation is of course done in co-operation with the police to a certain extent. The future of missing persons provision is under review. Obviously we shall take into account EU proposals on the role of the helpline.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, as the House will understand, the Government may not wish to put extra
860
funds into this deserving charity. Is there not an opportunity for the Government to take an initiative through some of their agencies, such as local government, the health service and social security, to give extra practical help to this worthwhile charity?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that point is well made: one can assist in ways other than outright financial donation. I am happy to tell your Lordships that the helpline is holding a seminar in April/May of this year. It has the support of the police. Representatives from other EU states have been invited. Obviously the type of questions that the noble Lord has identified will be discussed at that seminar.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I reinforce what my noble friend said when pleading with the Minister to keep under review the question of further help for the helpline. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Is he aware that I can remember the time when the helpline was just two dedicated, unpaid women. They have remarkable achievement behind them, and they deserve every possible support.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is indeed a remarkable achievement. Mary Asprey and Janet Newman began the organisation in 1992, really, as the noble Lord said, on their own initiative. The helpline now has over 80,000 calls a year, and obviously helps an enormous number of people. We believe—I hope that your Lordships endorse this—that there is a place for voluntary, charitable organisations in this country. It is a noble tradition of long standing. There is equally a place for public funding of the type which I have described. Home Office funding to the police bureau is £85,000 a year. It is co-operation which is the key, and not necessarily the donation of further public funds, which are rather tight at the moment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that approximately 100,000 families are likely to contact the helpline during the next 12 months and without the money that is needed to continue the work it will be severely undermined? Could not further consideration be given to this worthwhile cause?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the figure of 100,000 is in accord with the figure of 80,000 contacts made during the past year. We recognise that the issue is extremely important. I have not closed the door to further funding, but I have said that such funding as there is goes to the police bureau. There is a place for voluntary organisations as well as state-funded organisations. In the past, this important work was undertaken by some Sunday newspapers and other organisations working in the field. I am not

861
unsympathetic to the cause, but, as I tell your Lordships regularly on such occasions, I have no open chequebook.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would the Minister be in favour of funding only the telephone bill? Eighty-thousand telephone calls are a lot, and perhaps further consideration can be given to that small measure of assistance.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I heard a whisper from my noble friend Lord Mason sitting behind me. It was, "Ask British Telecom". Obedient creature that I am, I offer that advice.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my noble friend in his Answer mentioned the police having responsibility for missing vulnerable people. Can he give the House an explanation of how the police define "vulnerable" people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, under the operational independent control of the chief constable, each police force approaches the matter slightly differently. It is easy to think of people who may have mental disabilities, children, the disabled and the lonely. Each chief constable will give operational internal directions to his relevant officers about how to deal with the scale of priorities in this area.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many of us have sympathy with his point that there is a place for public sector contributions and for charitable voluntary contributions? However, will he also accept that some voluntary contributions become of a scale where public sector involvement is not only appropriate but essential? The term "partnership" is much used to describe the relationship between the various sectors. Will the Minister further accept that unless both sectors show that they are prepared to be active and useful partners the whole operation may fall away?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course I accept the principle for which the noble Baroness contends; it underpinned my earlier answers. There is partnership between the police, the Home Office and the helpline. I mention the April/May seminar. In May or June, the police staff college at Bramshill is holding a two-day seminar on trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children in Europe. That is an aspect of tackling this serious problem. The helpline has been asked to contribute. That is an example of partnership in action as opposed to public fund donation. The two have a part to play.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, there are many funding priorities. Is the Minister aware that I am able to communicate to him places where
862
funding can be avoided in far greater sums than are involved in the necessary service to which the Question refers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, when I die I shall think of the noble Lord and when they cut my heart open Europe will be there!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, irrespective of whether Europe will be there, does the Minister recall that in the NHS there is a great deal of contracting between medical charities and health authorities? Is there not an opportunity for the strategic services to contract with the helpline for the kind of service it can provide?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that that is the kind of issue which the review will take into account.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, may I congratulate the Home Office, through the Minister, on its work in co-ordination with the helpline? Will the Minister bring the Foreign and Commonwealth Office into play, too, because, with regard to paedophilia and child prostitution in Eastern Europe, perhaps the know-how fund and such sources of expertise will be valuable in assisting the helpline to train workers in Romania and other countries where such dreadful incidents occur?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, should it be required, I am more than happy to engage the willing co-operation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Happily, my noble friend Lady Symons is sitting next to me and has heard the question and the answer. One must sometimes draw a limit; one cannot go on endlessly. One thinks of particular categories of missing persons; apparently, the last two young Conservatives were recently seen catching the ferry from Dover!
Lord Calverley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the work of the Salvation Army also plays a big part in respect of missing persons? Can he assure the House that the records held by the police, the National Missing Persons Helpline and the Salvation Army are combined in order that all three agencies can use them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am more than happy to pay tribute to the work of that exemplary organisation, the Salvation Army. I take my text from its experience. It draws its funds often in the most unlikely circumstances—public houses and so forth—by selling War Cry and soliciting donations. That is an example of what I referred to earlier. I accept the noble Lord's comments about the operation of databases. It is a practical utility which can be achieved without too much expenditure of public money.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, the Minister feels able to keep open his door to public funding. Does he agree that that would be appropriate during the UK Presidency

863
of the European Union when a people's Europe is the theme and fighting crime, including crime against people, is the goal of the Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes.

Audit Commission Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
This is the second consolidation Bill which I have brought before your Lordships this Session. The Audit Commission was established by Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. Its main purpose then was to audit the accounts of local authorities. Since 1982, it has been given additional functions and its powers have been extended to cover other public bodies. The most substantial change was in 1990 when it was given responsibility to audit the accounts of health service bodies. The 1982 Act has been amended so extensively that the Law Commission has undertaken a consolidation.
The Bill consolidates Part III of the 1982 Act and sections of the Education Reform Act 1988, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and the Local Government Act 1992. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has consulted the Audit Commission, government departments and other bodies about the Bill. None has raised any objection.
We support the valuable work of parliamentary draftsmen and the Law Commission in bringing the statute book up to date and making it easier to follow. I commend the latest proofs of that work to the House. If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidated Bills.

Petroleum Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill on re-commitment and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Dubs.)
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (101) as first printed by the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert ("and protest meetings")
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1. It may be helpful if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13.
The amendments reflect considerable discussion both here and in another place about the need for balance in the Bill. I know some have suggested this Bill is aimed exclusively at the traditions of one side of the community. The Government do not believe that that is the case, but have recognised the strength of feelings the issue arouses, as well as the wide degree of support expressed for the balancing measures introduced by the Government during the Bill's passage through this House.
After considerable reflection, the Government put down further amendments during the Bill's progression through the Commons. They introduce a notice requirement for those organising protest meetings against public processions, and extend the coverage of the code of conduct to deal with the conduct of those participating in protest meetings as well as processions.
The amendments are not simply designed to address perceptions of the Bill, however. The Government believe they are useful in their own right. I do not think anyone could object to the introduction of a notice requirement for protest meetings. It is clearly important that the police and the commission have as much information as possible in dealing with possibly contested parades.
We have not chosen to go so far as to put protest meetings under the jurisdiction of the commission. For one thing, that would represent a major increase in the commission's workload; but nor do we think it is necessary.
The police already have sufficient powers to deal with protest meetings under the public order order. When they pose a problem, as they sometimes do, it is usually a public order one which the police are in the best position to deal with.
There will however be close co-operation between the police and the commission. The new clause provides for the commission to receive copies of the notice as soon as it is handed in to the police. I am confident the police

865
and the commission will be able to co-ordinate any actions necessary to minimise the difficulties which a contested public procession and related protest meeting might cause.
Similarly, the Government have recognised the weight in the arguments put forward both here and in another place about the need for a code of conduct for counter-demonstrators as well as marchers. A code of conduct could be useful in itself. In addition, for the sake of balance we think it is important that when assessing any past breaches of the code of conduct by marchers, the commission should also be able to take account of the behaviour of counter-demonstrators, for example to judge the level of provocation there may have been.
These measures were discussed during the Bill's passage through this House. No doubt some of your Lordships feel these amendments could have been made at an earlier stage. However, I am confident that they will be supported. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister has rightly anticipated the general support for the amendments in this group. The amendment with which we are dealing, Amendment No. I, requires the commission to keep itself informed of protest meetings. I should have expected it to do that in any event but it is no had thing to have that provision on the face of the Bill.
The next two amendments in the group introduce the code of conduct in relation to protest meetings. I am sure that that is right, too. As the Minister stressed, it is extremely important to achieve the right balance with this Bill. In my view, as I said before at earlier stages, the balance of the Bill was not right when it came before us originally and this measure helps to correct it. By extending the requirement to have a code of conduct applying to protest meetings, we are improving the balance of the Bill and it is right that we should do that.
The main new clause introduces the requirement to give notice of protest meetings relating to public processions. I believe that 14 days' notice is the right period to choose. Clearly there needs to be 28 days' notice in relation to public processions and the 14 days is to follow after that.
The only difficulty is in connection with the definitions of what is a "related protest meeting". The Government have tried to tackle that, particularly with Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. So far as I can see, they have not made a bad fist of it. However, I was rather surprised that it took two bites at the cherry as it were. The matter is complicated because the definition of "related" is in a different clause from the definition of "protest meeting". But I do not complain too much about that. It is helpful to have that new clause and those provisions generally in the Bill.
Our consideration of the matter has not been made easier by the speed with which the amendments have been brought before your Lordships' House. Last week there was an indication that we should be dealing with
866
these matters today but the papers were not available when the House rose at the end of last week. They did not become available to noble Lords generally until this morning. That is an unsatisfactory way in which to try to unravel the complexities of the wording of this matter. This House is a revising chamber but it needs the opportunity to consider words in order to get the revisions correct.
However, I am quite sure that the thrust of the amendments is right in order to improve the balance of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Page 1, line 21, leave out ("mediate, or")
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
This amendment would remove from the face of the Bill references to the Parades Commission engaging in direct mediation, while retaining references to its power to "facilitate mediation".
In introducing this amendment, the Government have taken account of the strong feelings expressed both here and in another place that there might be a clash for the commission engaging both in direct mediation, and in being the ultimate decision maker on contested parades.
Facilitating mediation will of course be a prime responsibility of the commission, and a lot of good work has already begun to that effect. The commission will seek to encourage dialogue through a network of "authorised officers" who will seek to encourage local agreement.
I am sure that the Parades Commission will learn from its experience on the ground both last year and in the coming marching season. The amended power will still be flexible enough for them to put what they see as best practice into operation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not sure that there is as much difference as has sometimes been represented between engaging in and facilitating mediation. If people are gathered around a table discussing a particular matter and trying to arrive at a conclusion, the point at which it goes from facilitating mediation to being mediation seems to me could give rise to difficulties.
Nevertheless, the amendment cleans up the wording a bit without interfering too much with what we all want to see the commission achieve—that is, mediation to assist people to arrive at agreement about how parades can properly take place.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I believe that the amendment is probably more important than it may seem. For the commission to have been responsible for the mediation at the same time as carrying out the determination would, I believe, have been quite impossible. Perhaps I may speak also to the amendments in general. Although we have had only a very short time

867
to study them—in my case, only about an hour—I recognise that, together, they make a considerable improvement and will reduce the difficulties which will arise from the Bill as it is enacted in Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS

3 Clause 3, page 2, line 10, after ("procession") insert ("or protest meeting")

4 Page 2. line 12, at end insert ("or protest meeting")

5 After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROTEST MEETINGS RELATED TO PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

(".—(I) Where notice has been given under section 6 in relation to a public procession, a person proposing to organise a related protest meeting shall give notice of that proposal in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of sergeant by leaving the notice with him at the police station nearest to the place at which the meeting is to be held.

(2) Notice under this section shall be given—

(a) not later than 14 days before the date on which the meeting is to be held; or

(b) if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to give such notice.

(3) Notice under this section shall—

(a) be given in writing in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and

(b) be signed by the person giving the notice.

(4) The form prescribed under subsection (3)(a) shall require a person giving notice under this section to specify—

(a) the date and time when the meeting is to be held;

(b) the place at which it is to be held;

(c) the number of persons likely to take part in it;

(d) the arrangements for its control being made by the person proposing to organise it;

(e) the name and address of that person;

(f) where the notice is given as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2). the reason why it was not reasonably practicable to give notice in accordance with paragraph (a) of that subsection; and

(g) such other matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary for, or appropriate for facilitating, the exercise by the Secretary of State or members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of any function in relation to the meeting.

(5) The Chief Constable shall ensure that a copy of a notice given under this section is immediately sent to the Commission.

(6) A person who organises or takes part in a protest meeting—

(a) in respect of which the requirements of this section as to notice have not been satisfied; or

(b) which is held on a date or at a time or place which differs from the date, time or place specified in relation to it in the notice given under this section.

shall be guilty of an offence.

(7) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (6) it is a defence for the accused to prove that he did not know of, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, the failure to satisfy the requirements of this section or (as the case may be) the difference of date, time or place.

868

(8) To the extent that an alleged offence under subsection (6) turns on a difference of date, time or place it is a defence for the accused to prove that the difference arose from—

(a) circumstances beyond his control:

(b) something done in compliance with conditions imposed under Article 4(2) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; or

(c) something done with the agreement of a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of inspector or by his direction.

(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.")

6 Clause 7, page 5, line 14, leave out ("or any previous procession") and insert ("or any related protest meeting or in relation to any previous procession or protest meeting")
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 10, page 7, line 14. at end insert ("and")
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. It may be helpful if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 16, 17, 18 and 19.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 remove the Secretary of State's duty under Clause 10 to consult the Public Order Committee of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland before making an order prohibiting a public procession. Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 are consequential. These amendments reflect the setting up of the Parades Commission and the changing responsibilities of the police authority as a result of the Police Bill which is at present being considered in the other place.
There are two main reasons why it is no longer necessary for the Secretary of State to consult this committee. The first is that establishing the Parades Commission has provided a forum for the sort of community representation work in this area which formerly fell to the police authority.
The establishment of the Parades Commission will lead to extensive consultation taking place across the community in relation to contentious parades and we hope that it will lead to a more brokered local accommodation. Where the Parades Commission has to issue a determination on a parade it will do so in full knowledge of the views of all sides of the community. Clause 10(5) will require the Secretary of State, where practicable, to consult the commission before making an order prohibiting a parade; and the commission will, as a result of its consultation exercise, be well placed to advise the Secretary of State of the community's views of the parade in question. In the circumstances, we believe that consultation with another body with community representation responsibility is no longer necessary.

869
Secondly, the changes that the Police Bill will bring about in structures governing policing mean that the police authority will no longer have responsibility for day-to-day resource issues. Resource issues would of course have been one of the main reasons for consulting the committee of the police authority under the old system. That is not to say that the police authority will have no interest in the policing of public processions and counter demonstrations. Indeed, the chief constable will remain accountable to the authority for the policing of such controversial events on the ground.
I believe that these amendments represent a significant improvement over existing legislation in terms of the information which would be available to the Secretary of State about the views of the community on a contentious parade, in circumstances where she is considering making a prohibition order.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Minister said, the amendments anticipate the Police Bill with which we shall deal in due course. When these amendments and those like them were discussed in another place, the view was expressed—I believe correctly, although it was expressed rather more strongly than I would have done—that the cutting out of the police authority from this particular loop would expose the RUC a little more politically. I am sure that that is not what we would wish to do. However, in any event, it seems to me that the Secretary of State and the RUC, especially in cases where a procession is actually being banned, will be in the front line in such disputes. We discussed that aspect during the earlier stages of the Bill. Therefore, I am content for the amendments to be put in place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("Constable") to end of line 18
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 11, page 7, line 40, after ("court") insert ("or other body or person")
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. The amendment deals with the Secretary of State's powers under Clause 11 to make an order introducing a registration scheme for bands. Clause 11 provides that, should the Secretary of State make such an order, the scheme to be introduced would be court-based. The amendment would increase the Secretary of State's flexibility in that it would provide that an order made
870
under Clause 11 could provide for applications for registration to be made either to a court or to such other body or person as may be specified in the order.
Noble Lords will recall the debate that we had in Committee about the issue of bands. I pointed out that the North report recommended that the Government "give active consideration" to a registration scheme for bands and suggested that a court-based scheme along the lines of the scheme for clubs in Northern Ireland might be appropriate. As I explained in Committee, the Government consider that the commission should have sufficient power to deal with the mischief caused by some bands. It will be able to impose conditions on parades which may cover which bands may take part in the parade, or set conditions as to their conduct.
Clause 11 should, therefore, be viewed as very much a reserve power. However, if it did transpire that it needed to be activated, it makes sense for the Secretary of State to keep her options open as to the type of registration scheme which would he most appropriate, court-based or otherwise.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the amendments are diminishing in importance. However, this one about the registration of bands is most interesting. Certainly, the Government do not intend immediately to register bands, but they are taking power to enable them to do so. At the time of the earlier discussion on the Bill in this House, the only thing that the Government seemed certain about was that if they did do that then it should be done by the courts. Now they have decided that they are not even certain about that aspect. Indeed, I am only slightly surprised that they have not deleted the clause from the Bill. I believe that that would still enable them to introduce such a scheme by order under other legislation. Nevertheless, they have decided to leave it in, and I shall not argue the matter any further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 16, page 10, line 27, leave out ("or other")
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. The amendment refines the meaning of a band in the public processions Bill. It has the effect of restricting the meaning of a band to cover only those playing musical instruments, rather than the strange "other instruments" mentioned in the previous draft. I hope that we are not creating too big a loophole for the creation of dustbin lid bands or possibly the skiffle bands, which some noble Lords may remember from the dim and distant past. Where legislative provision is meaningless or unclear, this Government have no hesitation in dispensing with it.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can assist me. Apart from bagpipes and flutes,

871
can the noble Lord say what other instruments are classified as being musical? I missed this discussion during the earlier stages of the Bill, so can the Minister give me some indication as to what is defined as music? Noble Lords will be aware that people have differing views in that respect. To myself, a Scot, and to those in Northern Ireland bagpipes are most attractive, while flutes may be equally attractive to one section of the community in Scotland. Can the Minister give me and my noble friend Lord Cope some assistance in that respect?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, no one with the name Johnny Cope is going to argue about whether or not bagpipes constitute music; indeed, that would be much too dangerous ground for me to cover. As far as I am concerned, the amendment is something of a relief; otherwise, the courts might have been in danger of registering a group of klaxons or something of that nature. I support the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not think that I shall be tempted too far down the path that the noble Lord tried to lure me down. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise for saying, from a sedentary position, "feel free". The afternoon is ours but I shall wait.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I still do not wish to be tempted too far or I might get into difficulties. I do not think the noble Lord would want that to happen. I should have thought that in any commonsense approach bagpipes and flutes are clearly the kind of instruments played by bands.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS

11 Page 10, line 38, at end insert—
(""protest meeting" means an open-air public meeting (within the meaning of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987)—

(a) which is, or is to be, held—

(i) at a place which is on or in the vicinity of the route or proposed route of a public procession; and

(ii) at or about the same time as the procession is being or is to be held; and

(b) the purpose (or one of the purposes) of which is to demonstrate opposition to the holding of that procession on that route or proposed route;").

12 Page 11, line 2, at end insert—
("(IA) For the purposes of this Act a protest meeting is "related" to a public procession if the purpose (or one of the purposes) of the meeting is to demonstrate opposition to the holding of that procession on its route or proposed route.")

13 Clause 18, page I I, line 25, at end insert ("or protest meeting")

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 13.
872
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 13.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Page 11, leave out lines 33 to 36
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14, which removes a privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 Schedule 1, page 12, line 16, at end insert
("(3) The Secretary of State shall so exercise his powers of appointment under this paragraph as to secure that as far as is practicable the membership of the Commission is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.")
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
I am sure that this House will agree that it is desirable that the Parades Commission should be representative of the community in Northern Ireland. While this Government have sought balance in the existing commission and will continue to do so, we are also legally obliged to appoint on merit. There cannot be a quota for certain parts of the community. We must appoint on merit first of all.
However, following the provision in the Police Act relating to the Police Authority, this amendment has the effect of making it a duty for the Secretary of State to ensure that the Parades Commission is, as far as is practicable, representative of the community in Northern Ireland. I believe this is a useful amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is an important amendment in that it declares the necessity for the membership of the commission to be representative of the community. We always thought that it would be in general terms, but it is a good thing that it should be written into the Bill in this way. My only question—which was raised in another place but which I do not think was answered entirely—is whether the amendment would have the effect that no one from another part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere could be a member of the commission because he or she would not be representative of the community in Northern Ireland? It is difficult to think that someone from elsewhere in the United Kingdom could be regarded as being representative of any part of the community in Northern Ireland, although that is not impossible. However, I would not like to think that was so, particularly as I understand the present chairman of the Parades Commission does not live in Northern Ireland.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble Lord has posed a question and indeed he has answered it. The chairman

873
of the Parades Commission is not a Northern Ireland resident. It would be quite proper for the Parades Commission to have among its membership people who are not from Northern Ireland. However, in so far as they come from the six counties, it is appropriate that one should attempt to seek balance, subject in the first instance to having achieved appointment on merit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS

16 Schedule 3, page 15, leave out lines 23 to 26

17 Schedule 4, page 16, line 25, at end insert—
("1970 c. 9 (N.I.).
The Police Act(Northern Ireland) 1970.
In Schedule 1, paragraph 15(2) to (4).")

18 Page 16, line 31, column 3, at end insert—
("Article 5(2).")

19 Page 16, line 36, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule I, paragraph 4.")

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 16 to 19.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 16 to 19 1.—
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Competition Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Enactments replaced]:
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) Paragraphs 5 to 9 of Schedule 13 make particular transitional provision in relation to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and the Resale Prices Act 1976.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while it has never involved any financial benefit to me personally, I have an interest to declare in the debate and it is one in which I take pride. My interest is that of a recent former President of the Co-operative Congress, the highest honour the British co-operative movement can bestow. Moreover for 33 years in another place I was a co-operatively-sponsored Member of Parliament for my native city. Thus the concern expressed by National Co-operative Chemists about the issues addressed by my amendments to this Bill is of particular importance to me. I am grateful to them as well as to David and Sue Sharpe and Justine Keil of the Community Pharmacy Action Group for their invaluable help.
I want also at the outset to pay tribute to my right honourable and noble friend Lord Graham for all his work on these issues at the Bill's Committee stage. He is temporarily abroad and, while he has been away, I have heard the excellent news of his having been made a fellow Privy Counsellor. Naturally I look forward very much to his return when I can congratulate him on the award and, as it were, welcome him aboard.
In Opposition we on these Benches gave our backing to community pharmacy, whose future depends very much on this Bill, because it was the right thing to do. It is still the right thing to do and I was heartened to hear the statement in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on 27th January 1998 when he said that, we (the Government),
"want to retain as many local community pharmacists as possible".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/98; col. 131.]
The Competition Bill provides the means of helping us to do just that.
The amendments I have tabled have two purposes: first, to ensure that the Director-General of Fair Trading cannot proceed with litigation under the old Act. It is unfair and wasteful and indeed could involve pharmacists in double jeopardy to fight under an Act that is more than 30 years old just when Parliament is discussing a new competition regime. Thus my amendments call for proceedings by the Office of Fair Trading to be stayed for a period of two years, so that regulations needed to give effect to the new Act can be brought into force. In the unlikely event that the new Act does not commence within two years then, of course, the director-general can resume proceedings.
Secondly, my amendments seek to ensure for resale price maintenance (RPM) on over-the-counter medicines a minimum five-year period of transition before it can be tested by the Director-General under the new Act. I cannot emphasise too strongly the central importance of staying, for a limited period, the legal proceedings now commenced under the old law. Community pharmacists are not looking for an indefinite exemption. But at the very least they should be allowed an opportunity to develop their role in the Government's healthcare agenda and RPM should stay in place while there is a proper analysis of the pharmacy market and the full implications of ending RPM are known.
Community pharmacy plays a key role, not just in the provision of medicines, but in a wide range of primary healthcare services which are crucial to the communities they support. Pharmacists give free advice on common health problems 1 million times a day. They provide a 24-hour emergency cover and on-call services. They dispose of unwanted medicines and provide drug addict care. They keep a product range of 2,000 items: far more than any supermarket would ever stock. But the future of community pharmacy is now under threat. If this Bill abolishes RPM on over-the-counter medicines it could precipitate the closure of thousands of pharmacies as more and more businesses become no longer viable, and the threat of that happening is made more urgent and more serious by the Director-General of Fair Trading having sought leave to end RPM through court action.
Mendes France said that to govern is to choose and at the heart of today's debate is a crucial choice of public policy—that between access to medicines and the advice that small community pharmacies offer on the one hand, and a slightly lower cost of those medicines on the other. We cannot have both and must choose; hut as we do so let it be acknowledged that prices in Britain today are among the lowest in Europe. Let it be clearly

875
understood too that if RPM on over-the-counter medicines goes, thousands of local pharmacies will face closure at a time when independent researchers state that perhaps as many as 3,000 are already barely viable. They clearly would be among the first to close if RPM goes.
The Office of Fair Trading's own investigations have found that 36 per cent. of those surveyed would switch their purchases to Asda and other chains, and away from community pharmacy. It is said, much to its credit, that paradoxically your Lordships' House is often the most reliable barometer of public opinion in this country. So what do the public think? In a MORI opinion poll conducted only three weeks ago they were asked whether they would prefer to pay slightly more for medicines, around 6p to lop per week, to keep their local pharmacy open or see RPM go. Overwhelmingly they supported RPM as a means of safeguarding access to medicines and primary care advice. Seventy per cent. believe access is more important than price. And let no one be in any doubt who will suffer most if chemists close. They will be the people who use local chemists most. They include elderly and disabled people, mothers with young children and people with no access to a car. Believe it or not, they are a majority of the British people and they deserve all the protection we can give them.
What use is it to them if the supermarket on the edge of town is loss leading on a few products if they cannot get there? In any case, supermarket shelves cannot offer the advice or care on which they so often depend. Supermarkets do not build close relationships with customers or keep their medical records. Nor do they refuse to sell products that could harm the individual customer. But pharmacists are bound by a code of professional ethics, which means that they have to refuse to sell what may be harmful.
In an important statement today, the medical, pharmacy and nursing professions state:
"We firmly believe that medications should not be treated in the same way as ordinary articles of commerce and should be purchased for the most part only where advice from an appropriately qualified health professional is available".
Medicines are not like other products. This has been recognised also by government which is why, for example, a limit has been imposed on the size of packets of Paracetamol to prevent people overdosing.
From the evidence that I have seen, we do not have too many pharmacies in the UK. Nor are they charging too much. A further independent study by National Economic Research Associates has shown that large supermarket retailers enjoy substantially higher gross margins than their smaller competitors; that the UK is not over-provided with pharmacies compared with the average for the European Union; that UK pharmacy margins are the lowest in the EU; that our over-the-counter prices are among the lowest in the EU; and that far from being unusual, price controls for over-the-counter medicines are found in a large number of EU countries.
It is no exaggeration to say that this Bill can determine the fate of community pharmacy in this country. The public service it provides makes its cost an undoubted bargain for British consumers, not least, as I know my noble friend the Minister recognises, for the most needful and vulnerable among them. Moreover, the service it provides does not cost the Treasury a penny; but if RPM goes and pharmacies close, then the health service and ultimately the Treasury will have to pick up the cost. The case for protecting community pharmacy is socially and morally of high importance. It is in my view unanswerable. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in the concerns he expressed. In doing so, I should mention the fact that I am an adviser to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain many of whose members clearly would have a strong interest in the matter. It is a particular pleasure to join forces with the noble Lord over those concerns. Although he and I have been on opposite sides for many years, either at the other end of the building or in this House, we have more often than not been on the same side of the argument—even if I was sometimes restrained from making that as clear as I might have wished.
The noble Lord has set out his case clearly and comprehensively and I shall not take the time of the House merely to reiterate the facts and figures he gave and the points he made. However, I observe that I believe he has made points which cannot be, and I hope will not be, lightly dismissed.
As he indicated in the course of his remarks, what we have here is something with which I became familiar over many years as a member of Her Majesty's former government—a classic case of the need to balance different objectives of public policy between which there is a quite powerful tension. It is of course a proper objective to seek to ensure competition, to encourage efficiency and thus to restrain or reduce prices in this or any other field. But it does not follow that that is an end which can be pursued in all circumstances without regard to other objectives of public policy—in this case the desirability of a strong and viable network of community pharmacies. That has certainly become no less desirable in the light of the recent White Paper—the Health of the Nation—and the Green Paper, with the emphasis which both place on the importance of primary care.
There is to my mind an obvious parallel from the field of social security, which I know even better. Potentially there is no doubt whatever that there are large administrative savings, and in that sense efficiency gains, to be made from the much wider adoption of automatic credit transfer into people's bank accounts, and a move away from the weekly payment of benefit to the monthly payment of benefit. In itself that can be seen as almost obviously desirable. But whenever we looked at that over a long period, we came to the conclusion that the effect on another aim of public

877
policy—namely, the maintenance of sub-post offices, especially rural sub-post offices—meant that, to put it mildly, great caution was required.
In my view that is true in this case also. I should be surprised if that view was not shared by current health Ministers, as I am sure it would have been in the previous administration. Indeed, I know that the present Secretary of State has expressed his concerns, as the noble Lord mentioned.
I hope very much that the points raised by the noble Lord will he given most careful consideration by the Minister when he responds.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, we should not give way to cavalier supermarkets, which often pay scant regard to the consequences. What briefing has the Minister received from the Department of Health? That is the department from which we need to hear an all-encompassing, well thought-through strategy. Until that happens, we should reject this piecemeal approach. Until the Government devise a strategy that protects the public, so that guaranteed, convenient primary care is secured in such a way as to relieve pressure on our beleaguered National Health Service, the present arrangements should stand. We should be strengthening the role of pharmacies, not undermining them.
I wish to put one further question to the Minister. What has changed since the courts decided in the 1970s that similar moves to those proposed in the Bill were against the national interest? We should support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. I was involved professionally, as counsel, in one of the monopoly reference cases concerned with pharmaceutical goods. I accept that the day may come when, as a matter of policy, the supermarkets will oust the pharmacies, grocers, butchers and everything else. But that day has not yet come.
I wholly support the spirit of the amendment. The only problem is that it is so drafted as to include many aspects other than pharmacy and the sale of products in local pharmacies. I therefore ask the Government to consider the introduction of a special measure of interim safeguard in whatever terms, albeit for a period of time, at least to hold the position of pharmacists, for the reasons given, so that they may supply the needs of the public and avoid being scattered, with unemployment and all the misery pertaining to it.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I remain troubled that the consumer interest is so seldom supported in either House. In this case it seems that the Community Pharmacy Action Group has been very active indeed. Its objective is simply to protect the profits of pharmacies (chemists' shops) in the interests of the community. The group has sent out 14 pages of closely-worded argument to explain how strong its case is. It has even apologised to every Member of this House that it was unable to contact each one of your Lordships individually. It mounted a very strong lobbying campaign. However,
878
there is no lobbying or campaigning on the part of the consumer groups. Someone has to speak for them, and I shall try to do so.
The action group claims that the poorest members of society will lose out if RPM is abolished and the prices of branded non-prescription medicines are reduced. It argues that even if prices are reduced by as much as 20 per cent., there will be nowhere within reach for the elderly and mothers with young children to go. Consumer groups, however, do not appear to have supported the amendment or to have said anything about it. It may be that their resources are more limited, or they are not as well organised as this particular pharmacy group.
Pharmacies are basically the distribution arm of the great pharmaceutical companies. If we look at the pricing policy of such companies, it is recognised that they usually charge very heavily for medicines that are under patent. I agree with that approach as they have to fund all the research and development. But just look what happens when medicines that have been under patent for 16 years become free of patent. There is an illness from which I am sure none of your Lordships suffers. It used to be called gout. The charge for the best known branded medicine for treating this condition is £42 per 100 tablets, and one has to take one tablet a day. If I sound like a sufferer, it is because I am. As every pharmacist will agree, the generic product is identical in quality, purity and performance. The charge is £5.50 per hundred tablets. That suggests that not only the pharmacists but the pharmaceutical companies are in a sort of friendly pact to keep prices as high as possible. That cannot be in the interests of the community.
There is, however, a valuable role that some community pharmacies play. They give advice in certain areas to individuals. Some deliver medicines to old people who are unable to get out. So I accept that pharmacies play a good role. If RPM is abolished perhaps the Government should consider the possibility of compensation to those who carry out those special roles in the community. The present situation should not be left as it is, since everybody pays higher prices.
My 40 years of business experience has taught me that, if you have to choose a business from scratch, you should first try to find a monopoly—preferably of a product with an inelastic demand—in other words, however high the price is, people have to have the product. That is to some extent true of medicines. If you cannot find a monopoly—and these days they are very few and far between, I am glad to say—then you should find a product with resale price maintenance. Then you have only to concentrate on giving quality and service and you know that your profits are assured.
A street near to my office in London is about 300 yards in length. There are four chemists' shops in that street, one every 75 yards. If that does not tell noble Lords the position of profitability in the pharmaceutical industry, I do not know what does. It is not high demand that produces four shops in that short distance; it is the fact that for a relatively small turnover they can make very good profits.

879
RPM is great for business, but generally speaking it is bad for the consumer. I agree that prices in this country may be favourable compared with those in the rest of Europe. But nobody mentions the United States—for the very simple reason that in the United States the medications that one buys are significantly cheaper. There is no resale price maintenance.
These matters are likely to be considered by the Restrictive Practices Court. Therefore, I recommend that the amendment is rejected and that we leave it to others with more time on their hands to evaluate the issue more carefully.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I spoke in Committee in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I do the same today in support of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I agree with everything that the noble Lord said. It would be crazy if, as a result of this Bill, we put in jeopardy a community service which is every bit as much a part of primary patient care as is the GP's surgery.
My noble friend Lord Newton is right to draw attention to the need to balance the benefits of different aspects of government policy. This amendment stands absolutely four-square with the Government's wider health objectives. I hope that the Government will respond to the strength of feeling that is in evidence on this issue.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems crazy to disband pharmacists. One can go into a pharmacy and receive excellent advice. I am afraid I cannot accept the argument from the Liberal Benches; I accept far more the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and by my noble friend Lord Newton. I hope that the Minister will accept it—or, if he does not, that he will take it back, re-examine it and consider an even more thorough provision.
Lord Desai: My Lords, there are problems with this amendment. My mind is not yet made up but I wish to highlight the problems. The argument from my noble friend Lord Morris is that the community pharmacy gives a bundle of services, one of which is selling drugs. He suggested that because there are all the other services, we ought to subsidise them by having resale price maintenance. I sympathise with that argument but I also feel that to the extent that we can unbundle some of the services, we ought to do so.
If the community pharmacy gives primary healthcare services, advice and so on, could the Government not find a way of making payments for those services, while not having resale price maintenance? There are a number of medicines which people can take without having to seek advice from anyone. Those drugs at least should be available without resale price maintenance because taking advice and receiving primary care are not relevant. It might be possible to lift resale price maintenance from some medicines and not others; that is a technical matter with which I am not familiar. However, to the extent that those services are bundled
880
up, it is always a bad idea to link an extra price to other services. If we want other jobs to be done, then they ought to be covered specifically by other devices.
To the extent that we can spread the benefit of lower prices, we ought to do so. If the community pharmacists have other functions to perform, we ought to find ways of paying them for it, but so far as possible we should not mix the two things.
4 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I find myself very much in sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The idea of retaining resale price maintenance in one sector troubles me, as an economic Liberal and former employee of the Competition Directorate of the European Commission.
However, while I also agree to some extent with my noble friend Lord Jacobs, perhaps I should point out to him that I have a briefing from the National Council of Women of Great Britain which expresses support at least for the objectives of the amendment. I am identifying a common view on the objectives of the amendment, while some of us are concerned about the means. The need to maintain the valuable community service, including the enlarged community service, through the provision of primary care and advice is something I very much support. As a councillor in an inner city ward, I know that it is not only in rural areas that there is concern about the loss of independently owned pharmacies. There are many elderly people in areas like mine, densely populated areas, who are only mobile to the extent of being able to walk a few hundred yards to their local pharmacy. So there is great concern.
I should welcome hearing from the Minister whether he has considered other means of reaching the objective of helping local pharmacies to stay in business. It may perhaps be through a means which I mentioned at Committee stage, the uniform business rate or enabling local authorities to help. I realise that there is a problem in that it means public moneybeing sought, whereas at the moment the services are cost free, at least to the Treasuryand to public resources, because the price is being paid through the retail mechanism. I do not know how to solve that. My hesitation is that I am unhappy about doing so through resale price maintenance in one sector.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I may bore the House for a minute or two with an example of the kind of thing which the Bill may lead to. I live near the village of Braemar in Aberdeenshire. For 20 years we had no chemist in the village, the nearest was 17 miles away in Ballater. A prescription from the doctor had to be put in a locked box and sent down to Ballater on the bus. The medicine had to be put in the box and returned on another bus. Then you had to go and collect it. Sometimes that meant you did not get your medicine until late evening or even the following day.
Last summer, after 20 years without one, we got a chemist in the village. But just across the road is a small supermarket—very small, but one of a large chain. If

881
that supermarket can undercut our chemist on such staple items as aspirins, indigestion mixture and so forth, it may very well be that our chemist will no longer find his business viable. He might have to give up. Then we would be back to having the nearest chemist 17 miles away. I think that probably Braemar is not the only village in the country where that kind of situation obtains. So I support the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, very heartily in his amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for returning to the subject on Report. We have already discussed it at earlier stages of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Newton said, it would appear that here are two government policies in conflict. That is self evident. However, at Second Reading, the noble Baroness. Lady Jay, when asked what was the attitude of the Department of Health, said that the department was neutral on it. I find that an astonishing proposition, particularly now that the Minister for Health himself—and the noble Lord quoted it—said in another place:
"We want to retain as many local community pharmacists as possible and to encourage trained pharmacists to make a greater contribution to the national health service than they are making at present".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/98; col. 131.]
He said later at the same column:
"We want to maximise the convenience of all potential users of pharmacies, and to encourage and extend the contribution that trained pharmacists can make".
I say to the Government that I regard that as an excellent policy. If they wish to pursue it, I have no doubt that on this side of the House we would give them warm support for greater involvement of pharmacists in relieving the load on so many GPs who are too frequently burdened with requests for advice when patients could obtain the advice adequately and satisfactorily from their local pharmacists.
That is where the conflict lies. It seems absurd not to face up to it. I do not know what the noble Lord intends to do, but it would not be our proposal at this stage to seek to divide the House. Apart from anything else, the way this has been put together makes it an incomplete package. There are later amendments to another schedule and that might be a point at which we could examine the matter further, if necessary.
I hope that we can obtain from the Minister a firmer indication of how the conflict will be resolved. I notice with considerable interest that there is an Early Day Motion in another place which is signed by no fewer than 94 Members of Parliament, of whom 86 are Government Back-Benchers. So the idea that this is simply a matter that has been stirred up from this side of the House is not the case. The signatories to the Early Day Motion have indicated exactly what I understand to be the problem They say that they further note:
"that the loss of RPM [retail price maintenance] on OTC [over-the-counter) medicines could lead to the closure of many independent community pharmacies, an outcome which would seriously undermine the Government's health strategy and increase the burden on GPs; and the Motion calls on the Government to ensure that a nation-wide network of community pharmacies remains in place to serve the needs of all the community, in particular the elderly, the infirm and mothers with young children".
882
Perhaps I may say to those 86 Labour Back-Benchers that it seems to me that they have a good solid point to make. I do not expect that the noble Lord will be in a position to indicate now where the Government stand on this. But I hope that before we return to the matter another day on Report or on Third Reading. we can obtain a clear indication of a resolution of the problem. I hope that it is clear to the Minister, not only from the contributions made in your Lordships' House at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report, but also from the concerns expressed by a wide section of Members of Parliament, that the Government should recognise that this conflict must be resolved. There is a real concern that community pharmacies should be maintained throughout the country. It is not only extremely important for places like Braemar to have a local pharmacy, the issue is far wider than that. I hope that the Government will at long last seek to resolve it.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for standing in for my noble friend Lord Graham and for putting the arguments so clearly and convincingly. In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, I say at once that we know that this matter will be returned to at a later stage of Report and I shall therefore confine myself to the principles involved in the issue.
This is a matter to which we have given careful consideration and we are mindful of the importance attached to it by a number of interested parties. The Bill does not of course provide for the abolition of resale price maintenance of over-the-counter medicines as has been suggested at times by the press. That is not its purpose. An agreement maintaining resale prices would in due course come to be assessed against the Chapter 1 prohibition and the exemption criteria in the Bill, as would any other agreement. Nor do the Government dismiss the arguments that have been advanced seeking to demonstrate that resale price maintenance in this sector is in the public interest. We have always understood the important role that community pharmacies play.
The issue is not whether resale price maintenance of over-the-counter medicines should be abolished; the issue is whether the arguments should be looked at again. After nearly three decades, the director general decided that the arguments should be reassessed and sought leave of the Restrictive Practices Court. It is entirely reasonable that the matter should be capable of being reviewed. It would be wrong for us to use the Bill to stop this legal process. It would also be wrong to prevent the arguments from being looked at again. Indeed, we heard a number of important arguments put forward forcefully by, among others, my noble friend Lord Morris. However, as we heard today and in Committee there are forceful arguments on both sides, some put forward by my noble friend Lord Desai and some from the Liberal Democrat Benches by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
We are clear that resale price maintenance ensures access to healthcare on the high street—and on many village high streets as far away as Braemar. Those are

883
important issues. We know that independent pharmacies would close if it was merely a matter of repealing price maintenance. We know that access and choice are important—more important than price to 70 per cent. of those people asked. We heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, from my noble friend Lord Desai, from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and, finally and most convincingly, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that pharmacists have a crucial role to play in developing and delivering the Government's healthcare policy with an emphasis on self-medication.
It is not my purpose today to decide the health policy; my purpose is to look at the Competition Bill. It is not for me to reject or even to take a view on the forceful arguments put both for and against resale price maintenance on this category of product. Let me emphasise again that the issue we are debating in relation to the Bill is not whether resale price maintenance is a good thing and should continue; it is whether the arguments should be capable of being looked at again at this stage. Let me add a further point. For the Restrictive Practices Court to look again at the same issue it would need to be satisfied that the test is met that there is prima facie evidence of a material change in the relevant circumstances since its last decision. That seems an entirely proper process. I do not believe that it is right to use this Bill to cut across the judicial process now started.
If the Restrictive Practices Court were to find again, as it did in the 1970s, based on forceful arguments, that resale price maintenance for over-the-counter medicines is in the public interest, we recognise that there is a case for providing generous transitional arrangements before the Chapter I prohibition applies. It would be wrong for the arguments to be capable, even in principle, of re-examination at the moment the prohibition comes into effect. We agree that if the court maintains the exemption for over-the-counter medicines it is right that there should be a five-year transitional exclusion from the Chapter I prohibition from the date the court proceedings reach a conclusion. That is, of course, likely to be some time off given the nature of the extended reviews.
Furthermore, there is a case, as my noble friend Lord Morris outlined, to remove the ability that the director general would have to propose to terminate the transitional exclusion early should the court find in favour of the continuation of resale price maintenance for OTC medicines. As my noble friend Lord Morris pointed out, that point was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, we shall return to the matter.
I appreciate that there will need to be further debate. But that further debate should come when we reach Schedule 13. In the meantime, given the seriousness we attach to this matter, I hope that my noble friend Lord Morris will be prepared to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the care he has taken in replying to the debate. Overwhelmingly, those who took part did so supportively of the amendment. The principal critic was the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. He was corrected by his noble friend Lady Ludford about the mistake of thinking that consumer groups are not working with the Community Pharmacy Action Group.
Adding to what the noble Lady said, I can inform the noble Lord that the Patients' Association; Scope. formerly the Spastics Society; as well as the National Council of Women, among other organisations which work closely with consumers, are supporting the amendment. As my noble friend the Minister said, we shall be returning to these important issues later. Meanwhile I was encouraged by his reply. He recognised that a transition period of at least five years is extremely important; and I ask him to think very carefully about my point concerning double jeopardy before we come to take a definitive decision on 19th February.
In the light of what my noble friend said, and in keeping with the general feeling on both sides of the House not to divide at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Agreements etc. preventing, restricting or distorting competition]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (I) applies only if the agreement, decision or practice has, or is likely to have, a significant effect on competition within the United Kingdom.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I return to a point that was raised in Committee. We believe it correct that the word "significant" should be included and that the wording of the provision should be explicitly confined in that way. That is how the prohibition was originally drafted in the 1996 draft Competition Bill and it enjoyed widespread support in the business community.
However, when I raised this last time round not only the Minister but the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, pointed out to me that, according to the jurisprudence of the European Union, the scope of Article 85 was limited to arrangements which had an appreciable effect on competition and that, accordingly, it was not necessary to include the word "significant". I beg to differ. It still seems to be desirable both for industry and business more generally, but also to ensure that a large number of unnecessary notifications are avoided. That would be a worthwhile result. My understanding is that because of the wide interpretation of Article 85 adopted by the European Commission, the outcome in practice has been a significant number of unnecessary notifications, causing delay. At times the Commission has almost reached the point of being unable to cope.
The further argument which I understood to be addressed to me last time round by the Minister (at col. 259 of the Official Report) was that this would be at variance with what goes on in Europe, that we must be Euro-treu and that we must not put in things which cause our law to develop in a way that is not compatible with emerging European jurisprudence. However, over the weekend I was whiling away my time reading through Dutch competition law. The noble Lord may be impressed to know that I discovered that Article 6 of Dutch competition law is exactly the same as our Clause 2. It reflects the language of Article 85. But Article 7 of the Dutch code says that the Article 6 prohibition shall not apply to agreements, decisions and concerted practices if no more than eight undertakings are involved in the relevant agreement, or if no more than eight undertakings are involved in the relevant association, but that one tests against the combined turnover of the undertakings. They define it in terms of such small sums as 10 million Dutch guilders or, in certain other cases, as low as 2 million Dutch guilders. Further, it is said that, by general administrative order, Clause 1 may be declared inapplicable to categories of agreement which are,
"of clearly minor significance from the point of view of competition".
So, even if within the DTI the view is that it is undesirable to express in domestic legislation nothing more than what is to be found in Article 85, that same approach has not been taken in The Hague. I should like to avoid spending future weekends reading through the competition law of other countries to discover whether they have restricted themselves rigidly to the wording of Article 85 or have, in their own way, sought further additions to give some explanation and some proper context for the application of Article 85 within the domestic context.
I urge the Minister once again to consider putting back into what was the original draft the word "significant". I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. Significant effect on competition is measured by turnover. That surely must be right. The amendment restricts the jurisdiction to that of our courts within the United Kingdom. This is the very area where problems of claim of extra territorial jurisdiction arise, particularly as regards the United States of America. It is right, surely, not only to avoid an overlap with the jurisdiction of the Commission but also any possible assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction, which is not the intent of the Bill, as I understand it.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, perhaps I may point out in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that Clause 2 as it stands is concerned only with agreements between undertakings and so on which may affect trade within the United Kingdom. Furthermore, while the turnover point he mentioned may well be relevant, it depends on the particular market. There are local markets for a number of local goods and services—for example, buses—where the turnover of the company may be quite small but where a restrictive agreement or cartel between companies which is
886
restrictive of competition should be prohibited even though it is small scale compared with major industrial concerns.
I am mildly surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has returned to this matter and mildly surprised that his weekend has been upset by his perusal of Dutch law, which, so far as he described it—I bow to his very recent knowledge of it—does not seem to be that helpful to us in the UK at this time. I am surprised that he has returned to this matter since the Committee stage because it seems to be generally accepted that the European jurisprudence, which is incorporated into the Bill though Clause 58, says that anything that does not have an appreciable effect on competition—which I think we can all interpret as meaning almost the same as significant—is not prohibited by Clause 2. As the noble and learned Lord has not added any new arguments, except ones I did not perhaps entirely follow from the Dutch law, I am surprised that he has returned to wanting to pursue what is really not necessary.
At various points of the Committee stage we discussed the work of the Director General of Fair Trading, sometimes in conjunction with the other regulators who have a role under the Bill, dealing with telecommunications, gas, electricity and so on. He is going to produce what the Minister, I think for convenience, called guidelines under Clause 50. We shall come to that clause later on. The fact is that the Director General of Fair Trading accepts his educational role—his role in giving guidance to industry, big and small—as to the effect of the prohibitions and the effect of the new law. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to add to the wording of the clause what the noble and learned Lord has suggested.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Borne, has just said, the aspect of the matter that worries me is the large number of apparently unnecessary notifications which find their way to the Commission as a result of the interpretation of the wording in Article 85. If that were to happen over here it would not only be massively to the disadvantage of enterprises but it would clog up the work of the OFT and the other regulators. That aspect has seriously to be considered. I should be interested to know from the Minister how he feels that in practice this will develop if the amendment is not adopted.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has made the point very well. Even with the discipline of the expression "appreciable" in European jurisprudence, the European Commission is still over-faced with the amount of notification with which it has to deal. So the inclusion of the word "significant" would act as a very important discipline which would tend towards the de-bureaucratisation of our own system.
I have one further observation to add. I know at Committee stage the Minister placed great emphasis on the importance of our being consistent with European jurisprudence and practice. But that ought not to be fatal

887
to a change of heart because there are other areas in this Bill where he has not been consistent over incorporating European practice. I am thinking particularly of the area of remedies and procedures where, as I understand it, he is proposing to adopt solutions which differ widely from those included in Regulation 17.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, we have reflected most carefully on the arguments advanced during the first Committee day by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Campbell, in support of the same amendment we are now debating.
I think we are all agreed that the UK competition regime should concern itself only where the anti-competitive effects of an agreement are significant or appreciable. We appear to be debating those two words yet again.
The case law of the European Court of Justice clearly establishes that Article 85 only applies where there is an appreciable effect on trade and competition. Furthermore, UK courts, in interpreting EC competition law, have clearly held that an agreement is only caught by Article 85 where there is an appreciable effect on competition. Take the example of the High Court in Society of Lloyds v. Clementson. The court concluded that to the extent that the central funds arrangements of Lloyds had the effect of restricting competition its impact on competition was not "appreciable" and therefore was not caught by Article 85. The UK courts are therefore used to applying the EC appreciability test in EC cases which come before them. The governing principles clause will require the same interpretation for the UK prohibition of anti-competitive agreements.
So, what of the argument, suddenly, that we should insert an explicit significance test for clarity and the avoidance of doubt? The court seems clear. I am very much in favour of clarity. But an explicit appreciability test here would increase, rather than reduce, uncertainty. Article 85(1) contains no express appreciability test. By departing from the language in Article 85(1), we would create the impression that we were trying to depart from established European principles. That was the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. We should be Euro-treu, if that is the word that I heard him use. It might have helped him over his thoughts at the weekend if, in his mind, he had been able to capture that famous aphorism that I learnt when I lived in Holland. I have only changed it very slightly. In matters of competition the fault of the Dutch is giving too little and asking too much. Had the noble and learned Lord had that, he might have been able to re-position the statement.
I remain concerned that an express significance test might inadvertently create so high a threshold for action that we could impede the effective tackling of anti-competitive agreements. I believe that this is the most important issue. The secondary issue is that the lack of clarity could give rise to even more work rather than less. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland
888
and Lord Ezra, who said that that is what we are trying to achieve with the translation through Article 85 of the European jurisprudence into the UK base.
I do not believe that the director will have interest in applying the prohibition where there is no appreciable effect on competition. I believe that my noble friend Lord Borrie has made clear, and it is helpful, that the director's guidelines will specifically address the question of appreciability. That will certainly provide additional comfort for business. So on the grounds of clarity and of the law base already being understood in this country—and we have that evidence—and on the grounds that we should not always learn from the Dutch, I remain convinced that we should not insert an explicit significance test. Therefore, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot say that I am entirely persuaded by the argument. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, found difficulty with my argument because it is a fairly simple one. The argument advanced at Committee stage was that we can do nothing to Article 85 and that we must not circumscribe it in any way as it appears in our domestic law. The simple point I was making is that a year ago, when confronted with the same issue, the Dutch had no difficulty whatever in adding a significant circumscribing of Article 85. If the noble Lord wishes to see it it runs to about two and a half pages.
More importantly, I believe that we shall have to return to this matter because I do not believe that we have yet had a full enough answer to the point that my noble friend Lord Kingsland and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised. With this amendment we are seeking to ensure that business understands what is expected of it in terms of notification. It seems to us that it is desirable that it understands that as clearly as possible, not only for its own purposes but also for those who have to deal with the notifications that the number is reduced to the sensible minimum. From past experience the Commission's problem, as we see it, is that it has been seriously over-burdened with unnecessary notifications. What really lies behind our amendment is an attempt to reduce that burden. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("( ) Any decision or provision of an agreement which is prohibited by subsection (I) is void, but this will not affect the remaining provisions of any such agreement.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an even shorter amendment. The wording of Clause 2(5) might be read as indicating that the whole of any agreement would be void. This amendment is designed to ensure that should there be a specific anti-competitive part of it it should be severed but the rest of the

889
agreement can stand. The amendment tries to eliminate that problem. I do not believe that the argument needs further elaboration. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendment. I raised this concern at Committee stage. In response my noble friend said,
"The application of the prohibition to a contract should not always lead to the entire contract being void".
He went on to say,
"The best way to avoid such a possibility is to mirror the language of Article 85(2)".—[Official Report, 13/11/97; col. 267.]
I withdrew the amendment, but I said that I would take advice and might return to it. I have since been advised that there is still some concern that the English courts may not apply what is known as the blue pencil test and that therefore there might be difficulty caused which we would hope to avoid. I hope that my noble friend will look kindly on the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Minister will have no difficulty this time with the restrictions of European practice because I believe that the approach of the European Commission and, indeed, of the European Court of Justice, is to take the view that, as far as the techniques of civil ability are concerned, it is a matter for each member state to adopt such techniques as are typical in its own law.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, this amendment, which I support, is in line with the intention of the previous amendment; namely, to make clear to enterprises where they stand on the matter. As has been pointed out, it is reasonable that enterprises should know where they stand if part of an agreement deals with a prohibited aspect but the remainder does not. In practice, it would probably be all right, but I believe that a point of this importance should be stated on the face of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, noted, we debated a similar amendment on the first Committee day, tabled by my noble friend Lady Nicol. As I said then, I think we are all agreed that the application of the prohibition to a contract should not always lead to the entire contract being void. This is the result under Article 85. The European Court of Justice has held that it is only those elements of an agreement which are prohibited under Article 85 which are void, leaving the question of the enforceability of the remaining provisions to national laws to determine. That point was clearly put by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. How do we achieve the same result for the UK system? I remain convinced that the best means is to mirror the language of Article 85(2) of the EC treaty, which deals with the consequences of an agreement being caught by the EC prohibition. This is what we have done in subsection (4).
This principle of European Community law will apply to the interpretation of the Chapter I prohibition as a result of Clause 58. Whether the infringing elements are severable from the agreement as a whole so that what is
890
left is enforceable is a matter for the general law of contract applicable in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland.
So, if we are clear that we do not want the whole contract to be automatically void, what is the harm, you may ask, in expressly providing so. As I said in Committee, we consulted on the basis of language very similar to that set out in the amendment and we received comments from legal practitioners that it would displace normal UK rules of severance and prevent the normal rules of severance applying, with the possibility of severing "offending" parts of whole "provisions". Moreover, by not copying out the words of Article 85(2) it would risk divergence from EC law. A different type of severance test might develop from that applied by the UK courts in applying Article 85. This in turn could create burdens for business by having to deal with two subtly different types of severance test under the EC and UK prohibitions.
Copying the language of Article 85(2) means that the courts will look to EC law for the meaning of the provision as to voidness. Having decided what provisions of the agreement are void the court will then apply the rules in the relevant domestic law to decide what the effect of those provisions being void may he on the enforceability of the remaining provisions of the agreement.
The relevant test of severance in English law is whether, after severing the void terms, that alters entirely the scope or intention of the agreement or removes the heart and soul of the agreement. If the answer is no, the remaining provisions of the agreement will remain enforceable. I am satisfied of the clarity of that, after taking legal advice. Therefore, I urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to clarify a point about my understanding of his position? If the European Court of Justice comes to a decision that part of the activities ought to be prohibited, but the remainder remains free of the judgment, do I understand the noble Lord's position to be this: because the remainder has been, as it were, ignored by the European Court of Justice, our courts nevertheless have to have regard to the fact that the Commission might not (and perhaps unofficially) agree with the Court's opinion and our courts therefore have to follow an Act of Parliament on the supposition that the Commission might act to prohibit the activity and, in order to remain within the ambit of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, they should leave it at that and merely follow it so that the whole activity is barred? Is that the noble Lord's position?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, for clarification, the point that I was making, and which I now repeat for my noble friend, is that European law may speak to voiding part of the contract. If it does not void the whole of the contract, it looks to the national

891
law base to decide whether any other parts of the contract not voided by the European judgment will be voided by the national court.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, even if I have failed to persuade the Minister to incorporate this amendment in the Bill, following our exchange I am confident that I have secured that his words on the matter will be repeatedly quoted in courts of law in the future. With that satisfaction, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Excluded agreements]:
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("exclusions)") to end of line 42.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 67. I return to an issue that I raised in Committee: the way in which the Bill deals with professional rules. As with other parts of the economy, the professions must be properly scrutinised to make sure that they do not indulge in anti-competitive practices. History has shown that some rules, such as advertising and fee-setting, can be anti-competitive and need monitoring.
When we last debated the issue, I pointed to an issue of current concern with the Office of Fair Trading: the legal profession and multi-disciplinary practices. Solicitors' rule books have prevented them entering into agreements with other non-solicitor professions, such as accountants. They prevent fee-sharing with non-solicitors and restrict the work of solicitor employees. At the same time, however, the commercial pressures on law firms have been growing with the larger firms of accountants (such as Arthur Andersen, Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand) expanding and developing their own international network of law firms.
I suggest that the legal profession here could be under commercial pressure for another reason. The extension of conditional fees and the decline of legal aid, as announced by the Lord Chancellor last autumn, could result in significant changes to the way in which the legal profession operates. Some of the smaller legal firms may need to find new ways of operating to survive in an increasingly commercial world. Multi-disciplinary practices could be a way forward for them if the Law Society were to change its rules.
In many ways, the Bill will result, I believe, in a considerable improvement in the competition system. It will be simpler, more consistent and more streamlined. However, it is not when dealing with professional rules. Therefore, would it not be more straightforward, clearer and more consistent with the Bill's overall approach if all the professions were brought within the overall scope of the Chapter I prohibition, as my amendment proposes? Why should surveyors, for instance, be treated differently from estate agents?
I agree with the noble Lord that not all professional rules have competition implications—indeed, some professional rules exist for the protection of the public—
892
but if professional rules were to be treated as part of the prohibition, could not the professional bodies apply to the Director General of Fair Trading for their rule books, or even parts of their rule books, to be exempted from the prohibition under Clause 4? Professional rules could then be treated in the same way as other agreements subject to the prohibition. I suggest that those professions who produced acceptable rules would have nothing to fear. Surely, such a system could work alongside the other systems of approval of professional rules.
This is a point of principle which is about ensuring that different parts of the economy are treated in the same way with regard to competition law without singling out certain parts for special treatment. One hopes that it is also about maintaining consistency and clarity in the way in which the new system will operate to the benefit of all. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 17 which is very much on the same point as that dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. The essence of this Bill—I shall touch on certain ambiguities when I deal en passant with the definition provisions clause, Clause 58—is that it prohibits a whole series of activities and removes the prohibition as far as concerns those not covered by it. Everything is prescribed unless it is exempted.
Clause 3(1)(d) refers to professional rules that are dealt with in Schedule 4. Schedule 4 exempts certain professional services from the operation of the prohibition provided for in earlier clauses of the Bill. One sees set out various matters: the services of barristers, the provision of medical or surgical advice, the services of nurses et cetera. I should like to refer to one extraordinary provision that deals with accountants. I declare an interest as a practising accountant. When one looks at accounting and auditing, the definition is:
"The making or preparation of accounts or accounting records and the examination, verification and auditing of financial statements".
Apparently they are not prohibited. But there are many engaged in the accounting profession who do not come within that particular definition. I cite my own firm which is now one of the larger ones that deals mainly with taxation matters. Am Ito assume that in the course of the normal expansion of the firm, particularly in the field of taxation, even though it may achieve a position of some dominance that the commission may not like, it will nevertheless be quite in order for it to go ahead? The whole matter is a little ambiguous. If one can be precise about dentists, nurses, architects and so on, one can at least have some degree of precision about the accounting profession.
It is for this reason that I have tabled Amendment No. 17 which adds to Clause 3 of the Bill immediately after subsection (5):
"(6) The Secretary of State may at any time by order amend Schedule 4, with respect to the Chapter 1 prohibition. by adding one or more professional services to the list set out in Part II of that Schedule",
a summary of which I have just rendered to your Lordships. The amendment also adds the following subsection:

893
"(7) The Secretary of State must keep the list of professional services set out in Part 11 of Schedule 4 under review".
That seems quite logical. If one is dealing with matters of such importance as the complete prohibition of an activity it is up to the Secretary of State, if necessary with the aid of the professions concerned, to keep that matter up to date and to ensure that the members who are subject to their own professional disciplines are not thereby disadvantaged.
I sincerely hope that this will find favour with the Government. It is not a very onerous responsibility for the Secretary of State to keep in touch with the various professional bodies to make quite sure that they are not disadvantaged in their own country. That seems to be a normal thing to do. I hope that in the normal way the Government will accept the amendment. However, in my experience over the past 20 years or so it is very rare for any government to accept amendments at Report stage unless they have been specifically solicited by the Government themselves. This is a very convenient administrative apparatus that has become enshrined by the passage of time in the proceedings of your Lordships' House. But I should have thought that this would have been sufficiently significant.
The real reason that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment is that there may be a possibility, nay a probability, that we shall be in conflict with Community law. I hope to be in a position perhaps in five years' time, God willing, to tell your Lordships, "I told you so five years ago".
I should like to refresh your Lordships' memory of this matter because this did not appear to be adequately emphasised in Committee. Since the other place pays perfunctory attention to matters of detail of this kind, I venture to acquaint your Lordships with the contents of the definition clause that governs this particular part of the Bill. I refer to Clause 58. I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I read this because the provision is quite incredible when taken in conjunction with the law as we formerly understood it in this country. The provision reads:
"(I) The purpose of this section is to ensure that so far as is possible "
—that is a nice precise term to which I have no doubt British law is well accustomed—
"(having regard to any relevant differences between the provisions concerned)"—
that is a lovely little sentence, is it not? It goes on:
"questions arising under this Part in relation to competition within the United Kingdom are dealt with in a manner which is consistent with the treatment of corresponding questions arising in Community law in relation to competition within the Community".
What a lovely text to incorporate into British law, which is normally interpreted by reference to the letter of the law, not various inferences that may be drawn from generalities that refer to it. I invite your Lordships to listen to the following:
"(2) At any time when the court—
that is a British court—
"determines a question arising under this Part, it must act (so far as is compatible with the provisions of this Part and whether or not it would otherwise be required to do so) with a view to securing that there is no inconsistency between—
894

(a) the principles applied, and decision reached, by the court in determining that question; and

(b) the principles laid down by the Treaty and the European Court. and any relevant decision of that Court, as applicable at that time in determining any corresponding question arising in Community law".

I leave it to others, notably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, whom I am pleased to see here, to solve that ambiguity for us. It is of course a load of nonsense. There is no question of trying to get British law and British courts, which rely mainly upon the letter of the law and precedents under the statutes, to begin to accept the generalities of Community law—so-called—which relies largely upon its recitals and preambles. Cannot we at least have recourse to our own law which we can respect and enforce rather than endeavour to merge it in some mysterious way, outlined in Clause 58, which blurs the line in making any question of law in this country properly enforceable and leaves it open to good and honest ridicule?
5 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, your Lordships will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to follow my noble friend in his interesting and labyrinthine speech.
A noble Lord: Why not?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, because I do not know enough about it. When he said that five years from now he would be able to tell us, "I told you so five years ago", he was under-estimating his position, because he will be able to say not five years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, but probably 25 years ago. if not more. I do not wish to irritate him. I wish to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he oppose the amendment.
When I came into the Chamber I was surprised to hear the matter raised again, because we had a brief discussion of it in Committee. At that time I thought there was some confusion about the nature of the professions as against the nature of business. I have to declare an interest of a sort. As a chartered civil engineer I am bound by the rules of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and the professional rules of the Engineering Council, or at any rate I was while I practised. I still hold them in my heart, having ceased to practise.
In Committee we tried to draw to the noble Baroness's attention the fact that professions are not the same as businesses. She naturally wishes to put everything into the straitjacket of the business community, as if everything were a public liability company, to be bound by the same rules and to work under the same conventions. Professions are not like that. As she partially admitted, the rules of a professional body are, to a large extent, directed towards the protection of the public. They are mainly concerned to ensure that the person who offers a professional service is, first, fully qualified to offer that service. That is different from the business community where no such obligation exists. That is the key difference between those two functions.

895
I do not want to go on, because we have had a fairly lengthy debate on this short amendment. During our previous debate I remarked to the noble Baroness that if she wanted to find out the difference between business and the professions in detail she should turn her attention to a well known book called The Acquisitive Society, written by R. H. Tawney in 1923, where the matter is gone into in great detail. Tawney proposes that the business community adopt the rules and regulations of the professions rather than the other way about, as has been suggested here.
I know that I shall be told that a number of things have happened in the business and professional worlds since 1923. That is true. A number of professions have gone down the route that the noble Baroness would like to see. Some of us do not like to see it. I assume that as the noble Baroness has tabled the amendment again she did not take my advice, go to the Library and read R. H. Tawney. I suggest that she do it now. The kind and polite thing to do would be for her to withdraw the amendment. That would be much appreciated in the professions. If she does not feel inclined to do that, I hope that my noble friend will kick her into touch.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said on Amendment No. 17. I, too, have to declare an interest. I am a non-practising member of the Chartered Accountants of Scotland. The Minister will be interested to know that much of my apprenticeship was spent under the green and yellow banner, which I think occupied him until recently. The firm Traneby will not be unknown to the Minister.
There was much merit in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, especially when he referred to paragraph 11 of Part II in Schedule 4. The definition in that paragraph is narrow. The noble Lord tempted me, and I suspect your Lordships, to look at the other services performed by accountants and others. For that reason, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Even with all the training that I received in Scottish commercial and other law, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, lost me when we came to Clause 58. I was fascinated. I wonder what the Minister has been able to do to his noble friend, because I ask the Minister to agree that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has been turned into something of a tabby cat this afternoon. I do not know what persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to be so succinct and brief. I was expecting considerably more in line with what happened in Paris on Saturday or at Lansdowne Road. All the same, I was impressed by his opening remarks in relation to Amendment No. 17. I shall desist from commenting on the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Wilcox. Will the Minister reply to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce?
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I do so despite the fact that I had the good fortune in my maiden speech some years ago on the Insolvency Bill to follow him. I do not wish to risk the
896
ire of my noble friend Lady Wilcox by supporting the amendment. Her amendments will make it unnecessary for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, or mine on the actuarial profession, to go through.
So far as I can see, without the amendment there is no power for the Secretary of State to amend the list of professions, which would then accordingly require primary legislation. If the answer from the Minister is that primary legislation is not required, and we can rely on Clause 58 to do the job, I should be glad of that confirmation.
I have a number of concerns about Clause 58. Does the Minister consider that Clause 58, as currently drafted, is in direct conflict with Clause 2 as it presently stands?
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. A number of amendments make special pleas for various professions. Again, I declare an interest as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. The advice from my own profession is intertwined between audit accountancy and taxation work. More generally, I support in particular my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire. It is a waste of time for an amendment to have a primary legislation effect. All these professions are organically growing and secondary legislation—orders—would be most helpful in this context.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was brave to call my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington a "tabby cat"—
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I did not say that he was neutered.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is not a phrase which would have come to my mind. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 17 and 67. We discussed the question of whether Schedule 4 should stand part of the Bill on the first day of Committee. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was not convinced by our arguments at that stage. Perhaps I could try and re-formulate them and explain the provisions for competition scrutiny of professional rules under the Bill. Schedule 4 to the Bill is not in any sense a licence to introduce anti-competitive rules. We shall discuss amendments to the schedule later. For those professions whose services were exempted under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the Government do not believe that it would be right to subject their professional rules to the procedures in the Bill.
We believe that it would be unwarranted to apply processes designed primarily for private sector business to the quasi-public law processes of drawing up and enforcing professional rules. I think that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon put this well in Committee when he said that he opposed competition at the design stage. But it is only the design stage. Far from excluding from the director's scrutiny those rules which professional bodies do draw up, Schedule 4 requires him to retain a copy of each designated professional rule and to

897
maintain a list of them. I draw that requirement to the attention of my noble friend Lord Bruce. Paragraph 5 of the schedule places him under a statutory duty to keep the list under review and to advise the Secretary of State whether he considers,
"that, with a view to restricting the exclusion provided by this Schedule, some or all of the rules of a particular body should no longer be designated"—
that is to say, to enjoy the benefit of exclusion. The price, therefore, which must be paid for exclusion at the design stage is that the director is required to review the rules and consider whether the exclusion is justified. I hope that that answers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce. The Secretary of State has certain obligations.
If there are competition concerns there must of course be some mechanism for addressing them. One would hope that a professional body would have regard to any criticisms the director may make and consider whether its rules should be amended. If not, and if after consulting any relevant Minister, the Secretary of State considers that the exclusion should end, the Bill will enable her to revoke the designation of a professional rule and bring it within the Chapter I prohibition, subject to affirmative resolution by your Lordships and another place.
Thus, the Bill will ensure that any competition concerns to which professional rules give rise will be addressed, but in a focused and targeted way, without subjecting the professions' rule-making and enforcing processes as a whole to the procedures in the Bill. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness will see that this is in no sense letting the professions off from the requirements of competition law. If there are competition concerns about professional rules I assure her that the Bill will enable them to be addressed.
The noble Baroness asked about solicitors' rules. Unlike, say, the profession of barrister, solicitors' rules are, we believe, statutory ones. They are a requirement of the law. As such, they are not "agreements" and would not therefore ever be prohibited under Chapter I.
The noble Baroness also asked about multi-disciplinary practices involving solicitors. I think there is some confusion about this. Section 66 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 abolished the section of the Solicitors Act 1974 which, in effect, prevented solicitors from entering into partnership with persons who are not solicitors, but without prejudice to the Law Society's ability to make rules on such matters. Such rules would in all likelihood be statutory. They would have nothing to do with Chapter I of the Bill, which is about a prohibition of agreements.
The noble Baroness also asked about professional rules. They are not necessarily the same as the normal run of agreements that businesses may enter into. Their purpose is to protect the public. They have attached to them disciplinary arrangements which often involve some judicial process and under which penalties can be severe. They are often subject to approval by Ministers or members of the judiciary. In these ways, they are a form of quasi public law.
898
I turn to Amendment No. 17 and the points raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. In the first place, it is clear that the amendment would enable the scope of the exclusion in the Bill to be widened, and it would therefore potentially provide for a wider exclusion of professional rules than that provided under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
Given the ambition of this legislation to provide a thorough and effective reform of competition law—and the fact that we have, as I have explained, narrowed the existing exemption of professional services under that Act—I do not think that that would be appropriate. Perhaps I may again recall that some noble Lords have expressed some concerns about the width of the existing exclusion, never mind increasing the exclusion.
However, perhaps more importantly, I do not see a case on procedural grounds for excluding professions which have hitherto been subject to competition law in the shape of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Those professions must have had to accommodate that law, and I do not see why their procedures cannot accommodate the new law. The unique point about the professions on the list in Schedule 4 is, of course, that they have not been subject to the Act.
The Government have reflected on the point raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but have concluded that it would not be right to provide the Secretary of State with a power of this kind.
My noble friend Lord Bruce was displeased with Clause 58. The purpose of the Bill is to make British competition law consistent with Community law. Competition law must be relevant in all countries. Clause 58 explains that rather well. It must be consistent, and that is what the clause provides.
I hope that my noble friend will understand the reasons for that and will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand the reasons that I have explained about the professions and will also agree to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not answered the question as to whether primary legislation is required under the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and also whether Clause 58 is in conflict with Clause 2, making it inoperable.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the purpose of Clause 58 is to put Clause 2 into effect.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sorry but not surprised that my noble friend has declined to accept my amendment. There is a large difference between us. For my part, as an inhabitant and citizen of the United Kingdom, I do not wish such provisions as there are—and generally speaking, British law is good—to be subject to the generalities which emanate from time to time in Community law, so-called.

899
There must be a choice. I am under no illusion that there will be massive support in this place for the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, unfortunately, as my noble friend is not the mover of the amendment, he does not have a right of reply at this stage.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation and for the time which he has taken on this matter. I raised this issue, perhaps expressed differently, in Committee. For me and for consumers, it is a point of principle about ensuring that different parts of the economy are treated in the same way with regard to competition law without singling out parts of it for special treatment.
That is the second time I have said that and I apologise for repeating myself. However, that is possibly the most important thing that I have said. It relates to singling out certain parts of the economy to be treated differently. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, talked with nostalgic affection of his club—the civil engineers. I have worked for seven years representing the ordinary consumer, the ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus, the single person very often trying to stand against such professional organisations. The noble Lord talks of professional organisations with pride and of the business community with contempt. I have been part of the business community, as has my family before me, for many years. We talk about free and honest trade. We talk about the rogues being found out and other such matters openly, in the marketplace. We do not have anywhere to run and hide.
I feel as emotional about this subject as the noble Lord did talking affectionately and, as he said, nostalgically, about his club. I shall not ask him to go off and read any reference books, although no doubt, if I took the time, I could do so. However, those parts of the business community which do not enjoy that protection must stand up and face the Office of Fair Trading. That is no bad thing.
I am sorry that it is the second time that I have had to raise this issue with the Minister. This is a good and open Bill which tries to make it easy for ordinary people to understand quite what competition and anti-competitive practices mean. I know that today we shall not get any further on this matter.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I do not wound easily but I wish the noble Baroness would draw a veil over the word "contempt". That is not my view of the business community.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, of course I shall withdraw that word if the noble Lord finds it offensive.
I return to the amendment. I shall not press the matter to a Division. I am sorry that the Government are not able to make that small adjustment which brings everybody together under the same administration. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert ("or
(e) Schedule (Exclusion for Vertical Agreements) (exclusion for vertical agreements)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Minister may think it somewhat churlish of me to return to the matter of vertical agreements so shortly after he was courteous enough not only to write to me on the matter but also to send me an extremely interesting report. However, I should like to have it placed on the record exactly where we stand in relation to vertical agreements and their exclusion from the Bill.
As far back as September we knew that it was the Government's view that many if not all of those vertical agreements should be excluded. But we are now into the month of February and we still do not have the outcome of the Government's deliberations on that exclusion. It is important that we discover exactly what is being proposed.
I recognise that the Government have set up a task force and have included a number of organisations and individuals who are extremely knowledgable on the subject and there must be some cause for optimism that that task force will come forward with some solutions.
However, I hope that there will be some chance that we shall see the outcome of those deliberations before the Bill leaves this House. It is not simply a matter of our own interest, but there is a view that once the matter leaves this House it leaves the last Minister who has any real understanding about competition policy, and we should wish to have that Minister's observations on what is being put forward and his explanation before the issue moves to the House of Commons. It is extremely important that that should be done.
Secondly, real concern is building up about particular interests, not only in the drinks trade but covering a wide range of activities, which are wondering whether they are to be excluded and what is proposed. The Minister will be very familiar with off-shore oil engineering in the North Sea and the Crine arrangements. Those are extraordinarily elaborate integrated arrangements. I have even had queries about whether some of those agreements might be caught if there is not a properly explained exclusion.
I hope that the noble Lord can give some indication of where matters stand. I simply leave it to him with this observation that the report of the analysis prepared by Professor Whish and Dr. Bishop is extremely good and interesting. However, it raises not only questions about which horizontal or vertical agreements may be excluded and how those exclusions might be framed but also a very interesting set of observations as to how frequently, within the European Union, Article 85 has not been used to handle vertical agreements but has been used to forward the arrangements which are to be found in relation to single market integration. It would appear that it has been used more frequently for that purpose than for the more obvious vertical agreement problem. In my view, that will undoubtedly lead us into some very interesting debates when we get to Clause 58. However, unlike the noble Lord sitting on the Benches

901
immediately behind the Minister, I do not propose at this stage to go into the complexities as to what is and what is not excluded from that clause. I merely mention it because it is most important for us to find out exactly what the Government propose to exclude; otherwise it will have an effect not just on the issue of vertical agreements but will, in turn, also affect our understanding of some other very complicated provisions in the Bill. I have already indicated that I shall not be pressing my amendment today. Nevertheless, I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, before turning to any discussion on the detail of the amendment, which I believe will not be necessary at this stage, I should like to speak in more general terms about the approach to vertical agreements. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said, since we last discussed the issue in Committee we have continued our efforts to achieve a workable solution to the matter of vertical agreements.
My department has convened a vertical agreements task force, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, to consider the issue. We have experts from the CBI, OFT and MMC all working in the group. I am especially pleased that both the competition authorities and the business community are represented in that group, because I believe that it will be the only way of finding a workable solution.
As the noble and learned Lord also mentioned, we have also secured the services of Professor Richard Whish and Dr. Bill Bishop to assist the department and the task force in this work. Professor Whish is a renowned authority on competition law as well as a practising solicitor in the field. Dr. Bishop heads an economic consultancy specialising in competition issues. Their combined knowledge of the economics and law of competition makes them well qualified to assist us in seeking to crack what was referred to in Committee as "a conundrum". Indeed, despite the time taken, which has not been overlong considering the time that noble Lords opposite took to consider such matters without arriving at a conclusion, it is still a conundrum.
The initial work has been to consider the manner in which vertical agreements have been treated under Article 85 of the EC treaty. That is of crucial importance in allowing us to understand the nature of the issue, as it is European jurisprudence which will determine the interpretation of the Chapter I prohibition within the limits of the governing principles clause, which we have already discussed today. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, any special treatment for vertical agreements must fit properly within that structure.
Therefore, the work is very important. The analysis of the Commission's formal decisions demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of cases in which the Commission has condemned vertical agreements have been on the basis that they conflict, as the noble and learned Lord remarked, with single market objectives. Of the 30 cases in which the Commission has imposed a fine against vertical agreements for breach of Article 85, in only one of these was it not acting wholly or predominantly on the basis of its single market objectives.
902
The study also illustrates that a substantial number of the judgments of the European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance relating to vertical agreements have concentrated on single market interests. The Commission's zeal to attack vertical agreements posing a threat to single market objectives has generally been upheld by the courts.
In a small number of cases the Commission has found vertical agreements which do not raise single market concerns to be in breach of Article 85. Most of these are where the Commission has acted against resale price maintenance, although a few relate to cases where the Commission has found foreclosure of the market.
As I said in Committee when discussing the governing principles clause, single market objectives would not be imported into the interpretation of the Chapter 1 prohibition. Such questions cannot be said to be "corresponding", within the meaning of that term, in the governing principles clause to competition issues in a domestic system. As single market objectives are not relevant to the interpretation of the Bill, the analysis of the Commission's formal decisions indicates that the risk of purely "domestic" vertical agreements, to which Article 85 would not apply, falling foul of the Chapter I prohibition should be far lower than under Article 85. If agreements are caught by Article 85, there is of course nothing that we can do to validate them.
Therefore, that is an important factor which the task force will have to look at and consider. However, it is also clear that the absence of single market objectives from the interpretation of the Chapter I prohibition is not an all-embracing panacea. In particular, the report analyses the informal practice of the Commission in relation to vertical agreements. That includes, for example, cases which are settled without the need for the Commission to take a formal decision. Here, it cannot be said that the majority of the Commission's interventions are invariably based on single market issues. Although these cases do not strictly have any legal force, they are indicative of the Commission's policy stance with respect to a particular type of agreement.
Many have been critical of the way that the Commission has extended the application of the prohibition. The matter has not been directly tested in the European Court. However, under the Bill the director and the courts must have regard to Commission statements in applying the prohibitions.
There remains a case therefore for special treatment of vertical agreements under the Bill to avoid the burden of unnecessary notification and to ease the so called "straitjacket" which existing European block exemptions impose. Of course, it remains important not to provide a loophole for seriously anti-competitive agreements to escape nor, equally important, to make things worse by drawing an arbitrary line which led those outside it to feel that they had to notify. That would simply add another straitjacket to what is already there.
However, the nature of the analysis of Professor Whish and Dr. Bishop is to emphasise that any special treatment may be more in the nature of an "avoidance of doubt" provision. Such provisions are always difficult. They can create more doubt than they remove. However, clearly we

903
will have to think carefully about what they say. The task force will, therefore, continue its work. The case analysis prepared by Professor Whish and Dr. Bishop has, as the noble and learned Lord said, provided an interesting and important step forward.
While we are debating the issue of exclusions, I should also like to raise the treatment of land under the Bill. I can tell your Lordships that I have placed in the Library of the House a discussion document which sets out how we think such an exclusion might be framed. My officials have discussed the issue with interested parties in the property field. It is clear from the document that the issue raises difficult conceptual problems, but I hope that it will be possible to bring forward a suitable amendment on Third Reading or, perhaps, even in another place.
The aspect upon which I shall probably not satisfy the noble and learned Lord is that of a timetable. As I said, my department continues to work very closely with the CBI and the regulators in order to try to solve the conundrum in relation to vertical agreements. I sincerely hope that we will be able to bring forward some form of special treatment for vertical agreements. I know and understand quite fully that that would be widely welcomed.
However, for all the reasons of which I believe we are all fully aware, the provision must be very carefully thought through. The difficulties that I have highlighted in the discussion to date, given the way that the Commission and the Court have proceeded, are matters which the task force must consider very carefully. The task force is certainly the best route for devising a workable solution for treatment of vertical agreements under the Bill. However, I cannot at this stage say that we have reached a firm conclusion about timing. With that perhaps not totally satisfactory reply, I urge my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have certainly achieved my objective in obtaining a full and helpful statement from the Minister as to where we have reached in the deliberations on finding an exclusion for vertical agreements. For that I am extremely grateful to him. I suppose I did not expect to get a clear indication of a precise timetable from him, but I repeat that if it were to prove possible to bring forward an amendment on an exclusion for vertical agreements at Third Reading I give him the clear assurance that he would receive no complaint from us that it had appeared rather late in the passage of the Bill through this House. We would certainly prefer at least to have a look at it before the Bill moves to another place. I thank the noble Lord not only for what he said about vertical agreements but also about land. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 45, leave out from beginning to second ("or") and insert ("providing for one or more additional exclusions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is a technical amendment. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 16 and 25, 26 and 27.
I hope it will be acceptable to noble Lords that some of these amendments refer to amendments introducing new exclusions which we will come to later. This group has a unity, however, in that all the amendments concern the powers to amend and remove some of the exclusions in the Bill and to provide for new exclusions and their amendment or removal. They reflect the development of our thinking, as we have been drawing up those exclusions, as to the powers the Secretary of State may need to deal with future exclusions and any amendment of some of the existing ones.
The new proposed exclusions for agreements cleared under Section 21(2) of the RTPA and for agriculture agreements contain a power for the director to clawback the exclusion in respect of a particular agreement in certain circumstances. This is not a new concept for the Bill, as paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 already empowers the director to clawback particular agreements from the merger exclusion. The utility of such a provision has, however, become more apparent as we have been working on new exclusions. Such a power should enable us to give greater comfort and certainty to business by providing somewhat broader exclusions than we might otherwise be prepared to contemplate because we can be confident that anti-competitive agreements which do not deserve to be excluded can still be addressed. I would expect, for example, that any exclusions in the land agreement that we discussed earlier would contain such clawback power, but would be framed more widely under these circumstances than would have been possible before. Because any exclusions which we provide under the Clause 3 powers may need to contain a clawback provision, Amendment No. 16 puts beyond doubt that that would be within the scope of the powers.
Any additional exclusion in Schedule 3 will, of course, be subject to the limitation in subsection (4) of the clause, which presently provides that the powers may be exercised only if it appears to the Secretary of State that agreements which fall within the new exclusion do not in general have an adverse effect on competition or, if they may have that effect, are best considered under Chapter II of the Bill or the Fair Trading Act. Noble Lords will note that the "in general" only applies to the first limb of this test. However, if the Secretary of State were to make an additional exclusion with a clawback power it would be clear that she or he contemplated that at least some agreements within the exclusion might need to be considered under the Chapter I prohibition. Amendment No. 16 therefore relaxes the limitation a little by providing, in respect of the second limb, that the Secretary of State may provide an additional exclusion if agreements within it "in general" are best considered under Chapter II or the Fair Trading Act.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 enable the proposed new exclusions for Section 21(2) agreements and agricultural products to be amended or removed under Clause 3. Amendment No. 13 similarly enables the present

905
exclusion of coal and steel agreements from the Chapter I prohibition to be amended or removed and Amendment No. 25 makes the corresponding provision in respect of the exclusion from the Chapter II prohibition. The reason for this is that although the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty is due to expire in 2001 and we intend the exclusion automatically with it, we now consider a power to amend the exclusion to be sensible to provide flexibility, for example, in dealing with any transitional provisions the Community might make.
We think that the concept of adding, amending or removing "a case" which runs through Clauses 3 and 19 could have led to uncertainty as to the scope of the powers. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 26 and 27 make clear that the powers are to provide for certain additional exclusions and to amend or remove provisions in certain existing exclusions and in additional exclusions. I am sorry for the technical nature of my remarks. I hope that I have explained the position as briefly and as succinctly as possible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 16:

Page 3, line I, leave out ("case") and insert ("provision").

Page 3, line 5, leave out from beginning to second ("or") and insert ("providing for one or more additional exclusions").

Page 3. line 6, leave out from ("any") to ("added") in line 7 and insert ("provision— (i)")

Page 3, line 9, leave out ("which falls within") and insert ("included in").

Page 3, line 9, after ("1") insert ("or 1A").

Page 3. line 9, after ("1") insert ("or 6").

Page 3, line 9, after ("1") insert ("or 6A").

Page 3. line 13, leave out from ("or") to ("best") and insert— ("(b) are, in general,").

Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) may include provision (similar to that made with respect to any other exclusion provided by the relevant Schedule) for the exclusion concerned to cease to apply to a particular agreement.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8 to 16 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Enactments replaced]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 10, line 11, after ("practices)") ("and those provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 relating to the investigation of a structural or scale monopoly").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we dealt with this matter rather more broadly at Committee stage. Those who followed it then, and who follow it now, will appreciate that it is a rather more restrictive proposal relating only to structural or scale monopolies. Although I cannot say there were many issues on which I secured
906
much agreement from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, at Committee stage, at least when we discussed scale monopolies he said,
"As regards scale monopolies, the case is less strong".—[Official Report, 13/11/97; col. 299.]
It is not just less strong; I think that the noble Lord in his heart of hearts knows perfectly well that it is a non-existent case.
The retention of these provisions in addition to a wide-ranging prohibition based on Article 86 would, in our view, quite clearly give the director-general excessive powers. The argument that this additional power of investigation and remedy is necessary on the basis that there might in future be problems which the prohibition cannot solve is, in our view, extremely tenuous. These provisions have not to date been extensively used or shown to be indispensable and could easily be relinquished if a prohibition is introduced.
The Minister will appreciate that these scale monopoly provisions are deeply unpopular in industry, and rightly so. There is only one argument for the retention of this power once the new prohibition is in place. The best argument that I have heard advanced for it is that at least we know how it works. That is the argument of bureaucracy. There is no point in retaining this additional power. I have no doubt that the Minister appreciates that this could be immediately dispensed with if the Article 86 prohibition is to be incorporated into our law. It would certainly avoid unnecessary duplication. Even if the Minister does not like my drafting, I invite him to give some signal that he, too, realises that the issue of scale monopolies is not one that needs to be retained as a specific way of dealing with the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, referred to my comments in Committee that there was a less strong case for keeping the scale monopoly reference provisions than the complex monopoly reference provisions. I did indeed say that. I am delighted that he is no longer opposing the continuation of the complex monopoly reference provisions because they are a useful reserve power for the Director General of Fair Trading across the whole of industry. I am glad that the provision will be retained in the Bill without further opposition from the noble and learned Lord.
I believe that there is a case, to which the noble and learned Lord did not refer, for retaining the scale monopoly reference provisions. The provisions are to be found in the Fair Trading Act. As a result of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under that Act it is possible for a structural remedy determined and recommended by the commission to be put into place if the Secretary of State accepts it. A divestment from the monopoly would be used when competition was required to be put in place as a result. There are no structural provisions in the Competition Bill. It would be a pity to lose that possibility by getting rid of the power to make scale monopoly references.
It is true that over the years in the United Kingdom divestment as a remedy for competition problems has been used rarely. I have identified that in the past 20 years there have been only four cases where divestment has

907
been used. Those were in the cases of domestic gas appliances; razors and razor blades; roadside advertising; and beer. In only the razors and razor blades case was there clearly and solely a scale monopoly. It is clear, therefore, that there has not been a great deal of use in this country of the divestment powers in cases which are solely scale monopolies. Nonetheless it is a useful power, and in the unknown world into which we go with the new Bill and the new prohibitions it is not a power which should be thrown aside lightly.
I advance one further reason for retaining the power of the director general to make scale monopoly references. It is the problem of a scale monopolist with high profit margins. The European Union jurisprudence—as we have said many times, it is incorporated in the Bill via Clause 58—suggests that high profit margins alone are not sufficient to create an abuse of a dominant position. It is not clear therefore whether or not Clause 18 of the Bill will apply where a scale monopolist is enjoying over a long period high profit margins at the expense of the public or the consumer. That may suggest that at least an inquiry should be made in the public interest by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if the director general thinks it appropriate in the circumstances.
I believe that there is a case for keeping scale monopoly references alongside the new powers and prohibitions in the Bill. For the noble and learned Lord to describe those powers as excessive, as he did a few moments ago, is a rather excessive use of language, if I may say so. All that is involved is an inquiry into whether or not something should be continued in the public interest. That is surely a power we should retain.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I understand from the Minister that one of the main objectives of the regime is to have as light a touch as possible to enable British industry to be competitive and as free as possible from bureaucratic constraints. It is conceivable that former public utilities will now face not two, but three, disciplinary regimes: the regime of the regulator; the regime of the Director General of Fair Trading; and the regime of the former Monopolies and Mergers Commission which will now become the competition commission. I submit that this is highly undesirable. I hope that the Minister will look again at his apparent determination to continue with complex and scale monopolies.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, opposes the amendment on the ground that the law is not clear and therefore should be allowed to continue to be unclear, whereas my noble and learned friend's amendment clarifies the law so that we know where we are. I should have thought that there was something to be said for a clear law that would let us all know where we were. The subject is complicated enough without encouraging want of clarity.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for prompting another interesting debate on the subject. I am grateful for the contributions we have had.
908
It is important that we review why the scale monopoly provisions are there in the first place. These provisions enable impartial investigation of markets in which a single company has a significant market power, and enable, if matters are found to be contrary to the public interest, wide ranging remedies to be imposed. There is a case—my noble friend Lord Borrie put it eloquently to us—for retaining the powers to investigate situations where it is fundamentally the structure of the market, and not any specific abuse, which is the problem. In these circumstances the scale monopoly provisions enable the more flexible imposition of structural remedies, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, the divestment of part of a business.
The new prohibition on abuse of market dominance will replace these provisions in large part. This is what we said in our consultation document in August. The provisions will be very much a reserve power. Nevertheless, we should not discount the possibility that they may prove of value as the only real means of remedying a market in which structural factors inhibit free competition.
In the utility sectors, for example—they were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—full competition is developing, but it is not yet fully established. It is not inconceivable that there will be cases in which the more flexible powers available under the scale monopoly provisions to enable structural remedies to be imposed could prove necessary in order to protect or promote competition. I recall the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, himself saying in the debate in Committee, at col. 301 of the Official Report of 13th November, that if there are gaps to be filled then they should be filled.
We cannot rule out the possibility of important gaps appearing in the future. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, will consider what I have said, in particular about the reserve nature of those powers considering the specific gaps to which I have alluded, and which he recognised as important. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have heard the Minister advance arguments with a greater degree of conviction than he did in answering this brief debate. If I noted his remarks correctly, he said that we must not discount the possibility that it might prove useful at some point in the future.
The provision is not necessary. I do not withdraw from the word "excessive". I believe that there is excessive duplication. The noble Lord might have read on from what said at col. 301 of the Official Report. I said:
"For the sake of UK business",
and we should regard it from that standpoint and not only from the standpoint of those who have the duty to administer the law,
"we should not have unnecessarily heavy regulations and any duplication must be kept to the bare minimum. In our view, it is probably highly unnecessary to retain this set of complicated legislative provisions at the same time as introducing the two prohibitions".
That remains our view. I am bound to say that I am not persuaded that it is a necessary part of the armoury that is required. I shall not press the matter at present; however,

909
I indicate to the noble Lord that we are not much persuaded by the argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Clause 18 [Abuse of dominant position]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 10, line 14, after ("undertakings") insert ("which carry on business in the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 23.
I believe that this is one of those rare areas where the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench are in agreement—though I suspect that the Minister will disabuse me of that belief when he rises to reply.
The issue is one of drafting. Our concern is to make sure that the true nature and scope of the geographical market is taken into account in relation to a particular practice of a particular industry. As Clause 18 is drafted, it looks as though a market which is genuinely, say, European or genuinely, say, global, is to be artificially limited to the United Kingdom alone. We believe that the recasting of Clause 18 by the Minister, while helpful, does not make that point clear. The purpose of the amendments is to make it crystal clear. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for raising this issue again. He may be surprised to hear that I do not think there is anything between us in terms of substance.
I explained in Committee how we intend Clause 18 to operate in relation to the relevant geographic market for assessing dominance. Indeed, your Lordships' Committee accepted two amendments on that same point. In moving those amendments I explained that it was our intention that Clause 18 is not read as limiting the geographic market to the United Kingdom. There may well be circumstances in which the relevant market includes—but is wider than—the United Kingdom.
This House decided in the case of Pepper v. Hart that reference can be made to statements in Hansard in certain circumstances to clarify the meaning of legislation. We believe that the amendments we made to this clause in Committee met the point about which the noble Lord is concerned. However, should the courts consider that the meaning of Clause 18 is ambiguous in this respect, they will be entitled to look at the statement I made. I believe that the noble Lord and I are at one as to what the effect of the clause should be on this point. I hope that my remarks will satisfy the noble Lord on the wording of the clause, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that statement. In those circumstances I am very pleased to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, if Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 21 because of pre-emption.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10, line 14, leave out from ("undertakings") to end of line 26 and insert ("in a dominant position which is carried out with the intention of eliminating a competitor or of substantially lessening competition within a relevant market including the United Kingdom shall be prohibited.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is not an area where the Minister and ourselves are in agreement. It relates to the definition of "the prohibition". In our submission it is important to include the intent of the competitor in making a decision as to whether or not a particular prohibition has been breached.
I understand that the Minister does not accept this approach, and that one of the reasons is that the jurisprudence of the European Community does not incorporate "intent" into the definition of the prohibition. However, the Minister will be aware that it is his intention to give the Director General of Fair Trading considerably greater investigatory powers than the European Commission has in examining the activities of a particular company. In those circumstances, does he not think that it would he perfectly within the capacity of the Director General of Fair Trading to determine whether or not there was a particular anti-competitive intent in the minds of those who directed the company that was being investigated? I beg to move.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it was not clear whether the noble Lord was also speaking to Amendment No. 22, or whether he intends to speak to that amendment separately.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 raises a different point. I should prefer to wait.
Lord Desai: My Lords, Amendment No. 20 is a good stab at defining the problem more clearly than is currently the case under Clause 18. It is the effect that such behaviour is likely to have on competition about which we are worried, not merely the problem of dominant position in general.
When I look at the way in which the amendment is framed, I wonder how intentions can be proved. Perhaps the noble Lord means, "which could have the effect of' eliminating competition, or "which is likely to have the effect of eliminating competition. Some such phrasing might have been better. However, I entirely agree with the motivation behind the amendment, and I support it.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland: this is an amendment in relation to which there is profound disagreement between us on the underlying principle. The first amendment seeks to replace the prohibition in the Bill which is modeled on Article 86 of the Treaty, with a very different prohibition.

911
The first thing to note about this new prohibition, as the noble Lord correctly pointed out, is that it is limited to conduct carried out with the intention of committing an abuse. While I can see, as my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out, that this idea is superficially attractive, it has two serious defects. The intention of the Bill is to prohibit conduct that has anti-competitive effects. An abuse may be the effect of conduct on the part of a dominant company without being the intended result. Even more seriously perhaps, this amendment would require the director to demonstrate intent every time before an abuse could be stopped.
I have to say that that seriously risks driving a coach and horses through the prohibition. My noble friend Lord Desai would like to find a way of easily proving intent. All I can say is that it is one thing to show the result of conduct on competitors; it is quite another to establish the intention on the part of an undertaking in pursuing that conduct. The first thing that any would-be abuser would do would be to make sure that there was absolutely nothing incriminating as to its intention. Nothing would be committed to paper. Without written evidence, such as meeting notes, or perhaps incriminating statements in strategic terms, intent is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate. The undertaking concerned will claim that there were other reasons for the conduct complained of. The director could then find himself unable to act through the conduct observed. It could have a very serious impact on all competitors. One could be aware of that, but nobody would be able to move because there would be no proof of intent. The prohibition, as we understand it, would be toothless.
But there are several other difficulties with the new prohibition. If the Bill were to be changed as proposed, the governing principles clause could not apply to the new prohibition. The alignment with Article 86 would be lost. So what would be the effect of the new prohibition?
If we ditch the EC treaty model in the way proposed, there will be two effects. First, very many of our businesses would have to deal with two different prohibitions of abuse, one at domestic and one at EC level. We think that that would be more burdensome. Secondly, the application of the new prohibition will be entirely uncertain too. No one will be able to look to EC case law as a guide to the application of the domestic prohibition. That would basically be more confusing for the business community.
I used the expression "a coach and horses". It is extremely difficult to conceive how we could accept the amendment, because even if we do not accept the "coach and horses", what is meant by "substantially" in this context? If the threshold lets off lots of abuses, would that be a good thing? Surely an abuse is an abuse, even if it is only small players who are harmed. It is a serious hurdle under EC principles to show that conduct is an abuse. Once that hurdle is crossed and an abuse of dominance has
912
been demonstrated, our belief is that it should be stopped. I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge those points and see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have noted the Minister's complete intransigence on the point and in those circumstances I am a realist. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Conduct described in this section shall not constitute such an abuse unless—

(a) dominance is used to facilitate the abuse; and

(b) dominance in one market—

(i) is the cause of the abuse in that market, or

(ii) is the cause of the abuse in another market and, as a result of that abuse, that dominance is strengthened.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, very telegraphically, this amendment arises out of the consequences of a decision by the European Court of Justice called Tetra Pak II. The decision involved the manufacture of UHT milk cartons. In those circumstances, the company was held to have a dominant position. It also supplied a related market for packaging in non-UHT milk, ordinary pasteurised milk. Although it was held not to have a dominant position in that market, nevertheless the disciplines of the European Community were imposed on it, as if it had a dominant position. That, in my submission, seems a highly unsatisfactory decision and one that in all the circumstances ought not to be followed in the United Kingdom. That is the background of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is correct that EC case law shows that in certain circumstances Article 86 may apply where an undertaking is dominant in one market and commits an abuse in a different, neighbouring market. The relevant jurisprudence will be imported into the interpretation of Clause 18 via the governing principles clause.
The noble Lord says that he does not like this particular piece of jurisprudence. I do not think it would be sensible to pick and choose which individual EC cases we wish the director and the courts to look to. The noble Lord referred to Tetra Pak. We are aligning ourselves with the EC system, for all the reasons that we have debated at length before. I am sure we shall continue to debate them. In the case to which the noble Lord referred, the court found that in all the circumstances, an undertaking's dominance in one market enabled it to commit predatory behaviour in another neighbouring market. It is not for me to comment on the wisdom of the court's judgment. But I am clear that there is no justification here for rewriting our prohibition and departing from the Article 86 model as a consequence.

913
Under those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge the point and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for his reply, which was all that I expected. I give him notice now that when it comes to Amendment No. 58 I shall hold him to everything he said about conforming with EC law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION BY NATIONAL NEWSPAPER

(".—(1) Any conduct on the part of one or more national newspaper undertakings which amounts to an abuse of a dominant position is prohibited if it may reduce the diversity of the national newspaper press in the United Kingdom by reducing, retarding, injuring or eliminating competition.

(2) Conduct may, in particular, constitute such an abuse if it consists in

(a) any of the forms of conduct specified in section 18(2);

(b) other action which may reduce the diversity and independence of the national newspaper press;

(c) imposing selling prices below marginal cost of production on a persistent basis.

(3) In this section "dominant position" means holding a substantial degree of market power in the national newspaper market in the United Kingdom.

(4) The prohibition imposed by subsection (1) is referred to in this Act as "the press diversity prohibition".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, a great deal of press comment has been made in recent days about the observations of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, Lord Irvine, about the possible need to restrict the right of press reporting in certain areas. Freedom of the press is important; indeed, it is an essential ingredient of a free society. But if freedom of the press can be imperilled by restrictive laws, it can also be threatened by restrictive ownership.
This amendment has one intention and one only: to promote the framework of fair and transparent competition in our newspaper industry, with the intention of sustaining diversity, quality and choice. It does make a distinction between newspapers and other goods and services because we believe that newspapers are different from tins of beans. They are not only a product, they are, as I have said, an essential ingredient for a functioning democracy.
My amendment is signed by noble Lords from all parts of the House. It is, I understand, going to be resisted by the Government. I find that a curious position for the Government to take. The amendment is in no way a wrecking amendment. It is designed to clarify and strengthen competition in an important sector. Although it is not a full harmonisation with EU law, neither are other parts of the Bill. In addition, other EU countries have non-harmonised laws to protect the diversity of their press. Most curiously of all, the amendment is full square with the position taken by the Labour Party when in Opposition.
Three-and-a-half years ago, on 20th July 1994, in another place, Mr. Robin Cook—then spokesman on competition policy—said at col. 445 of the Official Report:
"there are two requirements from our media if we are to have a healthy democracy. First, we should have a variety of newspapers and, secondly, those papers should contain a diversity of views".
He also said at col. 444, referring to Mr. Rupert Murdoch:
"A … proprietor who insists that his editors preach competition is currently practising unfair competition. A proprietor who, through his newspapers, preaches the supreme virtue … of consumer choice is now acting in a way that is calculated to restrict consumer choice in the newspaper industry".
Those words were true three-and-a-half years ago, they are even more valid today.
But let me make it clear that the amendment is not aimed at any single individual or any particular newspaper group. Some of my best friends write for The Times. If, as last Saturday, they publish 15 year-old photographs of me, I shall still continue to read it! The amendment seeks to create competition, which would be followed as much by David Montgomery, Tony O'Reilly or Conrad Black as Rupert Murdoch. Perhaps, as importantly, it will provide the fairness in competition which would make it possible for newcomers to enter the market. One of the great things about the 1980s was that the work—some of it done by Mr. Rupert Murdoch—that removed restrictive practices from the newspaper industry, that brought in new technologies, allowed newcomers to enter the newspaper industry. We saw both the Independent and Today launched during that time. But in recent years, because of predatory pricing, we have seen competition replaced by anarchy, where our national newspapers are invited to compete only to see who bleeds to death first.
I say that this amendment is aimed at no specific company; but it would encourage a thorough investigation of the policy and strategy of News International. What is Mr. Murdoch up to with his price-cutting policy which has cost him tens of millions of pounds over the past four years? Nye Bevan asked us, "Why look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?" We know from the initial competition between British Satellite Broadcasting and Sky that Mr. Murdoch is not afraid to sustain large losses over a long period in order to see who blinks first.
The pricing policy of The Times does not make sense unless it is to clear the field of two major competitors—the Independent and the Telegraph; indeed, the Independent may be the only accidental casualty in the cross-fire between The Times and the main target, the Telegraph. In crude business terms, a broadsheet field cleared of major rivals with the prospect of perhaps a 2-million circulation would be extremely good business for The Times and its owner. But what is good business for Mr. Murdoch is not necessarily good sense for a healthy democracy or for a diverse and vigorous press.
It is difficult to anticipate ministerial replies tonight. There have been several over recent days. We have been told that this is merely a "belt and braces" amendment. If that is so, why do not Ministers indulge us? Surely a belt and braces amendment is better than ministerial

915
trousers around their ankles if they get this wrong. We have been told that it prevents us from harmonising with European law. But as I pointed out, European law allows protection of bi-nationals, and how we protect the diversity of our press is a national responsibility.
I want to make it clear tonight that I intend to press this issue to a Division. I know that taking on a government against a three-line Whip is no easy task, so I make two appeals. The first is to Ministers to think again before they tarnish rather than strengthen the Bill. The second is to the House at large. We are increasingly asking ourselves, "Why are we here?" I submit that there is no greater justification for an advisory and revising second Chamber than to champion the cause of a free and diverse press.
When Robin Cook tried three-and-a-half years ago to act in exactly the way that I am trying to act tonight, the then Director General of Fair Trading, Mr. Carlsberg, rebuffed him with these words,
"At times there is a fine line between aggressive price competition and predatory pricing".
Quite so. This amendment draws that line more clearly and distinctly than does the general Bill. It gives powers that are special because the diversity of press ownership is special. Accepting this amendment will make it a better Bill and a stronger Bill. If the amendment is carried, instead of losing titles, we will be opening the door to newcomers; instead of consolidation of power, which is already reaching dangerous and unacceptable proportions, we shall be encouraging pluralism and choice. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in rising to support Amendment No. 24—indeed, my name is attached to it—I must declare an interest as a non-executive director of the proprietors of the Independent and the Independent on Sunday newspapers. Because of that interest I seriously considered whether I ought to attach my name to the amendment. I concluded that, particularly because of my involvement over many years with the workings of competition policy as Director General of Fair Trading, it would be perverse were I to refrain from demonstrating clearly on this occasion my commitment to strengthening the provisions of the Bill dealing with conduct amounting to an abuse of a dominant position.
News International, publishers of The Times, has been engaged in a price war in the daily newspaper market since September 1993 when it slashed the price of The Times from 45p to 30p. Since then it has engaged in a persistent policy of predatory pricing—that is, selling below the marginal cost of production—thereby distorting competition and seriously damaging not just the Independent but also the Daily Telegraph and of course creating a climate in which any potential competitor is seriously deterred.
News International holds a substantial degree of market power in the United Kingdom national newspaper market and is able, for long periods, to cross-subsidise its loss-making newspaper sales from its
916
highly profitable operations in satellite television. News International's price cutting tactics have taken a variety of forms in the past four-and-a-half years. It has not been a short-term marketing or promotional exercise but a permanent feature of the market place. Recent manifestations, as your Lordships will know, include selling The Times on Mondays for 10p as from September 1996, raised last month to 20p, and selling Saturday's edition with several sections and a magazine at 20p. Estimates I have seen of the Saturday edition show costs of production of 90p per issue, offset by advertising revenue of about 40p. Until there is some sort of official investigation into the accounts of News International, it is impossible to know the extent of its current loss making, let alone the totality of its losses over the past four to five years.
Only last week, in a letter to the Guardian, the director of corporate affairs at News International—Miss Jane Reed—did not deny the allegation that The Times lost considerable sums of money last year. In a carefully drafted sentence she wrote that,
"the current pricing policy of The Times is leading to profitability for the first time in living memory".
At the Committee stage of this Bill, my noble friend Lord Haskel, for the Government, responding to concerns expressed by each of the four whose names appear on Amendment No. 24, sought to argue that the broad provisions of Clause 18—it is still Clause 18 in the Bill today—which in effect incorporate Article 18 of the Treaty of Rome into our law and prohibit conduct amounting to an abuse of a dominant position, are themselves sufficient to cover predatory pricing tactics. My noble friend said that,
"such practices carried out by a dominant undertaking may constitute an abuse under Article 86 of the treaty, depending on the particular circumstances of the case".—[OfficialReport, 13/11/97; col. 313.]
It is my belief that the Minister was right to be cautious as to whether Clause 18 of the Bill, as it stood then and as it stands today, covers the kind of conduct about which we are concerned in the newspaper market. As he admitted, the clause merely provides a framework against which the competition authorities—the Director General of Fair Trading and the competition commission—will assess whether or not any specific conduct is prohibited. In any case, those authorities are independent and autonomous. They cannot be directed by Ministers as to whether any specific conduct is a breach of Clause 18. Moreover, the principles of European Union law, which are in effect brought into our law through the Bill by Clause 58, are not at all clear as to whether Article 86 necessarily applies where dominance exists in one market but there is an abuse in another.
My noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury, on another amendment earlier today, made some points on this matter. It seems clear that News International is dominant in the satellite TV market. But the abuse through cross-subsidy has its anti-competitive effect in another market—the newspaper market. If one examines European Union case law, emphasis has been given—the Minister himself said this in response to a debate on another amendment a short time ago—to whether the

917
two markets have to be "neighbouring" or "related", or the abuse must be in a market that is "ancillary" to the market where dominance exists. There is surely no way in which Ministers can reassure the House that the broad provision in Clause 18, eked out by such European Union case law as there is through Clause 58, will lead to a conclusion by the Director General of Fair Trading that the distortion of competition evident in the newspaper scenario I have described is prohibited.
Indeed, it seems inconsistent for Ministers to assert that Clause 18 covers the ground adequately, while accepting and maintaining, as they have done, that it is for the Director General of Fair Trading, the competition commission and the courts to determine specific cases.
The Government believe that it would be wrong—I am relying on what was said at the Committee stage—for the Bill to have a specific provision dealing with one industry or product. I leave aside the fact that there are many exemptions in the Bill dealing with specific industries and products. There is agriculture; there is civil aviation; and there are other professions. What is being suggested in the amendment is that there should be a special provision dealing with the newspaper market.
I would not suggest that the legislation should try to deal specifically with all the possible abuses that might arise in all possible industries and in all circumstances in the future. Legislation must be for the general. But this amendment does not deal with any product. It does not deal with beer, or buses, or building materials, each of which industries have featured in the concerns of the UK competition authorities over the years. They may be important industries—they are important industries—but competition and diversity and choice in those industries are not as vital to democracy as they are in the media.
In the principal competition legislation, the Fair Trading Act 1973, there are specific provisions over several sections dealing with mergers and takeovers in the newspaper industry. Why are those special provisions there for the newspaper industry? They are there for the simple reason that mergers and further concentrations of ownership in the newspaper industry can seriously reduce the availability of choice and diversity of opinion that a range of newspapers helps to ensure. The continued availability of a range of newspapers and a diversity of news and views is surely at risk not just from mergers but from the persistent tactic of price-cutting by a newspaper group with pockets deep enough to enable it to go on doing that year in and year out from another business to the extent that other newspapers are either eliminated or badly crippled in the service they can provide to their readership.
This amendment is designed to strengthen and clarify the Chapter II prohibition in Clause 18 in the field of newspapers. 1 hope that Ministers will see their way to accepting the value of Parliament making the law more
918
certain rather than leaving the competition authorities and the courts to wrestle with this matter and to wrestle with an uncertain message over the years to come.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether for me personally he will kindly clarify one thing. Why does not Clause 18(2)(a) cover the position that he has just been talking about?
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Borne, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Astor, who is unable to be in his place today. My noble friend has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his unavoidable absence and to speak on his behalf in support of this amendment, which I believe has widespread support on all sides of the House.
I should have thought that what has been going on in the newspaper industry is precisely the kind of abuse of a dominant position which the Bill is intended to prohibit. On Saturdays and Mondays the Independent and the Daily Telegraph suffer a damaging circulation fall as a result of the predatory pricing policy which The Times has maintained consistently for some four years. As noble Lords may have seen if they watched BBC Television's "On the Record" yesterday, Mr. Alistair Darling, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, tabled in another place on 5th July 1994 an Early Day Motion that,
"reaffirms the belief that the newspaper industry is not only an important business but also a vital organ of the democratic process, and further believes that predatory pricing with the intention of forcing rivals out of the market will reduce choice and undermine competition".
It was signed by 81 MPs, of whom I believe 79 are Labour Party members, including Mr. Nigel Griffiths, the Minister responsible for competition. In fact I believe that 21 of the signatories to the Motion are members of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has already reminded us of the words of Mr. Robin Cook at the same time. Speaking in support of the intention of the Motion, he said in another place on 20th July 1994 that he unequivocally did not want to see an increase in the market share of News International.
The Government are not doing in office what they proposed in opposition. In the absence of anti-competitive agreements or abuses such as those which this Bill is intended to prohibit, I would tend to side with those who would protect the rights of undertakings to charge what they will for their products and services. However, this Bill is intended to tidy up competition law and, inter alia, prevent the abuse of a dominant position, whether or not it is financed by cross-subsidy.
As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Simon, has acknowledged, the Government themselves are not clear that the Bill will actually catch the kind of consistent and sustained predatory pricing that has been and is being perpetrated in the newspaper industry. In a

919
democracy, competition, plurality and diversity in the press are of the utmost importance, as your Lordships are well aware. That was recognised in the Fair Trading Act 1973, which provided a specific regime for the press, and for very good reasons. That legislation is not being repealed, and for the sake of consistency and clarity the Competition Bill should therefore also provide a specific regime for newspapers.
Today's Guardian editorial states:
"Today's amendments are intended to import elements of the US Sherman anti-trust legislation to outlaw predatory pricing and to put the onus of monitoring newspapers back with the Office of Fair Trading".
The Government are opposing this amendment even though it simply reflects what the Labour Party itself was saying before the election. I understand that a spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry has said that the amendment would create more difficulties in the market place. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister to explain why he thinks that is so.
Your Lordships' House has an opportunity this afternoon to protect and preserve the richness and diversity of our national press for which we are admired throughout the world. I hope that noble Lords, without regard to narrow and temporary party advantage, will support this amendment and thereby assist the Government in their declared aim of strengthening and clarifying competition law.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I cheerfully declare my interest as an independent national director of Times Newspapers Limited. We own The Times, the Sunday Times and three excellent specialist supplements. At the outset of my remarks I hope to spread a little light on what may increasingly become a rather shady debate. Of course, I yield to no one in my concern for a free, diverse national, regional and local press. Unlike some noble Lords who have already spoken, I rejoice that Britain can boast of an unrivalled, lively, vigorous and varied choice of daily, weekly, and monthly newspapers and journals.
The situation in this country could not be further from the fevered imaginings of a press monopoly and the survival of democracy that obsesses the supporters of this amendment. As a regular reader of The Times and the Daily Telegraph, like millions of other readers, I am grateful to be getting better value for my money now than before the competition that so agitates the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others.
The amendment is no doubt great fun if you like that kind of thing. It provides a field day for Liberal Democrats and sundry other malcontents, to let off steam against Rupert Murdoch whom I persist in regarding as the saviour of what we used to call Fleet Street. If we leave aside personal and political opportunism, I believe that support for this amendment, even when it is most earnestly well intended, as by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, is nevertheless fundamentally misguided. In brief, criticism of The Times strategy is founded on a myopic view of markets that is at once too narrow and too short-term.
920
All this impassioned rhetoric and moral indignation starts from a factual error. It proceeds via a couple of logical inconsistencies and takes in a number of economic fallacies, before arriving at a primitive commercial misconception. I shall return to this charge in a moment, but first, I fear, a very brief history lesson.
I became a non-executive director of Times Newspapers in 1988. I was able to witness the steady decline in The Times circulation to about 350,000, which was even below the Guardian. It was falling further behind the Daily Telegraph, which, with 1 million circulation, had been the market leader in broadsheets since the 1930s. Pray note: that dominance was achieved through the time-honoured fashion of well-judged price cutting!
In the 1980s and, indeed, for most of its recent chequered history, The Times made losses—that is to say, it was sold below cost. But no one complained so long as its circulation was falling. Indeed, the paper nearly went bust several times. It was rescued first by Northcliffe in 1908, then by the Astors in 1922 and by Roy Thompson in 1966. By 1980 huge losses brought the paper to the very brink of closing. Of the potential buyers, Rupert Murdoch was chosen as the best guarantor of its survival as an independent paper.
In 1993 The Times reached its lowest ebb. The entrepreneurial decision was in effect to relaunch an improved paper. Judging that the cover price of broadsheets had risen far too high and far faster than inflation, a long-term strategy was launched, led with price cutting, which this sour amendment now calls into question.
What really angers the critics is that this bold, competitive strategy has been so spectacularly successful. Now, four or five years later, The Times' circulation has doubled from 350,000 to around 700,000, thereby enabling advertising revenue, which is a major source of income, to more than double. The result is that The Times has moved from chronic losses to break-even. Price cutting was reinforced by a massive increase in editorial spending and increased quality and quantity of The Times followed, under competitive pressure, by the Daily Telegraph. Not least, the lower prices of both papers due to direct price cutting by The Times and special offers by the Daily Telegraph, have increased the total market for broadsheets by no less than 14 per cent.
So, in conclusion, perhaps I may summarise the reasons for rejecting the myopic arguments advanced by supporters of a mischievous amendment artfully dragged into a reform of the general law on competition. It starts with a factual error that there is cross-subsidisation from other businesses to finance price cutting. That is plainly untrue since in 1993 The Times was already financing large and increasing losses, which have now been stemmed and indeed eliminated, to produce a highly profitable business. I can give an assurance that not one penny piece of this tainted Sky TV money has been necessary to help finance that particular strategy.
We come to the first logical inconsistency: the claim that The Times abused a dominant position. In 1993 The Times was in terminal decline. It was the challenger

921
rather than the top dog. In the economic text books predatory pricing means cutting the price to destroy competition and then recouping the losses by exploiting the monopoly position in today's broadsheet papers. There is nothing in the Sherman Act, frequently bandied around, or in any other anti-trust law, that would condemn the pricing strategies of The Times.
Another inconsistency is the claim that selling below cost was unfair and even sinister. The truth was that for all those early years of huge losses The Times was in effect selling below cost. How can what was acceptable for decades from a declining enterprise, selling below cost, suddenly become unacceptable from a reviving enterprise?
There is the further inconsistency that competition, it is said, may be legitimate against a stronger rival, but not if a smaller player might be hurt. This amendment is equivalent to writing in a clause that says, "Competition is fine, but don't be beastly to the Independent".
I approach the conclusion of my remarks and refer to what I believe are economic fallacies. One position taken by critics of The Times is that competition is a fine and necessary thing, but not if it drives prices down too far. Alternatively, there is the opposite thought: price is the only determinant and dimension of competition and therefore has some special taboo. The truth is that improvements in the quantity and quality of The Times have contributed powerfully to its outstanding success in the market place.
Another economic fallacy is that lower prices succeed only by taking—snatching—business from other customers. That is obviously not true in this case because the effect of competition has been that the total market for broadsheets has increased by some 14 per cent. Only the Independent has gone down.
Finally, I come to the commercial misconception that the calculation of profit or loss in a large business can sensibly be made over a year or two in a business with chequered fortunes in this case going back over 200 years. It is now in profit for the first time in living memory.
The reality before us in this amendment is of a massive, orchestrated campaign of special pleading for the Independent in which BBC TV on Sunday intervened in a quite disgracefully partisan way. Yet at its peak the Independent had a circulation of approaching 400,000. I remind your Lordships that in 1993 the circulation of The Times was down to 350,000. The Independent is owned by two powerful groups. Why cannot they learn from the success of The Times? If they cannot do so, another buyer is in the wings, ready to try his luck in the competitive market place with the Independent. The defenders of the Independent have no business coming to this House and trying to rig the market to protect their special interest.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, when moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to Mr. Murdoch's impact on Fleet Street. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, seemed to ask us to award Mr. Murdoch some brownie points for what he did in
922
that context. Let us give Mr. Murdoch what credit he deserves in that regard. There is no doubt that some of the practices in Fleet Street were indefensible—and we said so at the time. Many of them were defended by appeals to freedom and to the right of trade unions concerned to do almost whatever they wanted. I acknowledge that it was right to set some bounds on their freedom to act.
However, it is a pity that Mr. Murdoch was necessary to sort out the consequences of a long history of poor and weak management in Fleet Street. I once told Mr. Murdoch that Fleet Street employers had got the unions that they deserved. His reply to me was—I winced when he said it—"Yes, Mr. Murray, and now the unions have got the employer that they deserve". It was right that some limits should be set on the power of the employees to take the action that they did and to use—and, indeed abuse—their power.
However, it is true that in the reaction to what may well have been the excessive regulation of some industries, as was the custom in Fleet Street, competition has now become elevated to the level of a moral imperative. It is seen as a cure-all for all sorts of conditions and ills.
However, the threat to our press—there is a threat—illustrates that competition is not in itself an automatic and inevitable guarantee of social well-being. In some cases, boundaries and limits to competition have to be set and enforced. It is right that each case should be judged on its merits, but I believe that competition law should state clearly—not merely imply or hint—that in the case of the press, those limits need to be set and enforced in the interests of us all.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said something about malcontents. Having been a signed-up malcontent more or less since I was born, I have to speak in support of this amendment.
I should like to deal first with the case outlined by the noble Lord. When moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that the amendment applies as much to Mr. Murdoch as to Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Black or any other newspaper proprietor. The amendment would apply to the newspaper industry and to whoever in it engages in predatory pricing. There are difficulties with the economics—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, illustrated some—and in discerning exactly when predatory pricing is operating. If, as has been said, Mr. Murdoch has not engaged in predatory pricing and can prove so to the Director General of Fair Trading, that would be fine under the amendment. This is a belt-and-braces amendment which could only prove his case. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should support the amendment because if it were passed and Mr. Murdoch's case were proved, he would be doubly virtuous. He would then be unassailable—but perhaps that is not an appropriate word to use in the British political context. I do not know what the noble Lord is complaining about.
There is a difference between selling at below cost when one's business is going down because one cannot help doing so, and selling at below cost when one has

923
the ability to sell at above cost because one has a market, but one is pricing in that way not only to secure one's own market, but to eliminate someone else. I know that the distinction is a difficult one to make and that lawyers will have a bonanza with all this. Economists never get any money from such things; only lawyers do that.
There are precedents in American law, such as the Reder Turner clause which sets out the conditions under which predatory pricing can be identified. There are two components. The first is the relationship between price and marginal cost. The other relates to a point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, identified when moving Amendment No. 20 which he then withdrew with the leave of the House. In that connection, my noble friend did not like the word "intention". I tried to explain that if we removed the word "intention", but stated instead, "would be likely in the opinion of the director general to have the effect of eliminating a competitor" rather than "intending to eliminate a competitor", we would remove the problem. That would have implied that if a firm was making persistent losses when it was in a position to avoid doing so—that is an important caveat—predatory pricing would have occurred.
For a long time, British competition law has been very lax about this. We have believed in laissez-faire which has meant that we have allowed monopolies to remain monopolies. We have not been active in that area. However, both American and Australian law have actively enforced competition. There can be no more competitive society than the United States of America, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will agree. If the United States has such laws to forbid predatory pricing, what harm could there possibly be in our adopting such rules?
Once again, I urge noble Lords to remember what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said: this is a belt-and-braces amendment. If we include it in the Bill, we strengthen Clause 18 which is not clear at present. The inclusion of the amendment would settle this issue by putting the matter in the hands of the Director General of Fair Trading who is an independent authority. There would then be careful examination of the records and issues such as power in related industries would also have to be considered. I was glad that my noble friend rejected Amendment No. 22, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, because I believe that dominance in related markets is very germane to the issue. That is why, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I urge noble Lords to accept that this is a harmless amendment. We would do no harm by passing it. The cause of truth would be supported by it—and not only one, but every, newspaper owner who could possibly think of reducing diversity would be punished. What better amendment could there be?
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I should declare a mild interest in that between 1964 and 1974 I was an employee of the Daily Telegraph. We have been here before, have we not? Those of your Lordships who participated in our debates on the Broadcasting Act will
924
find many of the arguments, personalities and defences entirely familiar. Some of the personalities have changed a little. Instead of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, now the noble Lord, Lord Harris, goes in to bat for News International. But he also makes the claim that the success of The Times is due in part to its enormous quality. I do not believe that that is a pattern that is familiar to most noble Lords. It seems to have had a most unhappy history. I believe that the phrase is "dumbing down". We saw that happen in the case of the Daily Mirror in the face of competition from the Sun. Under Cecil King the Daily Mirror was one of the great educational and inspirational journals of this country. That was dumbed down by competition from News International. We have seen it happen in the case of both the BBC and some of the independent television companies. They have been dumbed down by competition from Sky. I believe that we should reject the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on that ground alone. But whether it be television, books or newspapers, surely one of the duties of this House is to resist any reduction in choice, be it in the name of Murdoch, Maxwell or, dare I say, even Macmillan.
7 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I believe that history will record that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the co-sponsors of this amendment have tonight done a profound service for our democracy. I support that thesis for two reasons. First, I hope that noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will understand the anguish on these Benches about the issues at stake in this amendment. Many noble Lords believed that we were emerging in human affairs from a period of political history dominated by ideology into a more creative period when rationality, reason and values would prevail. Those of us who aspired to that hope realised that the essence of good governance, as it had always been, was to try to bring together the disciplines, excitement and enterprise of the private sector with the overriding responsibility of democratic government to intervene for the common good.
The second reason why some noble Lords have been anguished by the issues raised in the amendment is that, coupled with the argument put so well by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, democracy cannot be better than the quality of the information on which it functions. It cannot be better than the diversity and vigorous debate in the media about the issues that face the nation. I do not believe that I speak only for myself when I say that when the Government, whom I greatly applaud, put their hand to the tiller in the cause of the reinvigoration of our democracy they must break free of the technocratic approach which is that the reinvigoration of democracy can be achieved by structural changes alone. The reinvigoration of democracy will be achieved by the quality of analysis, advocacy and debate. I am saddened that there should be any degree of uncertainty at this stage of our deliberations about the commitment of the Government whose approach to a democratic system geared in the fullest sense to the challenges of the 21st century I wholeheartedly support. They should make clear beyond doubt that one of their highest

925
callings and greatest responsibilities is to ensure that whatever else happens in our affairs, the quality, diversity and richness of our media are admired and envied by the world as a whole.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to support the Government this evening. I always like to support the Government whenever I can. I find that surprisingly I am often able to do so in this House. I join in the expressions of interest on various sides. I write for The Times. I have not consulted The Times on this matter, and I have had no business connection with The Times since 1981. Nevertheless, the connection is there. I also have a connection, which matters a good deal to me, with the Independent. I was one of the founder writers at the Independent and worked there for six years. I was very proud of doing so. I believe that the Independent was an admirable addition to the broadsheet press of Britain. I very much hope that it will survive.
However, as the survival of the Independent is regarded as an intrinsic part of this amendment, two questions must be asked. First, are we talking about the survival of the Independent or the survival of the Independent in its present ownership? One can fairly say, although I am sure that some would deny it, that the other four managers of broadsheet newspapers in London regard the management of the Independent, taking into account the twin proprietors, as the least effective of the body of five. I do not believe that in the event that the present ownership, which is basically the Mirror and Irish Independent, decided that it had had enough, that would lead to a closure of the Independent; nor should it. I believe that it would probably fall into other more supportive and effective hands.
Recently, we have suffered the loss of a brilliant editor of the Independent in Andrew Marr. He is a first-class journalist and a man of the highest quality. He was lost because he was not supported. He has been replaced by a seven-day-a-week editor—all experience is that seven-day-a-week editing seldom works—who in my view is a less interesting journalist, although I make no general criticism of her editing of the Independent on Sunday. We are saying that we must have an amendment to stop the Independent being sold. The best thing that could possibly happen to the Independent from the point of view of its competitiveness is that it should be sold.
I should like to analyse what the amendment would achieve. We are making laws. It is perfectly all right for people to have a jig around the question of whom they like and do not like in the British press. But we are making law and trying to get it right. When one considers the terms of the amendment one finds it extremely difficult to believe that subsection (2)(c) is superior to Clause 18(2)(a) of the Bill as it stands. The proposed subsection (2)(c) provides:
"Conduct may, in particular, constitute such an abuse if it consists in … imposing selling prices below marginal cost of production on a persistent basis".
I spent 20 years trying to deal with the problem of newspaper pricing. During those 20 years when the Thomson family owned The Times and I was on the
926
board of either the Sunday Times or Times Newspapers as far as I can remember we never thought that revenue from sales could be separated from the likely consequences to revenue from advertising. We never asked ourselves, "What is the marginal cost?", and we must get a bit more than that. Neither on the Sunday Times nor on The Times did we usually manage to achieve that. I have not gone back and looked up all the figures, but I can remember a time in the early 1970s when it would have been so difficult to achieve a profit on one's marginal cost that the cost of the newsprint itself was approximately equal to the cover price that we were obtaining.
This is not a viable rule, and it never will be a viable rule, for a number of reasons. It is not viable because of the fluctuations in newsprint cost. Newsprint is an extremely volatile commodity, which sometimes comes up virtually to the value of the whole newspaper itself as sold. It is not viable for another reason: it would stop one enlarging one's paper; it would also stop one increasing one's advertising take. That is a real difficulty. A big paper has a higher run-on cost than a small paper.
A paper which has advertising and publishes extra material editorially has a higher run-on cost than a paper which does not publish much editorially and does not have any advertising. We should be saying that if you ran a successful paper with a lot of advertising that meant you had to push the price up. That makes no sense at all. One can see the extreme example which arises with the free sheets. Those are excluded from the amendment, because it refers only to national newspapers. The principle of the free sheet is that you give away the newspaper and make the whole of your revenue from the advertising. The principle of the free sheet is entirely reasonable. You create greater quality in a newspaper by expanding its services and its advertising. The effect of the amendment would be to cut across the whole of that process in an arbitrary way.
There is a final point that I should like to make. It is the market leader which does not want to have price competition. The market leaders are the Sunday Times—a paper which is controlled by Mr. Murdoch—and the Daily Telegraph—a paper which is controlled by Mr. Conrad Black. Those papers have an immense advantage from having the largest circulation. They dominate their market. They are the papers in relation to which newcomers to the market, or people trying to bring a paper from low in the market to high in the market, have to have a pricing option in order to compete. We should therefore be excluding newcomers to the market, which is the one thing we have been told would be benefited by the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, during the 21 years that I served as one of Her Majesty's judges, the courts' supervisory jurisdiction—judicial review—has become greatly developed. That jurisdiction is invoked whenever there is an abuse of power. When I listened to the debate in Committee, I intervened becausewhat

927
I had heard described seemed to me to indicate a grotesque abuse of power—grotesque because it seemed to strike at the very fundamentals of democracy.
In a democracy one expects to find a vigorous diversity and choice of news and opinion. That abuse of power was striking at the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech by ensuring, if successful, that the diversity would cease, and what the public would have would be the disadvantages of the exercise of a monopolistic power which deprived the everyday reader of the choice to which he was entitled.
Those freedoms to which I have referred are of course not the prime interest of Mr. Murdoch. His interest is not in freedom, but in personal power—power that gives control over the news and opinions which the public read, by the simple process of killing off, by unfair competition, those who wish to offer a choice.
There have been references to the attitude of the Government when in opposition. Quite clearly, a government, when they come to power, are entitled to a volte face when they so desire, but that tends to have an effect on the integrity of the decisions when in government if they do so. It is generally accepted that the abuse alleged, if correct, should not occur, either now or in the future. In those circumstances, why on earth should there be any objection to the amendment?
It has already been pointed out that what is relied upon by the Government as making the amendment unnecessary is open to argument. Why should there be a potential argument on a matter so obviously requiring a remedy as this? The only resistance is, "This is unnecessary". I am bound to say that I am not persuaded that that is the case. I, and the greater part of the public, will say, "It is not a question of it being unnecessary; it is merely the result of a government in power, intent on remaining in power, and intent on doing nothing which may prejudice that prospect", and accordingly ceasing to have the courage to do that to which they aspired when in opposition.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have no animus against News International. I take The Times, albeit I take it for the crossword and the obituaries, but at least that is better than nothing. If I were not speaking in your Lordships' House, I should be sitting in front of my television set watching Crystal Palace play Wimbledon on Sky Sports 2. So I have no problems with News International.
I support the amendment, much more as a matter of principle than because of any ad hominem argument that might be put forward. I do not see myself as part of any conspiracy to save the Independent. Indeed, until the remark was made I had no idea that that was what the debate was about. I thought that we were debating the Competition Bill, and especially misuse of dominant position and related matters, which is what I am going to talk about.
What the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, said, seemed to bear no resemblance to serious economics—a subject which I have studied and taught for many years. However, this is a matter of serious economics and deserves analysis.
928
I am a passionate believer in competition. I believe that in practice competition is the best, almost the only, way of protecting consumers. Therefore, I do not wish to see the limitation of competition. If I had had the opportunity to participate more in the Bill I would have criticised it more strongly for not doing enough for competition. Therefore, in suggesting a special arrangement I speak as one totally committed to the competitive process as the best way of protecting consumers.
We are talking about predatory pricing and the abuse of dominant position. Therefore, we are not talking about competition as known and advocated by Adam Smith or anyone else in the following 200 years. The type of predatory behaviour we are discussing does not succeed by meeting consumer demand. As a matter of technical economics, that is not its objective. It depends on who survives. In technical terms it is known as a game of survival. A well-established theorem in economics is that the winner of a game of survival is the person with the deepest pockets. It is not the person who best satisfies the consumer; it is the person with the largest war chest. That is why such predatory pricing is perhaps legal when it could be made illegal. It is not anti-competitive behaviour; it is anti-competitive pricing.
I echo a remark made by my noble friend Lord Borne. The issue is not simply about competition between existing participants in the market; potential competition is equally damaged by predatory pricing. Anyone thinking of entering the serious newspaper business would immediately reflect on what they have observed during the past few years; namely, the ruthless predatory pricing coming from one specific source.
Anyone looking at the situation can see what is happening. The only two people who seem unable to see what is happening are the director general and the Minister. The rest of us can look and see what is happening in the industry; that is, predatory pricing to drive out competitors. That is what is happening and one would like to see it stopped.
My next point was made by my noble friend Lord Borne and by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. There are two possibilities. The first is that we do not need predatory pricing and without peradventure the newspaper industry is covered by Clause 18. Secondly, given that we can all see predatory pricing, we can assume that the moment the Bill becomes law the director general, knowing that he has the powers, will immediately intervene and deal with the matter.
The real point before us, made by my noble friend Lord Borne and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is that there is, to put it mildly, doubt as to whether the powers exist and can be employed. My noble friend Lord Haskel, when replying to the issue on the previous occasion, left us, to put it mildly, uneasy. He did not say categorically that without a shadow of doubt the powers exist and can and will be used. He used more moderate, careful language, such as "may", "maybe", "perhaps" and so forth.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, says that he is determined to divide your Lordships' House on the matter. I hope that that decision is premature because

929
I believe that there are other possibilities. I am not in the confidence of the Government and therefore I do not know that the amendment will be rejected. I do not know that my noble friend the Minister will say that he does not like the wording and will come back on Third Reading with wording which will meet our demands. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend the Minister would be foolhardy to reject what he has heard from all sides of the House in favour of the amendment.
I, too, am worried about the phrase "marginal cost" in subsection (2)(c), but that is technical. We might be able to produce a better amendment. However, I shall regard the Government as foolhardy if they reject the amendment and make us divide your Lordships' House. I plead from my position on this side of the House. If my noble friend says that he cannot accept the amendment for one reason or another but that there is still time left to come back with another amendment and, more to the point, that he will meet with noble Lords proposing the amendment and come up with something which does the job, I shall be satisfied. I would be unable to support a simple rejection from my noble friend saying that he wants nothing to do with the amendment and that he is perfectly happy. If he is perfectly happy, I can say only that I am not.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I rise to speak against the amendment. I declare an interest as an independent national director of Times Newspapers Limited. I was fascinated by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that newspapers are different from tins of baked beans: rather like, "New Labour is different from old Labour". Perhaps tonight when we have the vote I shall have a vicarious interest in seeing the relative strength of Blair's babes and old Labour.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, also expressed the view that Mr. Murdoch is waiting—there has been no doubt in the debate as to who the enemy is—to destroy the competition. He mentioned the Telegraph. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of two figures. When the price war began—it is a price war—the circulation of The Times was some 350,000 and the circulation of the Telegraph was just over 1 million. The circulation of The Times is now pushing 800,000 and the circulation of the Telegraph is still over 1 million. I sympathise with the Independent, for which there has been a great deal of pleading. The Independent is a fashion. It was an agreeable fashion, like the Spice Girls, but fashions come and go and sometimes they just wither away.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Borne, who was once a keeper of the conscience of competition, tell us that he was worried about being perverse. I believe that his worry was almost justified. He was not correct—and I am surprised that he should make such a mistake—in saying that the losses of The Times were being subsidised by the television company. They are not. At all times, the price-cutting strategy has been financed from within News International Limited, which is a profitable company.
I particularly enjoyed hearing the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, because I am always reminded that at one time he was one of the most powerful people in the country. He referred
930
nostalgically to the battle of Wapping. I was not sure whether he regretted the outcome of the battle of Wapping. However, I thought it strange that he then told the unions that they were the victims of weak management. Who was the victor of the battle of Wapping and what kind of management was that? Was it weak management?
We are talking about the need for more competition. We are talking about a cash flow which in newspapers comes from both circulation and advertising. I believe that what has been done for The Times has been to the benefit not only of The Times and Mr. Murdoch but the country as a whole. It is interesting to know that the circulation of broadsheets in this country during the period we are discussing increased by 14 per cent. We probably have a larger choice of national newspapers than any other country. I hope that in the vote which we are told is to follow no one will decide to vote for the amendment merely because he or she believes that they do not like Mr. Murdoch, especially if they have never met him.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as a director of The Times—and I assume that there are no more left—will he give the House an assurance that it never occurred to the board of The Times that what was being done would put out of business other newspapers?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I was never present on an occasion when that was discussed and I have been a director of The Times from the time that the new price-cutting strategy was brought into force. What was intended was to increase the circulation and thus the advertising revenue of The Times and enable it to survive.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I rise very briefly because it seems to me that the mood of the House—given the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has indicated that he will wish to test the opinion of the House—is that I should rise now, if nothing else, to enable the Minister to follow me.
For those who have not participated in our discussions on the Competition Bill, I should explain the position from this Front Bench. Throughout we have sought to achieve a set of competition rules which can be applied generally across all sectors. We have not sought to advocate particular rules for particular sectors or utilities. To be credible, I hope that we can remain consistent.
Unlike others, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was sufficiently clear when he said:
"This Bill introduces stronger legislation on abuse of dominance … and also covers predatory pricing".—[Official Report, 13/11/97; col. 313.]
I believe that we should all agree that predatory pricing should be eliminated from our economic life. I say to the Minister that it would seem to be clearly incumbent on him now to satisfy your Lordships that predatory pricing is indeed covered by the provisions of the Bill.

931
There is undoubtedly a very real anxiety that predatory pricing should be eliminated. That is a matter that he must now take on and about which he must satisfy the House.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I rise to my feet both cautiously and with some humility, given the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has his eyes on my trousers. I do not wish to start my remarks with any feeling of levity at all. As an individual I am all for diversity and choice and I wish to state clearly that I share many of the feelings expressed during the debate. I add my regard to that expressed by my noble friend Lord Haskel in Committee for those, led by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who have brought this debate to the level that it has reached this evening. I recognise that.
I respond immediately to the invitation offered to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, as to whether the Bill covers predatory pricing. Clause 18(2)(a) refers to,
"directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions".
That constitutes one of the key elements in judging an abuse. Therefore, we should have no doubts in our minds that that is clearly covered.
When we discussed similar amendments in Committee my noble friend Lord Haskel made the position absolutely clear and that has been repeated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. But he explained something else too which I should wish to repeat now. It would be wrong for the Government to take a view on whether or not the particular actions of an individual company, which have been the subject of complaint, are anti-competitive.
Newspapers have a very crucial role to play within our society. The discussion has been very interesting and has touched on extremely important matters. But our position remains the same as it was when my noble friend Lord Haskel spoke in Committee. I hope that the House will understand why I say that.
At the risk of being simplistic, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, when in government one has always to be very careful in what one says about specific competition complaints. Notwithstanding, as I said, the outstanding quality of many of the contributions that we have had this evening, many have centred on a specific competition case.
More to the point, the purpose of the Bill is to establish, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said, a clear legal framework under which the Director General of Fair Trading, the competition commission and the courts can assess individual cases. It is important that Ministers avoid trespassing on their territory. Therefore, the question of whether a specific practice in the newspaper industry or elsewhere is or is not anti-competitive is not a matter about which I can properly express an opinion. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, feels that
932
his arguments in relation to a particular case are strong, he may take them to the Director General of Fair Trading.
Nevertheless, the amendment and the debate this evening raise issues of principle which I really do wish to address. The two prohibitions introduced by the Bill are general prohibitions intended to apply across the general economy. The basis of that approach is that the economic and competition principles they embody are common across the economy. We believe it is wrong in principle to have different prohibitions in different sectors. If we take predatory pricing as an example, the question of whether pricing is predatory turns on whether, for example, it has the effect of restricting or eliminating competition in the market. That is as true for the newspaper market as any other market.
Of course, subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause specifies that abuses can include other action which may reduce the diversity and independence of the national newspaper press. However, it is not at all clear what is meant by that. Would it cover an editor's decision to drop a particular columnist or a proprietor's decision to change his editor? It strikes me as being very difficult to extend the concept of abuse beyond the established economic principles covered by Clause 18 and Article 86. Prohibition is a very serious matter. There needs to be a clear framework in which business can operate. That seems to me to be absent from the prohibition proposed in the amendment.
For the same reason, we believe that it is wrong to adopt different definitions of dominance for different markets. Why should the test be different for newspapers alone? The economic principles underlying that market are the same as for other markets. Moreover, it is by no means clear how the test proposed in the amendment would be interpreted. How would the Office of Fair Trading and the courts interpret "substantial market power"? Once we move away from the principle of dominance, which is established in EC law, the application of the prohibition becomes more uncertain and that can lead only to confusion, unpredictability and unfairness.
I was asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, to specify other ways in which the definitions within the proposed new clause prove difficult. I understand the desire to set out precise definitions of abuse in primary legislation. However, there are obvious difficulties in doing so and this amendment illustrates some of them.
I listened with interest to the immense amount of good advice from noble Lords who are economists. Many of them illustrated the difficulty in choosing a pricing basis. In purely theoretical terms, there may be a case for choosing the marginal cost of production as a bench-mark for predatory pricing. As has been said, in practice that is not always a workable measure.
Perhaps it would be a better bench-mark if we took average variable cost. I understand that many of the bases of European judgments take that to be a good

933
indicator. It is not a perfect formula. We know that in some circumstances pricing above average variable costs may be predatory; in other cases it may not be. The problem with the belt and braces approach in the amendment, to which noble Lords have spoken, is that that has to fit all sizes to be useful. Here we would have a problem of how to size the belt and the braces. In short, much will depend on the specific economic circumstances of the case in question. The whole basis of the Bill is that it is effects-based, and gets away from the form-based nature of much of our existing legislation.
In conclusion, I should like to comment briefly on the Government's commitment under the Bill; indeed, my noble friend Lord Peston put it very clearly and I totally agree with him. The Government's commitment is to enhance competition. Why? The answer is that that enhances choice and brings the consumer lower prices. Much of the debate tonight has centred on the restriction of choice and whether prices are too low. I have not yet seen the evidence of restriction of choice, although I do understand the arguments about how low prices could go and their particular impact. However, that is something to which I shall return in just a moment.
Your Lordships' House should be in no doubt that the Government take the issue of predatory pricing extremely seriously. That is why I took care to read Clause 18 and to study its particular impact. Predatory pricing is bad for competition and the consumer. This Bill meets the Government's commitment to introduce stronger legislation against abuses of dominance, including predatory pricing. It is also a fact that the director general has confirmed that the required powers are in existence now under the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, to enable an investigation of the pricing practices of a company which supplies 25 per cent. of a given market if a case for a reference were to be established.
Clearly there is always scope for debate about the precise limits of powers. Looking at the competition regime overall, there is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, wishing to cover explicitly every conceivable anti-competitive action and. on the other hand, avoiding undue burden and uncertainty for business by following Article 86 closely.
However, having said that, I believe that we would be going off course if we started down the path of prohibiting conduct where there is no dominance or of having a different prohibition for one particular sector. There is no case for using the Bill to target an individual sector of the market, or one particular company; it is a broad framework of competition for all companies in all markets. Despite the seriousness of the debate, I hope that the noble Lord understands the issues that are at play and that he will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally: My Lords, if noble Lords did not know what the Minister was saying so eloquently, he was saying: "Get lost". The clause proposes a particular
934
protection of the newspaper industry. For that very reason, the legislation of which the Minister is so proud could just as easily elicit the same response from the director general as Mr. Robin Cook received three-and-a-half years ago. I remind the House of that response:
"At times there a fine line between aggressive price competition and predatory pricing".
What I am asking the House to do this evening is to draw that line on predatory pricing.
Perhaps I may finish with one quote for the Benches opposite. It comes from Mr. Peter Kellner's article in the London Evening Standard, in which he said:
"Competitive markets do not happen by chance. They are social constructions that need to be carefully designed and stoutly defended. A defeat tonight for the Government might prove a blessing in the longer term".
Mr. Kellner is no enemy of Labour, neither am I. Let us all do the Government a favour by passing the amendment tonight. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121: Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Fookes. B.

Addington, L.

Freyberg, L.

Ampthill, L.

Geddes, L.

Annaly, L.

Geraint, L.

Annan, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Greenway, L.

Avebury, L.

Grey, E.

Barnett, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Berkeley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hattersley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Boardman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Borrie, L.

Hooson, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Howell, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacobs, L.

Calverley, L.

Judd, L.

Carlisle, E.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lawrence, L.

Chandos, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Chesham, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Clancarty, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cox, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ludford, B.

Crook, L.

McConnell, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNair, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

McNally, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Maddock, B.

Desai, L.

Mancroft, L.

Elton. L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Methuen, L.

Exmouth, V.

Molyneauxof Killed, L.

Ezra, L.

Munster, E.

Falkland, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Fitt, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

935

Newall, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Newby, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Nicholson of Winterboume, B.

Stokton, E. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Taverne, L.

Norton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Teviot, L.

Ogmore. L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Perry of Walton. L.

Thurso, V.

Pesten, L.

Tope, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Trenchard, V.

Puttnam, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Redesdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Rochester, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Waverley, V.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Wigoder, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Sandberg, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Sefton of Crarston. L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Wise, L.

Sempill, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

jeger, B.

Amos, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bassani of Brighton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Baca L. Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe. L.

Lyell, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Caithness, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Camegy of Lour. B.

Marlesford, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis. L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Harteliffe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Diamond. L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Orme, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Paul, L.

Dubs. L.

Pitkeathley of Shulbrede, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede. L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gallacher. L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gladwyn. L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gordon of Strathhlane, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hanworth. V.

Sewel, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel. L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hoyle, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Varley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Islwyn, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whitty, L. {Teller.]

Williams of Mostyn,L,

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.7.54 p.m.
7.54 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so I suggest that the Report stage should not be resumed before 9 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Video Recordings Act 1984
7.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to move, That this House take note of the proposal to appoint Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith as a designated authority under Section 4(4) of the Video Recordings Act 1984, in accordance with the proposal laid before the House on 18th December 1997.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall explain the terms of the Motion. Under the 1984 Act the letter of appointment must lie on the Table of this House for 40 days. That period expires in a few days' time. It provides a rare opportunity for the House to consider how present arrangements in this field have been working. I should make it clear at the outset that I have no objection to the appointment of Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith and I wish him well. There is no time limit on this debate. We have been fortunate in being allotted the dinner break rather than the middle of the night. I hope that other speakers will tailor the length of their speeches accordingly so that we do not appear to misuse the time made available.
I shall concentrate on one matter, the computer game, Grand Theft Auto, as it is setting an alarming precedent. I first raised this in May last year in an oral Question when there had been reports that the game might be imported. In reply the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, pointed out that because of its nature it would have to be submitted to the British Board of Film Classification, known in earlier days as the British Board of Film Censors. Towards the end of the year I heard that an 18 certificate had been awarded and I tabled further Questions. In sympathetic and courteous replies the noble Lord, Lord Williams, seemed to share my concern, drawing attention to the maximum penalties for supplying this game to someone under the age of 18—six months in prison or a £5,000 fine.
My worry is that the game presents the crime of stealing cars, and the associated offences, as normal pastimes adding an element of glamour too. This is especially unfortunate in Britain at this time. As your Lordships will know, there is too much car crime in this country and we have had the worst record in western Europe in recent years. The millions of car owners and their families are divided into two categories. The first is the large section who have had their cars stolen or broken into; the second consists of the remainder who are apprehensive about when their cars are to be stolen or attacked. The owners of vehicles in Britain may not yet recognise what a damaging disservice this game is inflicting upon them, although I understand that the motoring organisations do.
How is the game played? A detailed description appeared in the January issue of the magazine Playstation; the cover of which advertised the game with the slogan in capitals, "CRIME DOES PAY". To start playing you have to steal at least one vehicle, mugging the driver if necessary. You then embark on criminal missions including blowing up buildings—that is especially unfortunate in view of IRA atrocities of that kind—ferrying drugs, killing pedestrians and driving recklessly to escape from police chases.
The magazine asks prominently, "What would you like to steal today?" Regrettably there has already been a culture among some young people of stealing cars, or from cars, and of joy-riding often ending in death or injury as well as damage to property—and of course without licences or insurance. Several criminal offences are committed within that kind of "prank"; and appearing to glorify those activities is a damaging blow to law and order. The game is staged in three cities. One of them is named "San Andreas", and I hope that the Home Secretary and Mr. Whittam Smith have noted that infelicitous appellation.
The Government are limited in what they can do. The Classification Board does not operate under statutory authority for films; and final decisions as regards films are taken by local licensing authorities. For videos, however—and computer games are included in that category—the 1984 Act has given the board statutory functions. The board is designated by the Home Secretary as the authority to classify them.
The board is entirely independent of the Government and was originally established in co-operation with the film industry. Financially it does not receive subventions from the Government or the film industry, meeting its costs from fees for its classification work.
In the past the board's main concerns have been with sex and violence. That was to be expected in vetting films and videos for viewing. The public would be spectators, perhaps voyeurs. Computer games are different. Members of the public who play them become participants. They operate the controls and in this game are invited to carry out the criminal offences. They are not simply viewers of a video that shows a film.
I have already mentioned some of the crimes included in this game. Some involve violence; some do not. I do not think that there is any sex! However, a car can be stolen, and driven at high speed without licence or insurance, and with no violence other than minor damage to the lock, unless of course the escapade ends in a crash or accident. With such participant games, more emphasis now needs to be placed on criminal actions unconnected with sex or violence.
Classification is not working as intended. Very few adults will have been playing Grand Theft Auto. Very few adults know how to operate the consoles in which the game is staged. It is not feasible to arrest or charge parents for lack of responsibility inside their homes.
The Classification Board, in its latest report, recorded that a survey by the Policy Studies Institute confirmed the easy accessibility of 18 certificate videos to children; and that less rigour was exercised in video shops than
938
in cinemas, and little rigour, if any, in homes. The hoard also reported that video games had become much more violent.
The board took exception to one video game before Grand Theft Auto had appeared on the scene, and I commend its action. It was called Car-mageddon, and to score points a player had to run over pedestrians. The board characterised it as "killing for kicks". However, that game, somewhat amended, was then released without a board certificate of any kind but with a voluntary industry "rating" of 15. The appeals procedure, although independent, seems unsatisfactory because it is one-sided. Only the manufacturers or agents can appeal, not the public or organisations objecting to a product or its classification.
Proving the report's point on availability to teenagers, the Sunday Times on 4th January reported that one of its reporters accompanied a 15 year-old and an 11 year-old visiting several shops where the 15 year-old was sold all the 18 certificate games he asked for, including Grand Theft Auto, and the 11 year-old was refused in only two shops. That was despite the penalties for supplying them to under-18s.
The promoters of Grand Theft Auto have expressed opinions: that the game is simply a bit of fun, a lark and a laugh. I believe that that view is misplaced in the context that I am describing. I do not suggest that every teenager who plays will be adversely affected. However, if only a fraction, perhaps one-tenth, are influenced, this will be undoing the work in which some of us, in Parliament and outside, have been engaged to reduce car crime. In that connection, the British section of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, chaired by my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux, has made a significant contribution.
In future, when citizens find that their cars have been stolen and driven around, with damage done, or injury, they can attribute some of the blame to this computer game; likewise when their motor insurance premiums are increased.
I recognise that the Government are not empowered to do much because of the statutory situation and the financial independence of the board in what is a self-regulating system. The Government want to be tough not only on crime but also on the causes of crime. For that, anticipation and prevention are necessary. I have noted the recently announced Home Office scheme for young offenders before they leave prison. It is even more important to protect young people in the first place before they drift into becoming offenders. They should certainly not be led into thinking that stealing is an acceptable pastime, together with the other criminal offences.
Of course cars are stolen or broken into by adult criminals as well as by young people. It is a cause of dismay to me when young people are tempted and slide into car crime. I have had personal experiences. On one occasion in Scotland when my car was stolen overnight from a public car park, the police retrieved it, damaged, some days later, from a gang of 15 and 16 year-olds. On another occasion in London, close to these Houses of Parliament, the side glass was smashed, in daytime,

939
and my overnight bag stolen. Passers-by saw the two culprits, boys of about 15, and chased them. The two got away, distributing the contents of my bag on the pavement as they ran, while trying to find something of value. The Westminster police later told me that there was an increase in such incidents at that time of year as it was the half-term break for schools—a very sad reflection, I suggest, upon our times. In both cases my vehicles were small, two-door cars especially adapted for me as a disabled driver, as I have been partially disabled since World War II. I should point out that disabled people are acutely deprived without a serviceable car when they are dependent upon wheels to take the place of their legs. Youths who start committing car crimes like that can slide later into housebreaking and burglary.
Before concluding, I should like to make a particular suggestion. Because computer games are very different from films, and from videos that involve viewing and not taking part, they should be in a separate category of their own. I suspect that provision was not made fully for games in the 1984 Act because such games were then in their infancy. I accept that such a change may take time and realise that primary legislation may be needed. I hope that the opportunity will be taken the next time a suitable Bill is being prepared. In the meantime, I trust that Mr. Whittam Smith, the new chairman of the board, will respond to the changing situation. I wish him all success. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the proposal to appoint Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith as a designated authority under Section 4(4) of the Video Recordings Act 1984, in accordance with the proposal laid before the House on 18th December 1997.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
8.10 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I entirely
concur with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Home Office Minister who will reply to the debate, knows that we had correspondence last year on the subject of computer games involving the type of cases that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has drawn to the attention of the House. There will be an opportunity during debate on the Crime and Disorder Bill, as I shall outline in a few moments, to address the sorts of points that the noble Lord so properly raised.
At the outset let me make three points. First, when Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith was appointed as president of the British Board of Film Classification I publicly welcomed his appointment, and I do so again this evening. He is a likeable, decent man, and will bring commitment and thoughtfulness to his work.
But the laying of this letter of designation under the terms of Section 5 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 gives the House a rare chance to reflect on the workings of the British Board of Film Classification and to comment on the circumstances on which Mr. Whittam Smith will endeavour to undertake his new duties.
940
Thirdly, although there is precedent for the will of the House to be tested, it is not my wish to divide your Lordships' House. Amendment No. 270 to Clause 87 of the Crime and Disorder Bill, tabled by myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will provide the opportunity to test opinion, should that prove necessary. In the best traditions of the film industry, tonight's brief debate acts more as a trailer for what is coming shortly.
Our debate also has something of the air of unfinished business about it. Five years ago, in the aftermath of the death in Liverpool of a two year-old boy, James Bulger, the trial judge commented on the possible effect of video violence on the two boys who had murdered him. Before James's death I had taken cross-party initiatives in another place, seeking both tighter curbs on the video industry and greater protection for children. After a battle with the then Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard, but with a broad base of support—ranging from Mr. Ken Livingstone, Miss Clare Short, and Mr. Gerald Kaufman on one side, to 12 former Conservative Ministers on the other—oamendments were duly incorporated into the 1994 criminal justice Act. I recognise that in the present Home Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw, we have a Secretary of State who is alive to these issues and who is keen to get to the root of violence in contemporary society. I therefore have no doubt that Ministers in the Home Office will take these matters very seriously.
Five years ago, one of my chief concerns was the lack of public accountability of the British Board of Film Classification. That is the matter to which we return tonight, because it was left largely in abeyance. The then Home Secretary said that members of the public aggrieved by a decision of the BBFC could simply seek judicial review in the courts.
When, in 1996, the board allowed "Natural Born Killers" to be released on video for home viewing, a gutsy young woman, Yvonne Hutchinson, of Bradford, did indeed try to challenge the board. For a single mother without the infinite resources of the industry, it proved an impossibility. The recourse to law is not worth the paper it is written on. The industry knows that, and would prefer to keep it that way.
Section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 charges the Secretary of State with the responsibility for ensuring that adequate arrangements are made for appeal against classification decisions. The procedure for appeals is laid out in a previous letter of designation. However, the 1984 Act requires only that provision be made for appeals by those submitting video works for classification. That makes the appeals system extremely one-sided and biased in favour of film, video and computer game producers. For example, although the BBFC recently refused to grant a certificate to the gratuitously violent computer game, "Carmageddon"— which, as we have heard, involves a driver playing a computer game which lets the driver run down, yes, defenceless pedestrians, the blind, and animals—the manufacturers were able to appeal and overturn the decision, despite the protests of groups such as the Automobile Association, which had no way of formally voicing their concerns. Other groups, such as the NSPCC, fall into the same category. On that occasion,

941
even James Ferman, the director of the BBFC, attacked the U-turn, saying that the game featured "gross violence".
It is my understanding that the mechanism for appeals could be expanded in the letter of resignation to allow others to appeal against the BBFC's classification decisions. That could also be done through primary legislation and with cross-party support. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I have tabled the amendment to which I referred. It would require the Home Secretary to give others a right of appeal against the BBFC's decisions, in addition to the right that the film and computer games industries already enjoy. That would not give everyone carte blanche to appeal against any decision that the BBFC makes. Appeals could be made only on the grounds that the video work might incite viewers to antisocial behaviour, crime or disorder. The conditions under which an appeal would be made would also be set out by the Home Secretary in the letter of designation.
At the moment the only way in which an ordinary member of the public can appeal against a classification decision is through a judicial review, which is extremely costly and expensive for all those concerned, in terms of both time and money. Unless we change these things, Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith will continue to head up a board where monied interests can talk but children's interests are stifled. How can that be fair or right?
This is not a trivial matter. Let us consider the violent society in which we live and the violent culture in which our children are being reared. Violence in Britain and in America—where it is considerably worse—has become gratuitous and random. It is ingrained into the very fabric of society. Violent films such as "Natural Born Killers" and "True Lies" are typical box office hits. In "True Lies", Arnold Schwarzenegger throws a meat-hook into a man's stomach; hurls a pointed instrument at his torturer which sticks in the man's eye; breaks a man's neck with his bare hands; and a driver is shot through the head and blood spatters everywhere. Gruesome, violent death, mutilation and serial killing all become an art form which can be turned on or off at the flick of a switch. Is that really what we want our young people to see?
The entertainment industry seems to be in the throes of a passionate love affair with violence, embracing it at every opportunity. We are becoming emotionally deadened by the horrors that we witness and have come to accept violence as normal.
Let us consider the effect on women. According to a study for the Broadcasting Standards Council, women's fear of male violence can be reinforced, and even increased, by watching videos and television programmes that depict violence against women.
And let us consider the effects on children. The Professional Association of Teachers spoke to 1,000 teachers in different parts of the country when my amendment to curb video violence was before Parliament four years ago. The response of teachers does not support in the least the view that children are cynical sophisticates, able to reject those aspects of the adult world for which they are not ready. One teacher said by way of reply:
942
"I am very disturbed by the totally unsuitable films and TV programmes which are available to young children. They often talk of nothing else and revel in tales of blood, cutting off of limbs, disembowelling etc. This is the norm so that children who do not have access to this material often feel they arc missing out".
Increasing numbers of parents are using videos and video games as their electronic baby-sitter, allowing children to play with the games or to see violent videos so that they will not themselves be disturbed. Many parents simply do not seem to understand the harm which inappropriate entertainment can do.
More than 90 per cent. of the PAT respondents believed that children's emotional, social and moral development is being damaged, sometimes irrevocably, by what they see. Three-quarters of teachers also believe that there is a link between over-exposure to computer games and factors such as tiredness and inattention, heightened levels of aggression and a tendency to act out fantasies.
Commenting on the link between behaviour and viewing, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, wrote a letter to me which included a speech in which he rightly asked:
"what proof are we looking for? Does the railway company wait for someone to be killed by a train before fencing off the railway line?".
Just before last Christmas, 27,000 people sent a petition to Parliament calling for tighter controls. The common sense of parents—which well understands that children imitate what they see—is often the best yardstick. I say to your Lordships' House, as I conclude, that the advertising industry would not have spent, as they did, £4,000 million last year on advertising their wares on television if they did not believe that what people see has an effect on those who view it. Clearly it has an enormous effect.
In challenging the letter of designation. we can take some useful steps by enhancing parental rights and strengthening the position of the public, by putting it at least on the same footing as the industry. In so doing, we will be enabling Mr. Whittam Smith to do his job more effectively. When the amendments to achieve that are considered by your Lordships' House, I hope that they will be given a fair wind.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on two matters. I declare an interest in that I am president of the Video Standards Council. I am not a consultant or a lobbyist. During 35 years in Parliament I have been neither and I do not intend starting now. It is because I was concerned about violence that I went to the council and I suppose that as a former Home Secretary it was thought I might be of some use to it in the work that it does. The industry sets out in an admirable way to ensure that it carries out the classification terms of the various pieces of legislation, culminating in the 1994 legislation. As a whole, the industry tries extremely hard.
I heard tonight of the problems. Occasionally, I go down to the shops and it is difficult for the assistants in video shops to tell whether a girl is 12, 17 or 18. No Act of Parliament will put that right; there are innate problems with that.

943
The other problem is one with which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, dealt: the issue of video games. They are in a quite different category. If one is asking for video games to be brought under the same aegis as videos, that is a different matter. We met the video games people who run a voluntary scheme. They come under the BBFC if parts of the game are a video in the normal sense of the term. It is a complicated business.
The aim of the industry is to maintain standards. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that there would be another occasion for discussion and this is not the time for it. I wish to suggest only one thing tonight: a better way of dealing with the issue. There is the matter of the Bulger case. God knows! it was a bad enough tale, but I do not believe that the judge made a direct connection between the Bulger murder and the boys seeing a certain video tape.
The problem of violence is real and we have touched on the difficulty with stolen cars and having one's family robbed in the street. I do not say that that is caused immediately by the children and young people having watched or played video games, or having watched a video tape. They are complicated matters and it is too easy to make a simple connection between the two.
I wish to make one suggestion. Over the weekend I have been reading the report of the British Board of Film Classification. It was late arriving. It is an annual report which makes interesting reading. It concerns the investigations that have taken place: the work undertaken; and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is here tonight, and he was serving as acting president. He makes one point that:
"it is worth remembering that 1996-97, like any other year, produced a vast majority of films and videos which were uncomplicated and unproblematic. The Board sees roughly four thousand films, videos and video games every year. Most of them are aimed at a minority audience. Put all the many minority audiences together and you have contemporary British society."
What we see in contemporary British society we may not like. Sometimes I am glad that my children are well into adulthood and beyond; but I have grandchildren. What one sees on the BBC and ITV is under less control at certain times of the day than the video industry. There are means of dealing with those issues.
I received a note from Mr. Whittam Smith which states:
"I have asked that the 1997 annual report should be made available in April or May this year-6 to 7 months earlier than the 1996 report! If the appropriate select committees of the two houses of Parliament wished to examine the President and Vice-Presidents on the annual report. I would welcome the opportunity."
That is a much better way than having a short debate like this. No doubt it pleases us to have the chance to say something or to make a couple of amendments to another piece of legislation. A much better way is for the subject to go before a Select Committee which will bring people forward so that we can have a real discussion on the issues. That would be far more useful than amendments which will be defeated eventually by the use of the Whips. It is better to have a Select Committee investigate the matter.
944
There is a real problem; the solution is not as easy as many people suggest. The connections are not as simple as is made out. With the violent society in which we live, videos, films and the like are part of that society, not the cause of it—though in certain instances they might well be. I suggest to the Government—because only they can decide—that the subject is put before a Select Committee of this House. That Select Committee should question people and bring experts in and question them as well. That is a better way of doing it than a short debate of this nature.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am and have been for some 12 or 13 years one of the vice-presidents of the BBFC, so I am very much concerned in this matter. I listened carefully to what the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Alton, had to say about video games. In particular, it is interesting that "Carmageddon" should have been mentioned. As noble Lords know, by and large, video games are exempt from classification by the BBFC unless they contain matters which mean they ought to be classified, such as scenes of violence.
That is exactly what happened in the case of "Carmageddon". We considered it and declined to give it a certificate in its present form. The matter then went to the appeals committee which, by, I think I am right in saying, a majority of three to two, overturned our decision. It does not behove me to complain about the appeals procedure or a higher court than mine. But that was not entirely helpful. The reason the decision was overturned was that the manufacturer of the game, like most manufacturers in these cases, maintained that the whole thing was a joke and it was not intended to be taken seriously, it was purely for fun. Of course, one can take that line even with something as potentially brutal as "Carmageddon". It was that line that triumphed in the end and it was not helpful to the case.
Nor is it helpful that young children are often able to watch videos which are classified for those over age 18. It is not so much that they can get them in the shops. In the last criminal justice legislation we brought a great deal of pressure to bear to ensure that the legislation was as tough as it could be on supplying over-18 videos to under-age youngsters. It is always easier in the cinema because a person may or may not be admitted.
The real danger is not so much in the video shops as in the home. As the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees said, in many cases there is no control whatever. Children of all ages can run games or videos for over 18s of all kinds because there is not enough parental control to stop them. I do not know how one copes with that problem, except by education.
Education is also to some extent the secret as to how children can come to terms with what they see on the screen. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, from his research in schools and among teachers, that many children do not seem to be capable of coping with what they see on the screen. I believe that one of the reasons is that they are not properly educated in the media, what the media mean, how the media work, how videos work,

945
how films work and the nature of the animal—how videos are put together. There is a provision that all schools shall teach these things. It is part of the national curriculum. It is obligatory that media studies should be taught in schools. Last year, when we went into the matter, we were appalled to find that of all the Ofsted reports we could gather. not one commented on the subject in the schools at all, either for good or ill. Was it being done well? Was it being done at all? There was no mention of that by the Ofsted teams. We complained about that, and I hope that somehow the position can be improved. It seems to me that educating children in the media is one step, albeit a small one, towards protecting them from the more dire effects of the increase in violence.
I share with all speakers so far a distaste for an increasingly violent industry. Not by any means all of it, but certainly some parts of Hollywood have an increasing taste for violence and I regret that. The BBFC can control the violence in its wilder excesses, but it cannot control the media and the nature of film making in Hollywood, much as it would like to do so.
Reference has been made twice this evening to the Bulger case. I should remind noble Lords that in this Chamber the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in answering a debate on this subject, pointed out clearly that there is no police evidence that the video concerned was seen by the children involved. The judge made a reference to a video; it was not backed by any fact. So far as I know, there has never been a criminal prosecution for violence in this country where a video has been a major factor. Certainly it was not in the Bulger case. We asked particularly that police evidence on the subject should be repeated in this House and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did so.
The film "Natural Born Killers" has become a much feared and in some cases a much disliked film—it is not a film that I liked. However, when considering whether or not to certificate it, there was an enormous amount of rumour that in the United States copycat killings based upon the movie were rife. Around 13 cases were quoted. The director of the BBFC took the trouble to talk to the police chiefs involved in those cases to discover whether or not there was anything in the rumour. In no case was there any evidence to suggest that. All the police chiefs in charge of those cases said that there was no connection between the film "Natural Born Killers", as a video or as a movie, and the crimes concerned. We took the greatest trouble over that because everybody is frightened of copycat killings; indeed, everybody is frightened of the effect that videos and films may have on people.
It is right that films and videos must have some effect upon their audience, otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, why would anybody put them on the screens and why would advertisers pay all that money to advertise their products if it did not have any effect? The trouble is, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said, whatever the connection, it is not a simple one. Many people would love there to be a simple connection—violent videos, violent society; put
946
an equals sign between them and that sorts out the matter. Unfortunately, it is infinitely more complicated than that.
A piece of research came out recently, sponsored by the Home Office, suggested by ourselves and carried out by the University of Birmingham. It takes a group of violent offenders, a group of non-violent offenders and a group of perfectly innocent students who have not been in any trouble at all and examines the difference in their reactions to violent videos and movies. The interesting conclusion of that research is that it is not so much the effect of the video; it is the effect of the family background on violent offenders which triggers further violence. They may thereafter, indeed do by a large proportion according to this research, have much more liking for violent videos than the others, but it does not seem in any case to be the trigger. It is merely a concomitant of an already violent background. It is the family background that has infinitely more effect than any video in the world.
The whole question of appeal raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is interesting. I shall consider and look at his proposals carefully; I have not seen them before. It is true that it is the industry which is allowed to appeal and it always appeals when we are either too strict or, in some cases, decide not to give a certificate at all. It is always the maker of the film who complains—and sometimes wins. On present scoring, the results are around 50-50 between those whose appeals have been successful and our decision of classification overturned and where our decision has been upheld. I like to think that, with an appeals committee, it is not too bad if one wins about half the time. If one wins all the time, it looks too autocratic and if one loses all the time, one is obviously getting it wrong. A record such as ours is nothing to be ashamed of.
I was extremely alarmed by the terms of the Motion tonight. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Alton, say that he approved of Andreas Whittam Smith. I met him and he seems to be an amazingly good choice; he is an extremely civilised man. I add my wishes to those noble Lords who have spoken for his continuing success and good fortune in the BBFC.
8.36 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for thinking up such an ingenious device to get us here this evening and providing the momentum for what has been, unexpectedly so, a fascinating debate. I expected to disagree with some people quite violently. I have learnt a great deal and agreed with much of what each speaker said.
The debate is running somewhat wider than I expected. I too am glad that Mr. Whittam Smith is not the target of any criticism. He seems to have been widely received. I have not had the pleasure of knowing him personally, but I understand from Mr. Ferman and now confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that he is a highly suitable candidate to replace the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, in that position.

947
The question of video games, as has been said, is a complicated one. When we discussed these matters in 1984 the video game was in its infancy, if it had even been conceived. I do not remember it forming part of our discussions at all at that time. The games are extremely worrying where violence is concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, explained, the British Board of Film Classification only comes into play when an element of the game falls within its remit.
The whole matter of influence on children is important. I have a child under the age of 10 and am much concerned. I have older children who have been through the whole process of being bullied by me into going out into the garden rather than watching television, and into being made to read, some with more success than others. With my six year-old I am more concerned at the moment about comic strips than anything else. I notice with him—it was the same with me as I recall—that he is more disturbed by real events. Perhaps that is an indication—I hope so—of his good adjustment in life. I too was more disturbed by real events than fictional events depicted in a violent manner.
I recall that when I was young I saw several films which disturbed me a great deal. But nothing disturbed me as much as seeing a real fight in the street at the age of six or drunks in the street attacking each other. Perhaps the distinction between reality and fiction has been blurred. There is certainly more violence available in fiction today to all of us, let alone to young children, than was available when I was young and probably more than there was 10 or 15 years ago.
I return to the subject of the British Board of Film Classification which interests and concerns me. I have had several discussions with Mr. Ferman over the years because I have an interest in these matters. I have found him at all times to he a stimulating, interesting, responsible and helpful person to deal with. However, I have not always agreed with him. I went to see him in relation to the classification of a film which I felt should not have been given a "15" classification and he kindly asked me to lunch to discuss the matter. My concern was not that it was violent for adults but that it was violent for 15 year-olds and certainly for those under that age. I shall not mention the name of the film because I doubt whether any of your Lordships saw it but it involved a good deal of violence in prison by prison warders on offenders, homosexual attacks and the like.
I found great difficulty with his answer but he said it with the utmost sincerity. I think it has a great deal to do with the misunderstandings that can occur between a body like the British Board of Film Classification and interested parties, whether government or private individuals. He said, "I agree with you that it was violent and we may have been on the border line. But the one thing which turned us to give that classification was that at the end there was redemption." If an enormous amount of disturbing violence has occurred it takes a rather adult perception to be able to say at the end of it, "My goodness, that was sickening but certain people redeemed themselves at the end of the picture."
948
I thought it a complicated intellectual argument. He may have been right; he may have been wrong. But it seems to me that we have moved on from there and the fuss which has arisen is interesting.
As I understand it—the noble Lord. Lord Birkett, will no doubt rise to his feet to correct me if I am wrong—in recent times, since the change of government, Mr. Ferman has seen fit to introduce a new classification for videos, an R18. I understand that two videos—I hasten to say that I have not seen them and I would not want to see them—were allowed into the country but were restricted. They were only to be sold in sex shops, which are carefully governed by statute, and would not be sold in the normal way. The videos were of course inspected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and found to be against its "laundry list", its criteria as to whether videos are legal. They were adjudged to be illegal. However, they came in—"Bat Babe" and "Ladies Behaving Badly", not original, noble Lords may think, and I do not think the content was particularly original.
I had a talk with Mr. Ferman about the content of the videos. I did not wish to be invited to lunch to see them but he told me that there was a difficulty. He has done the job for more than 20 years. The body is accountable to Parliament under the Video Recordings Act 1984. The chairman is appointed by the Home Secretary but Mr. Ferman has been there for 22 years. He is a great expert in his job and he has seen great changes over the years in what is and is not acceptable.
With regard to the two films, I would probably have come to the same conclusion as the customs officers, being, as I am, in late middle age. What Mr. Ferman described to me as being in the films would have rung alarm bells with me. For example, he described them as being soft porn films but going towards the line between soft porn and hard porn. In one of the films there was some penetration. There was also the male erection, which is now deemed to be not so shocking as not to be seen by people provided there is a context of consent and what takes place is non violent and legal. I took his point absolutely. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said, these are complicated matters. We have changing times. We have the perception that activities of a sexual nature are not now so alarming as they were some years ago. We have to decide on objective standards of what is acceptable in our society by way of decency and so on. We need a great deal more time than we have this evening to discuss very complicated issues.
I have been talking about the sexual area. I am not even discussing violence. As far as I am concerned, violence is out. I do not mind about sex. I would not want my six year-old boy to see "Bat Babe" and "Ladies Behaving Badly" but I would not want any of my children of whatever age to see violence; and I agree that one sometimes sees violence on ITV and BBC. These are complicated issues.
However, what worries me—I hope the noble Lord who is to answer the debate will be able to give guidance on this point—is the way in which the Home Secretary intervened. He felt that he had been let down

949
by the two vice presidents of the British Board of Film Classification in not objecting to this new classification of videos, even though the videos were to be shown in restricted circumstances, and that he expected them to be the eyes and ears of the Government. I find it worrying that he should have expected that.
The great advantage of the British Board of Film Classification is that it involves intelligent people bringing objective views to difficult matters. They have done that successfully over the years. Their responsibility to Parliament is very little. They have to produce a report annually, but I do not think we have seen a report since 1996, which is curious. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has a copy with him. Apart from that, they are fairly unaccountable. I agree that they need to be made more accountable. But accountable to whom? I do not want them to be accountable to the Home Secretary. I do not want them to be accountable to politicians of any kind. I want them to be more accountable to Parliament so that we can have the debates which the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, has said are necessary. However, I do not want to see the Home Secretary, as it were, reducing the arm's length approach—we use this a good deal nowadays in lottery and other matters--which government have had previously with the British Board of Film Classification.
I have spoken for far too long but there is another matter on which I would appreciate a response from the noble Lord who is to reply. If government become more involved in these matters and we get what is effectively more censorship, although it may not be termed censorship. how will we stand with regard to our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights? Article 10 of the convention provides for redress against the restriction by any state authority of the freedom to express ideas and to provide information. That includes ideas which shock, disturb and offend. That is another element in a very complicated area that will need to be dealt with, not necessarily in debates in your Lordships' House but including debates in your Lordships' House.
I do not envy the Government. I understand what they want to do. I understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, wants to do, although he and I would probably not agree on the lengths to which we should go to protect children against all the materials which he described to the House tonight.
We have these obligations. Other countries seem to order their affairs in a different way so far as concerns sex. In France it seems that all systems are go and no one seems to complain. Pornography is regularly available. It is available on Canal-Plus at night. One night when I was at a film festival in France and could not sleep I turned on my television in the early hours of the morning. I turned it off within seven seconds. What I saw in seven seconds gave me the kind of nightmares that my small child now has as a result of whatever happened at school that day. Other countries too—Holland is an example—have adjusted themselves to a measure of freedom in this area. They have obviously concluded that the effect on children and the population as a whole does not require serious attention. We do not
950
share that view in this country. I certainly do not share that view as regards violence. It is a very serious question. I am very thankful that we have had the opportunity of discussing it. I look forward very much to the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill which comes to us in the middle of this month. Again, we shall not have enough time to develop a lot of very complicated issues which arise in this area.
My party is very concerned about striking the right balance. I believe that all parties are keen to do that, but they have different approaches. I hope that we can reach some consensus in your Lordships' House and that that will lead to some consensus in the country with the introduction of a proper approach to the whole business of violence and sex on television and video.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I rise not to tell him that he is wrong, as he invited me to do, because he is not, in the matter of the R18. I simply say that we believed at the BBFC that we were in step with the authorities—that is to say, Customs and the police. It turned out that we were not. It is plainly absurd that we should be out of step and the situation has been, as they say, "regulated" since then.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am very aware of the passage of time and the shortness of the hour. I hope not to detain the House for too long. Despite the wording of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I am assuming that the two Motions together simply seek to provide an opportunity for considering how well the present classification arrangements are working.
Even this short debate has revealed a variety of opinions concerning the effectiveness of the controls currently in place and about the effects of some videos, colloquially known as "video nasties" as well as video games, on the character and behaviour of those, especially young people, exposed to them. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in powerful speeches have voiced concerns which are surely shared beyond this House. The gist of their arguments seems to be that certain videos do harm both to vulnerable individuals and to society by gratifying violence and by causing some people to commit illegal acts. The implication of their arguments is that there has been an increase in anti-social and illegal behaviour as a result of exposure to these filmic experiences.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy makes a powerful point in emphasising the special character of participant games like Grand Theft Auto. Those noble Lords point to weaknesses in the present regulatory system and want it strengthened. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeks to amend the Crime and Disorder Bill later this week to allow rights of appeal against the classification of video works, although I am still not quite sure to whom he would extend that right of appeal. To extend it to any citizen in the land would create something which was quite unworkable.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I would not extend

951
the right to every citizen in the land, but to designated organisations to whom the Home Secretary would be able to designate by letter in precisely the way that is being done this evening.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. However, the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees, Lord Birkett and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, have been sceptical about any simple link between viewing behaviour and actual behaviour. The noble Viscount mentioned the dangers of censorship inherent in any tightening of the regulations.
Perhaps I may now develop one or two points of my own. It should be noted that the present regulatory system, which includes classification, banning and cutting, already implicitly accepts that screen violence may have an important effect on viewers, even if it cannot be quantified, because otherwise one would not have a classification system. The controls are naturally more rigorous for videos because of the much greater difficulty of controlling access.
Before proceeding to stronger regulation we have to be persuaded that there is a definite link between watching certain kinds of video film and certain types of criminal behaviour. We also have to be persuaded that even if such a link were established it would be desirable or possible to go beyond the present regime in denying households access to this material.
As regards the first point—I am not an expert in this area because I only repeat what I have read and I am sure that other noble Lords have read a great deal more than I have—it seems to me that the majority view of researchers is that the link between specific filmic material and behaviour is both unproved and unprovable. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has already said about this. I merely point to the well-known difficulty of separating the effects of an element such as violence, sexual depravity or stealing, from the context in which it appears and, just as importantly, the context in which it is viewed.
I wonder whether noble Lords believe that playing with toy soldiers in the past—I do not believe that children do so as frequently today—led to an increase in militaristic attitudes and to a greater desire to kill foreigners or whether playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians increased the level of violence in society. The noble Viscount has pointed to the decline in playground violence over the years and I can confirm that. Schools are much more peaceful places today than when I was at school. The general culture of society has become steadily less violent although that does not mean that we have not had an increase in certain types of violent crime.
I do not want to be complacent. The fact that one cannot prove an assertion does not mean that it is not true. In such cases one has to fall back on common sense and one's best judgment. I cannot believe that an unrelieved diet of video nasties or the kinds of games mentioned by some noble Lords, is good for either
952
individual character or society. Here the finger of suspicion points to households and their cultural setting which allow this diet to take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, referred to the report of Dr. Kevin Browne of Birmingham University which was commissioned by the Home Office. The one reasonably secure correlation brought out by that report is between criminal behaviour and domestic violence, family dysfunction and low intellectual ability. It is in such families that there is likely to be the least control over the viewing habits of young people and where screen violence is likely to have the greatest impact on behaviour since it is consistent with, rather than opposed to, the reigning cultural norms of those households.
But that is no argument for changing a regulatory system which works satisfactorily for the great majority. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, in placing emphasis on education but, having said that, I am somewhat sceptical about how much good it would do in families particularly at risk.
My Lords, in this matter we have to balance the right of people in a free society to watch what they want with the scale of the social problem which such freedom may create. The British Board of Film Classification already operates the toughest censorship regime in Europe. It already removes more material from video films than many people find desirable. Apart from desirability, I am not sure that it is possible to toughen the regulations without creating a black market. The attempt to plug all the channels through which undesirable electronic material enters households seems to be a hopeless undertaking.
I very much welcome the suggestion that we should discuss these problems further in a Select Committee but, for the time being, I am not persuaded that we do not have about the right balance between freedom and regulation. Certainly, I have not heard anything tonight that convinces me that we ought to disturb that balance.
9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for raising this matter this evening and in particular for the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has rightly been concerned with various problems relating to video games. Time is passing and other noble Lords wish to resume their duties, so perhaps I may be brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, observed a moment ago, the problem of classification is that of drawing a balance between the right of the individual to receive material even when that material may be offensive to others, and the necessity to protect vulnerable people in our society.
That is the rationale behind the classification system. Both the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, spoke about classification and the deficiencies of what happens in the home. I suggest that that is not an attack on the classification system because whatever the classification system one establishes, however rigorous or liberal, ultimately I cannot envisage any control by law which would make parents not allow their children to watch

953
inappropriate material. Added to that, one should not overlook the fact to which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred, that there are many programmes on the television late at night containing material such as we are considering. Happily, I am ignorant of it because I always go to sleep early—often in the middle of television programmes which seem to have a hypnotic and narcoleptic effect on me, quite unlike your Lordships' House, of course! A good deal more truly offensive material is shown on the television—it can be recorded, and frequently is—than is available on classified videos.
I should like to express my gratitude to all noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, for the generous and gracious tributes that have been expressed about the quality of Andreas Whittam Smith. It is gratifying to the Home Office that the selection made by the Home Secretary, after proper consultation and a degree of "Nolan-ing", is so well regarded.
The noble Lord. Lord Alton, will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not consider now the amendments that he intends to move on another occasion to the Crime and Disorder Bill. I believe that then would be the proper occasion for such a debate.
One or two questions have been asked about the lack of efficient and effective controls on sales in video shops. That is certainly a mischief, but the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and Miss Lavinia Carey, the director of the British Videogram Association, and I recently spent a day together in the rain going round video shops—not the most enticing of opportunities, but quite informative because well-run video shops insist on proof of age. They train their staff properly and have such controls as make it virtually impossible for inappropriate sales to be made. They are perfectly well aware of the criminal sanctions and, perhaps more fundamentally, of the damage to their reputation that could follow. If there is evidence of criminal practice, it should be reported to trading standards officers who have the powers to prosecute in such cases.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked me two questions. The first was whether the Home Secretary had expected the president and vice-president of the BBFC to be his eyes and ears. My right honourable friend did not suggest that. He said, reasonably, that he expected that if the board was intending to alter the R-18 classification—that is, restricted material only to be sold by licensed sex shops—he would expect to be consulted. There was a lack of consultation between the board, the police and Customs. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, generously said that there was a glitch in communications. He rightly said that measures had been taken to ensure that the board is involved more thoroughly in discussions with the police, the prosecuting authorities and Customs and Excise.
As the noble Viscount said, times have changed. Some centuries ago, the material available to his noble ancestor would have been books, and books alone, in his library at Great Tew when he rightly said,
"On rainy days. I pity unlearned men".
Most young people and children now do not derive their images, thoughts and entertainment from books. That is unfortunate, but we have to deal with it. The truth is that
954
society generally, in terms of what is available, is more violent and more sexually open. We have to deal with that. I believe that most of your Lordships have concluded that the balance is not too far wrong.
The noble Viscount also asked whether classification was consistent with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I had hoped that after Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill last Thursday, I would not have to recite Article 10 ever again in my lifetime, but Article 10 is subject to the proviso—I paraphrase roughly from memory—that there can be restrictions on the freedom of expression where that is necessary in a democratic society. We believe that classification to protect the vulnerable is reasonably necessary in a democratic society, so that the Article 10 right to freedom of expression is not supreme.
The two noble Lords in whose names the Motions stand on the Order Paper have owned up and confessed this to be a device rather than a particular objective to ensure that Andreas Whittam Smith would not be the designated authority. It is useful to have such discussions on these occasions. The truth is that no human mind is capable of striking a perfect balance. The balance has to be adjusted periodically. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided that it was time that Mr. Whittam Smith should be appointed, that he had the necessary qualities of openness, decency, scruple and conscience to carry out these difficult obligations, and he therefore endorsed his appointment as president of the board. Currently there are two vice-presidents to be designated. One hopes that that can be done quite soon.
Even in the brief time since Andreas Whittam Smith took up his work in January of this year he has been willing to be open-minded and decisive. The noble Viscount is wrong to say that we have not seen a report since 1996. I believe that the document which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, flourished was the most recent report to be laid but not until 27th January of this year. I agree with the noble Viscount that that is very late because it should be laid as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of a current year. It is very significantly out of date. That is a matter which Mr. Whittam Smith has already accepted. The Home Secretary believes it is very important that the annual report should be available to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon after the relevant chronological period.
I hope that I have covered all the concerns expressed by your Lordships. There will be another occasion to debate the question of appeals. All I say about appeals—I break my own self-denying ordinance—is that not everyone will take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, if appeals are open to all, because significant lobbies believe that the appeals system is far too restrictive and on appeal will therefore urge that cuts should be restored and that classification should be more liberally attended to. Therefore, I am not sure that the noble Lord would be happy if in all circumstances every conceivable interest were represented on appeals. However, that may be a dispute

955
for another day. I am most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for giving us this opportunity.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all speakers who have taken part in the debate. I should like to make clear that for my part I was concerned with a single computer game. My argument was not concerned solely with violence. Car crimes can be carried out without any violence. However, they are exasperating to much of the population. The game to which I referred has been released for only two months or less, so there has been no time in which to try to relate it to any increase in those crimes.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who has been a member of the Classification Board, confirmed my point that the promoters of these computer games took the attitude that they were just a joke. Where does it stop? Does it extend to burglary or mugging old ladies? Almost any offensive crime could be treated simply as a joke.
I am most grateful particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has replied extremely carefully and fully to the questions that I have raised on this subject over several months. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for their contribution to the debate this evening. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his reply.

Competition Bill [H.L.]
9.10 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed. Clause 19 [Excluded cases]:
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 27:
Page 10, line 40, leave out from beginning to second ("or") and insert ("providing for one or more additional exclusions;").
Page I I, line I. leave out ("case") and insert ("provision"). Page I I. line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may at any time by order amend paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 with respect to the Chapter prohibition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause
EXEMPTED CONDUCT
(" . The Chapter II prohibition does not apply to any conduct arising from the performance of an agreement which is exempted from the Chapter I prohibition in accordance with section 4.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when noble Lords considered the amendment in my name on the subject of vertical agreements I indicated that I was grateful to the Minister for providing me with a copy of the expert report on how the European Court and the Commission approached such matters. I do not depart from my gratitude to the Minister for that. However, after the dinner hour I am in a slightly more suspicious frame of mind. The suspicion underlying Amendment No. 28 is that if and when the Government bring forward a proposal that allows for exemptions or exclusions from the Chapter I prohibition on vertical agreements they may be a little relaxed about them because they will reassure themselves that in any event any matter of which they disapprove will be caught under a Chapter II prohibition.
With the insertion of a new clause, the amendment seeks to provide that the Chapter II prohibition does not apply to any conduct arising from the performance of an agreement which is exempted from the Chapter I prohibition in accordance with Clause 4.
I appreciate that in some respects the amendment is premature in as much as we have not seen what are the exclusions. I should like reassurance from the Minister that where such an exemption is allowed for, there will not be, as it were, a back door through which the conduct can be looked at in terms of a Chapter II prohibition. I do not believe that the argument needs any elaboration. If the Minister can give some reassurance that would be helpful. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, we debated the issue of the relationship between the two prohibitions during the first Committee day in response to an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. As I said then, the two prohibitions introduced by the Bill will operate hand in hand. Essentially they will have the same relationship to each other as do Articles 85 and 86 of the treaty. That relationship is well established and works satisfactorily in practice.
On the basis of EC jurisprudence, the director cannot grant an agreement an exemption under the Chapter I prohibition if in doing so he would be exempting something that appears to be prohibited under the Chapter II prohibition. There should be no specific provision in the Bill providing protection from the Chapter II prohibition for agreements which have obtained an individual exemption. Parties who have obtained an individual exemption will have the benefit of knowing that the director has had to take account of the Chapter II prohibition in assessing their agreement.
Of course an exemption cannot provide a blank cheque for any type of anti-competitive behaviour in the future. The relevant market might change materially in an unforeseen way, for example, and the agreement might become seriously harmful. Action against the agreement might then become possible either by withdrawing the exemption or under the Chapter II prohibition, but only of course if the relevant conditions and safeguards were met. It would be wrong to place

957
any legal bar on the fact of the Bill preventing action in such circumstances. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I would not go so far as to say that it would be wrong to have such a legal bar, but as I said in my opening remarks, it would be curious to try to establish the relationship until we know what will be the scheme for exclusion or exemption. So I shall withdraw the amendment.
I hoope that the Minister will take the amendment as a shot across his bows. As he seeks to work out what would be the best arrangements for exemptions or exclusions for vertical agreements, I hope that he will understand that we shall be looking to see that there is as clear as possible an arrangement between the Chapter. I and Chapter II prohibitions. He offered some reassurance when he said that if an exemption were to be granted on an individual basis, whoever has the responsibility for granting it would have been required to look to see if there were any problem with a Chapter II prohibition. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Exclusions: Mergers and Concentrations]:
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 39. line 26, after ("1973),"), insert ("or
(b) is directly related and necessary to the attainment of the result mentioned in paragraph (a),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that ancillary agreements to mergers should be excluded from the Chapter II prohibition as well as the Chapter I prohibition. I was grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter.
As I indicated at the time, we would not normally expect the entering into of restrictions ancillary to a merger to fall foul of the Chapter II prohibition. But I do not believe we can rule that out, and it is therefore right to provide an exclusion. Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 have that effect. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, is this a moment when I must thank the Minister for his kind concession? I am obliged to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 39, line 34, after ("conduct") insert ("(either on its own or when taken together with other conduct)").
Page 39, line 35, at end insert ("or
(b) it is directly related and necessary to the implementation of the transfer.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 39, line 40, at end insert—

("(IA) If the Director is considering whether to give a direction under this paragraph, he may by notice in writing require any party to the agreement in question to give him such information in connection with the agreement as he may require.

(1B) The Director may give a direction under this paragraph only as provided in sub-paragraph (IC) or (2).

(1C) If before the end of such period as may be specified in rules under section 49 a person fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement imposed under sub-paragraph (IA), the Director may give a direction under this paragraph.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 71, 160, 162, 163, 187, 188, 189, 190 and 220. The first two amendments explain the exclusion and clawback which we have put in place. They will be relevant, for instance, to issues under Clauses 21 and 22 which we discussed earlier.
Amendments Nos. 160, 162, 163, 187, 188, 189, 190 and 220 define information which is required by the director in making assessments of the provisions under Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 for the definition of clawback.
There is an artificial and unnecessary rigidity. It would be better if it were generally enabled to make a notification before any exclusion were lost. Amendment No. 71 provides a power for regulations to be made which would enable provision for that effect. They are all technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 39, line 41, leave out ("give a direction only") and insert ("also give a direction under this paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Exclusions: Other Competition Scrutiny]:
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 41, line 13, at end insert ("to the extent to which the agreement relates to the regulating provisions of the body concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 34, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 to 45 and Amendment No. 48. They are technical amendments to include the Financial Services Act within the scope of the Bill. They also cover a related provision for the European Economic Area in addition to the European Union. They provide a geographic extension. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendments Nos. 35 to 45:
Page 41, line 14, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A)").
Page 41, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert ("to the extent to which the agreement relates to the regulating provisions of the body concerned.

959

(2A) The exclusion provided by subsection (2) applies only if

(a) the body has applied for a recognition order in accordance with the provisions of this Act; and

(b) the application has not been determined.

(2B) The Chapter 1 prohibition does not apply to a decision made by—

(a)a recognised self-regulating organisation,

(b)a recognised investment exchange, or

(c)a recognised clearing house,

to the extent to which the decision relates to any of that body's regulating provisions or specified practices.

(2C) The Chapter 1 prohibition does not apply to the specified practices of

(a) a recognised self-regulating organisation. a recognised investment exchange or a recognised clearing house; or

(b) a person who is subject to?

(i) the rules of one of those bodies; or

(ii) the statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice made by a designated agency in the exercise of functions transferred to it by a delegation order.").

Page 41. line 34. after ("provisions") insert ("or specified practices").
Page 41, line 45, leave out ("(3) and (4)") and insert ("and (2B) to (4)").
Page 42, leave out lines 2 to 11 and insert

("(a) in relation to a self-regulating organisation, any rules made, or guidance issued, by the organisation;

(b) in relation to an investment exchange, any rules made or guidance issued by the exchange;

(c) in relation to a clearing house, any rules made. or guidance issued, by the clearing house:

"specified practices" means

(a) in the case of a recognised self-regulating organisation, the practices mentioned in section 119(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) (read with section 119(5) and (6)(a)):

(b) in the case of a recognised investment exchange, the practices mentioned in section 1 19(2)(b)(ii) and (iii) (read with section 119(5) and (6)(b));

(c) in the case of a recognised clearing house, the practices mentioned in section 119(2)(c)(ii) and (iii) (read with section 119(5) and (6)(b));

(d) in the case of a person who is subject to the statements of principle, rules, regulations or codes of practice issued or made by a designated agency in the exercise of functions transferred to it by a delegation order, the practices mentioned in section 121(2)(c) above (read with section 121(4);").

Page 42, leave out lines 15 to 21.
Page 42, line 28, after ("body") insert ("to the extent to which it relates to the rules or guidance of that body relating to the carrying on of investment business by persons certified by it ("investment business rules")").
Page 42. line 29, leave out ("between undertakings").
Page 42, line 35, leave out from ("by") to end of line 37 and insert ("that body's investment business rules").
Page 42, line 39, leave out ("the agreement") and insert ("an agreement to which this section applies").
Page 43, line 36, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Competition Act 1998").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 46, line 48, at end insert
("COPYRIGHT
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to any agreements, decisions or practices relating to the licensing of copyright works where one or more of the parties is under the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal pursuant to section 149 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act I988.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 46, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 70. They were grouped with Amendment No. 4, which I did not move. I hope that I shall not confuse the House unduly by removing Amendment No. 46 from its place in the list.
I am briefed by British Music Rights, an organisation whose members consist of the Music Publishers' Association, the Alliance of Composer Organisations, the Performing Right Society and the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society. I declare an interest in that I am a partner in a firm of solicitors which has a substantial practice in the entertainment industry.
The amendments are supported by the British Phonographic Industry. They are relevant to those who create and deal in copyright material. Although my briefing has come from the music industry, I am asked to say that the Publishers Association—that is the book publishers—wholeheartedly support the amendments concerned with copyright licensing.
Those who have briefed me fully understand and support the objectives of the Bill. However, they are concerned with the effect on their industry. They are concerned that the effect could be to stifle the industry with heavy-handed regulation, which I am well aware is quite the opposite of what the Minister is seeking to achieve. I have seen in the Official Report his use of the term "administrative overload" on a number of occasions.
I hardly need remind your Lordships of the success of the UK's music industry. Its creative success is being celebrated this evening at the Brit Awards by those who are probably in the middle of dinner and applauding the winners of those awards. Its creative success is translated into economic success and the music industry is a very substantial net earner of foreign exchange.
The economic and creative root of the music business is the right to control a copyright work. Some of the amendments in this group deal with the use of collecting societies. Those societies are a matter of convenience for more than one part of the sector. Collecting societies are helpful to individual creators and publishers. The administration, licensing and collection involved would be a mammoth task for individuals. The infrastructure which is provided by collecting societies is designed to support the very substantial number of medium and in particular small enterprises which flourish within the business.
I had not known, until I was briefed for this evening, that the great majority of the members of the Music Publishers' Association have businesses of less than

961
£500,000. Collecting societies are convenient for users as well as for the licensees. They help them to find the source of a licence and give them certainty about the terms; for example, the BBC seeking licences for short clips of music for a programme. The ease of doing that means cost savings in the system and those savings are passed on to members.
Finally, blanket licensing creates a bargaining position. The merits of collective licensing were considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which reported in 1988 on the operation of Phonographic Performance Limited and other collecting societies. The report of the MMC stated:
"the continued existence of the bodies … has been endorsed in many different environments because the convenience they offer to both the owner and the user of copyright is unlikely to he matched by any other means. Decisions of the European Court of Justice and the EC Commission make clear that the existence of collective licensing bodies is compatible with Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome, although the manner in which the bodies' functions are performed must comply with the Article's terms".
Of course, that is understood.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 61 seek to disapply the Chapters I and II prohibitions where the Copyright Tribunal has jurisdiction. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, the Copyright Tribunal deals with disputes between copyright owners and those who wish to use copyright works and can make orders varying the terms of licence, settling certain royalties granting certain licences and so on.
The tribunal will continue and to that extent, this country is in a different position from that of our European partners. I understand that the tribunal is unique to the United Kingdom; or, to put the matter another way, those who are concerned with copyrights will, because of the continued operation of the Copyright Tribunal as well as the regime of this Act, will be subject to a double jeopardy. In such circumstances there is concern that the Bill, and in particular Clause 58, is insufficient to protect those who work in the industry. The Minister may say that the tribunal is not concerned with competition and that it is dealing with a parallel activity. However, because of the matters which can be referred to it, I would say that the effect is that it is concerned with competition.
Amendment No. 62 deals with recommendations by trade associations. I should say at once that I understand the dilemmas of referring to particular organisations within amendments. I would not seek to press the amendment, which deals in particular with the position of the Music Publishers' Association, although it is intended to be more extensive. That association has for years negotiated agreements with, among others, the Association of British Orchestras, which looks after professional musicians, the National Federation of Music Societies, which represents amateurs, and the BBC. It makes recommendations about the terms of agreements; but only recommendations. There is no obligation on members to accept those recommendations. However, in practice, for reasons of convenience to which I have alluded, most do take note of them.
Your Lordships will understand that, by its nature, music does not come in standard packages and it is helpful to have a body which works closely with representatives of users to find ways of making systems for hiring sheet music simpler and introducing certainty into the tariffs and pricing structure. The benefits to the amateur as well as the professional sector are also reflected in the benefits to the consumer—in this case the audience, the listener. Exempting recommendations by trade associations would, I believe, mean further streamlining administration and would, therefore, be in the public interest.
Amendment No. 70 refers to individual licensing. It seeks to bring individual licensing within the block exemptions. Perhaps I should say here that I hope the Minister can give us some words of assurance about block exemptions in this area. I well understand the Government's reluctance to attempt to write a UK-specific version of Article 85. I am not trying to challenge that approach tonight. Nevertheless, I hope that I shall receive some words of comfort this evening.
The creator of a work is the copyright owner and he has an absolute right to control the product of his creation. However, individuals find it very difficult to license and control their work, and especially to monitor its use. I am sure that a moment's thought will enable your Lordships to understand how hard it would be for an individual to ensure that he is paid for the use of a piece of music when it is not possible for him to listen, for example, to every radio station for 24 hours a day. Through my practice, I have had much experience of clients whose creativity goes hand in hand with a certain innocence about business matters.
Therefore, individuals and publishers will license collecting societies which manage copyright works. These are de facto monopolies, but they operate in the interests both of the owners and the users of the works. The amendment has been put forward because the industry is seeking certainty. For example, will all copyright agreements be notifiable? The cost and contractual uncertainty involved is another concern of the industry. The industry is also concerned because it understands that the European Commission at present processes to conclusion less than 60 arrangements a year and it has heard that the Office of Fair Trading does not anticipate being able to do better in that respect. There will be real resource problems if every contract needs notification. I suggest that the provisions would be a direct threat to the current cost structures. I believe that the exclusion regarding individual licensing of copyright works would be compatible with the Government's policy in respect of vertical agreements.
I appreciate that I have taken up a good deal of your Lordships' time, but this still feels like a rather swift canter through some of the areas of copyright which give rise to concern. I believe that this matter is viewed with concern by some in government. As I say, I hope that I may tempt the Minister to give some words of assurance tonight. I appreciate that he must have an appallingly crowded schedule given the number of areas covered by the Bill, but I hope that he can arrange a meeting with those in the music industry to discuss their

963
concerns. I am sure that would be extremely welcome as they wish to get this matter resolved satisfactorily. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not wish to add anything of substance to what has already been said by the noble Baroness. However, her suggestion as regards a meeting is a constructive one. I am certainly aware of the concerns that have been expressed and which she has so articulately spelt out. If those concerns could be met, I have no doubt that would be of considerable interest to the industry.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I wonder whether I detected in the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that she might rather have been at the Brits award having an enjoyable evening than singing this song tonight. I appreciate the clear way in which the points were expressed. I do not intend to answer all of them tonight, but I certainly take seriously the invitation to meet and discuss some of the finer detail. I shall make one or two points. First, I should make it clear that copyright agreements are already subject to Articles 85 and 86 of the treaty. We need to bear this carefully in mind. Agreements made void by Article 85 cannot be made valid by an exclusion from a domestic provision.
Copyright, like other forms of property, can be abused. The European Court has sought to strike a proper balance in this area. I see no reason to depart from the principles established, and Clause 58 of the Bill will ensure that UK law follows the same path. Accordingly there is no reason to believe that the Bill would interfere with such agreements unless they are found to be appreciably anti-competitive and cannot satisfy the exemption criteria in the Bill.
I can assure noble Lords that the wording of Article 85 has been given a wide interpretation by the European Court of Justice, as the study prepared by Professor Whish—to which I referred earlier—demonstrates. This wide interpretation will be imported into the domestic system by virtue of the governing principles clause in the Bill, Clause 58. I see no reason why justified copyright agreements, even if they were restrictive in some respects, could not satisfy the exemption criteria in Clause 9 as they stand.
The noble Baroness has argued that the existence of the Copyright Tribunal in the UK provides a reason for our not following the position at European level. Amendments Nos. 46 and 61 would have the effect of excluding those matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal from the scope of both the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions. The role of the Copyright Tribunal is, however, different from that of enforcing competition law. Its role is to resolve disputes between copyright owners acting collectively and those who wish to use copyright works. In doing so, it is not required to apply a competition test, and therefore it would be wrong to see the Copyright Tribunal as a competition scrutiny regime. Moreover, I understand that the tribunal adjudicates on aspects of an agreement
964
or potential agreement as it affects the two parties to the agreement and not on any wider anti-competitive effects.
Amendment No. 62 achieves an effect which extends far beyond the sphere of music rights. It would exclude from the prohibition recommendations made by trade associations to their members so long as those reflect the terms of an agreement negotiated between the trade association and a third party; and it would apply across the economy. My view is that the effect of such an exclusion would be to open a loophole which would allow lawyers to frame anti-competitive agreements in a manner which would fall within the scope of the exclusion. This would significantly undermine the prohibitions.
I remain unconvinced that it would be desirable if the Bill were to afford any special treatment to the field of copyright or music rights, notwithstanding, as the noble Baroness says, the great importance of the industry in its competitive position for our UK performers and writers. It would certainly be wrong to exclude certain recommendations of trade associations as proposed by Amendment No. 62.
I refer to Amendment No. 70 and the question of exemption. Clause 9 of the Bill makes provisions to ensure that those agreements which have sufficient countervailing benefits will be eligible for an exemption. Amendment No. 70 would alter the exemption criteria in the Bill to add a specific reference to the facilitation of copyright works.
Criteria in the clause are already framed in a broad manner to allow for an exemption on the basis that an agreement improves production or distribution or that it promotes technical or economic progress. It is the fact that they do not mention any specific sector of the economy that is the strength of the criteria. Regardless of the sector, where agreements satisfy the criteria they will be able to benefit from an exemption.
Having given that rather brief response, I wish to underline again that I think there are technical matters within this wide-ranging issue of copyright relative to the Competition Bill that it would be wise for us to discuss. I hope that with that in mind at this stage the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, these are issues which may be more conveniently dealt with at this stage of the Bill within the forum of a meeting. I shall not seek to respond to the Minister's answer save to say that the entertainment in your Lordships' House today has outshone anything that anyone could hope to be enjoying this evening at the Brit Awards. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [General Exclusions]:
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 47, line 14, at end insert
("Section 21(2) agreements
1 A.—(1) The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to an agreement in respect of which a direction under section 21(2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 2 ("a section 21(2) agreement").
(2) If a material variation is made to a section 21(2) agreement, sub-paragraph (I) ceases to apply to the agreement on the coming into force of the variation.
(3) Sub-paragraph (I) does not apply to a particular section 21(2) agreement if the Director gives a direction under this paragraph to that effect.
(4) If the Director is considering whether to give a direction under this paragraph, he may by notice in writing require any party to the agreement in question to give him such information in connection with the agreement as he may require.
(5) The Director may give a direction under this paragraph only as provided in sub-paragraph (6) or (7).
(6) If before the end of such period as may be specified in rules under section 49 a person fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement imposed under sub-paragraph (4), the Director may give a direction under this paragraph.
(7) The Director may also give a direction under this paragraph if he considers

(a) that the agreement will, if not excluded, infringe the Chapter I prohibition: and

(b) that he is not likely to grant it an unconditional individual exemption.

(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) an individual exemption is unconditional if no conditions or obligations are imposed in respect of it under section 4(3)(a).
(9) A direction under this paragraph

(a) must be in writing;

(b) may be made so as to have effect from a date specified in the direction (which may not he earlier than the date on which it is given).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 217.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Currie suggested that agreements which had received a direction under Section 21(2) of the RTPA should be given a permanent exclusion from the Chapter I prohibition, rather than the five-year transitional exclusion at present provided for in the Bill. I was grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter.
Many of the respondents to the August consultation document had emphasised the effort and cost that would be required to review such agreements, even after a five-year transitional period. This was the largest element of the non-recurring compliance costs in the compliance cost assessment on the Bill. I was therefore pleased to be able to say that we would bring forward an amendment at Report stage.
This amendment fulfils that commitment and provides an exclusion for agreements in respect of which at commencement a direction under Section 21(2) RTPA is in force. It includes the power for the director to claw back the exclusion in certain circumstances, as I said in Committee it would. It includes a power for the director to require parties to an agreement to provide information, of the kind that this House considered
966
earlier in relation to the mergers exclusion. And it provides that an agreement should continue to enjoy the benefit of this exclusion as long as there has been no material variation to it.
As a consequence of the exclusion Amendment No. 217 removes the existing provision for a five-year transitional period. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 47, line 14, at end insert?
("EEA Regulated Markets
1B.—(1) The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to an agreement for the constitution of an EEA regulated market to the extent to which the agreement relates to any of the rules made, or guidance issued, by that market.
(2) The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to a decision made by an EEA regulated market, to the extent to which the decision relates to any of the market's regulating provisions.
(3) The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to

(a) any practices of an EEA regulated market; or

(b) any practices which are trading practices in relation to an EEA regulated market.

(4) The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to an agreement the parties to which are or include

(a) an EEA regulated market, or

(b) a person who is subject to the rules of that market,

to the extent to which the agreement consists of provisions the inclusion of which is required or contemplated by the regulating provisions of that market.
(5) In this paragraph?
"EEA regulated market" is a market which

(a) is listed by an EEA State other than the United Kingdom pursuant to article 16 of Council Directive No. 93/22/EEC of 10th May 1993 on investment services in the securities field; and

(b) operates without any requirement that a person dealing on the market should have a physical presence in the EEA State from which any trading facilities are provided or on any trading floor that the market may have;

"EEA State" means a State which is a contracting party to the EEA Agreement;
"regulating provisions", in relation to an EEA regulated market, means

(a) rules made, or guidance issued. by that market,

(b) practices of that market, or

(c) practices which, in relation to that market, are trading practices;

"trading practices", in relation to an EEA regulated market, means practices of persons who are subject to the rules made by that market, and which

(a) relate to business in respect of which those persons are subject to the rules of that market,

(b) are required or contemplated by those rules or by guidance issued by that market, or

(c) are otherwise attributable to the conduct of that market as such.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 47, line 20, at end insert—
("(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that an undertaking provides services of the kind referred to in this paragraph he may, on the application of an officer of that undertaking, certify that in relation to that service a particular task is one to which this paragraph applies.
(3) A certificate issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) that a particular task is one to which this paragraph applies shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. All these amendments relate to paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Bill dealing with "general exclusions". The paragraph reflects exactly the words of Article 90 of the Treaty of Rome, referring to the concept of "services of general economic interest."
Amendment No. 49 seeks to add the Secretary of State to the list of those who can grant exemption from the prohibitions under Schedule 3, paragraph 2. Under the Bill as drafted, the only two who can grant those exemptions from the prohibitions are either the Director General of Fair Trading or one or other of the relevant sectoral regulators. The amendment seeks to add to that list the Secretary of State so that the Secretary of State has power to certify that a service is one of general economic interest to which the exclusion applies and would make such a decision (or certificate) conclusive evidence in any subsequent proceedings. It simply widens the category of persons who can invoke the paragraph.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 ought to be read in the alternative. Amendment No. 50 simply refers to the Director General of Telecommunications. Amendment No. 51 widens that category to all regulators in all the relevant regulated areas. What both amendments seek to do, either specifically in relation to the Director General of Telecommunications or generally in relation to all regulators, is to say that, in determining whether or not a particular service is one of general economic interest, and therefore caught by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, the Director General of Telecommunications or all the sectoral directors are entitled to have regard to obligations imposed on them under their respective Acts—in other words, the obligations contained in the remits under their respective Acts. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the "services of general economic interest" exclusion has been drafted to follow the terms of Article 90 so that EU jurisprudence can apply in this area. Whether services fall within this exclusion should be determined by the director, tribunal or court according to EU jurisprudence under the governing principles of Clause 58 in the same way that they determine other matters according to the principles of Clause 58.
Amendment No. 49 would make the question as to whether services fall within the ambit of this exclusion determinable by the Secretary of State. In our view, whether services fall within the exclusion should not be determined by the Secretary of State. The Bill confers powers to make competition decisions on the director, tribunal and courts, and that is the appropriate place. In
968
any event a determination of whether a task was one to which paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 applies would leave the question of how far the prohibitions necessarily obstruct performance of that task still to be decided.
It is worth noting that the Secretary of State does have a discretionary fall-back power of exclusion. the "public policy" exclusion power in paragraph 5 of Schedule 3.
But it is one thing to have a fall-back power to provide an exclusion in cases where there are exceptional and compelling reasons of public policy and quite another for the Secretary of State to get involved every time an undertaking wishes to claim that it should benefit from a general exclusion designed to attract the EU position. The Government would not wish the Secretary of State to have that role.
There may be licence requirements, for example, on common tariffs between urban and rural areas which might be considered to fall within the terms of this exclusion. But if they are strict requirements of the licence, they would in any event fall within the legal requirements exclusion.
The exclusion in paragraph 2 to Schedule 3 sets out a general principle to be interpreted when the need arises. If a company wishes to clarify that agreements or conduct do not infringe the prohibitions by virtue of paragraph 2, they can make a notification to the director for guidance or a decision.
As I have said, whether the exclusion applies is to be determined according to EU jurisprudence. I imagine that this House will turn to the question of regulators' statutory duties on the second day of the Report stage. But I see no reason why the position regarding duties should be different for decisions involving this exclusion, as Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 would provide. The test is whether undertakings are entrusted with services of general economic interest, not whether they should be so entrusted. In making decisions under the prohibitions, if the question arose, the director's and the regulators' role would be to determine whether (drawing on European jurisprudence) the undertaking was so entrusted. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to withdraw his amendments at this stage.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
A noble Lord: Order!
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed at the Minister's reply, although not entirely surprised. As he rightly said, these amendments anticipate a later debate on Schedule 10 and he will not be surprised to hear that in essence the points will re-emerge, the Minister might say under the guise of other amendments, but I shall say quite properly under other amendments. We can re-open the matter on the second day of Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 47, line 28, at end insert
("O In respect of conduct by a regulated utility, the fact that conduct is in compliance with its licence and the statute under which its licence was granted or treated as granted shall be evidence that it does not constitute a breach of the Chapter q prohibition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 52 are grouped Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland and Amendment No. 54 which is in my name.
This an important amendment. It is the successor to an amendment tabled at Committee stage which would have ensured that there would be a rebuttable presumption that behaviour that complied with the licence did not infringe the provisions of the Act. The new amendment is an attempt to do that by a simpler and more explicit means.
As the Bill is drafted, the regulators will exercise prohibition powers for their own industry concurrent with the powers of the Office of Fair Trading. In each of the regulated industries there are already detailed rules set out in the licences that each company must abide by. These licences cover price controls, customer protection and how a company may respond to competition. In the case of gas, the licences had parliamentary scrutiny as recently as 1995.
Despite the comments made by the Minister in Committee, there is little mention of the licences in the Bill, so behaviour that complies with the licence could then be questioned by the regulator as anti-competitive. Alternatively a licence agreed by one regulator could then be challenged by another. The amendment tries to get round the problem by stipulating that behaviour which complies with the licence should count as evidence that the Act is not being infringed.
A strong theme throughout Second Reading and in Committee was the concern about the way in which utility regulators exercise their powers under the Bill. That was recognised in Committee when the Minister agreed to,
"reflect strongly on the question of whether rebuttal is an appropriate concept as to the way that the guidance process may be undertaken".—[Official Report, 13/11/97; col. 335.]
The amendment simply states that the behaviour of a utility that complies with an existing licence provision should be counted as evidence that an abuse of a dominant position has not occurred. It is a simpler and more explicit version of the rebuttable presumption amendment previously put forward.
Currently there is little mention in the Bill of how the new provision should interrelate with existing licence conditions. Amendment No. 52 would provide some degree of consistency between the licensees and the new legislation by saying that if behaviour was permitted by licence, that would be counted as evidence that the behaviour was not infringing the Act. After all, the licence conditions are important. They cover areas such as customer protection, price control and how a company responds to the introduction of competition. It is essential that the utilities should be able to operate within the licence conditions which reflect the individual nature of the markets in which they are
970
active. They must not have the uncertainty of finding themselves in breach of a potentially conflicting set of rules. It would therefore be wrong for the regulators not to consider licences in exercising their new powers.
I should add that the licence conditions under which the utilities currently operate are designed in themselves to prevent abuse of market power; for example, condition 13 of the gas licence includes strict conditions to prevent anti-competitive behaviour by the dominant power. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am not sure how a court would interpret "compliance" in Amendment No. 52 as it stands and if it were to become part of the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am sorry, I was slow in rising to promote Amendment No. 53 in my name, which is grouped with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I can be brief. Amendment No. 53 in essence refers to the same issue.
The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that action taken by holders of licences under the Electricity Act 1989, which they are required by their licences to take, would not infringe either the Chapter I or the Chapter II prohibitions. It is a specific example of the more general proposition so eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, where a licence permits something to be done or gives freedom to do something, can the behaviour be said to be in compliance with the licence? Indeed, can anything that is not inconsistent with the terms of the licence be said to be in compliance? That would clearly be unacceptable.
It is the Government's policy that the prohibition should apply in the regulated utility areas. That is to ensure that anti-competitive conduct can be dealt with. It was never the assumption that licence conditions could deal with all the competition concerns which can arise. That is why the regulated sectors are subject to the existing general competition law as well as to their own regimes of specific regulation. In these circumstances some interaction and overlap is inevitable.
I therefore understand the concerns about the interaction between licence conditions and the prohibitions that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raises, and indeed raised in slightly different terms in Committee, when I undertook to reflect carefully on whether rebuttal was an appropriate concept. The clear-cut case is where a company is specifically required to do something by a licence condition. It is clearly right that if a company is required to do something by law it should not be caught by the prohibitions for complying with that requirement. That is why we have provided, in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, for an exclusion for compliance with legal requirements. In the utility sectors, such requirements imposed by licence conditions are imposed by or under the relevant enactment and hence are "legal requirements".

971
In this context, I should like to refer to Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. This amendment seeks to provide for a specific exclusion for agreements or conduct which are required under conditions in licences imposed by or under the Electricity Act 1989. However, as I have just indicated, the exclusion in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 already applies to requirements imposed by such licence conditions. It is therefore not necessary to make further provision in this respect. This would not only be unnecessary duplication; it might cast doubt on whether requirements under other licensing regimes were excluded.
Returning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I agree it is tempting to think that there should also be some special provision for conduct that is in compliance with a licence regime. But we have to consider what the term "in compliance with" means in this context. It could be interpreted as ranging from something that was specifically approved, through areas where limits were set but companies are free to decide on their own conduct within those limits, to something that was simply not covered by a licence condition and therefore not forbidden. Within this range there is clearly scope for anti-competitive behaviour that is not in breach of an explicit licence condition. Where it occurs, I would want the prohibition to be applied as vigorously and as effectively as elsewhere in the economy.
The argument that conduct that is permitted by a licence condition should in some way be protected from challenge under the Chapter II prohibition comes most strongly into focus on price caps. I realise that a number of companies are concerned about a risk of challenge. But I do not believe that there is the realistic prospect of a successful challenge to the overall level of a price cap. The Director General of Gas Supply, for example, has told me, in the context of the processes and considerations involved in the setting of a price control, that she cannot envisage that there would be grounds for overall pricing at levels permitted by a price control to be challenged as a breach of the Chapter II prohibition. Nevertheless, if a company were still concerned about the risk of challenge, it would be open to it to make a notification to the regulator and obtain guidance.
While I do not believe that pricing up to the overall level of a cap would be open to challenge, pricing within the cap could still be an infringement of the Chapter II prohibition. I make no apology for returning to the example of predatory pricing which I quoted in Committee, and which we have discussed in another context today. It is perfectly possible for predatory pricing to take place, and yet for it to be said to be "in compliance" with a price control that sets a maximum level of prices. Indeed, where the price control is framed in terms of a basket of goods or services, it may be possible for predatory low prices on some products to co-exist with high prices on other products, with total revenue still within the cap. If such behaviour occurred, I would expect it to be tackled, and
972
I would not wish the company concerned to be able to deflect action on the grounds that it was in compliance with a licence condition.
I therefore believe that the right course is to provide for the legal requirements exclusion, as we have done. Beyond that I believe that the normal burden of proof should apply in respect of decisions as to whether the prohibitions have been infringed. The onus will be on the director, regulator, or a complainant to establish that the conduct complained of constitutes an infringement of the prohibitions. It should be for those making the decision (the director, tribunal or court) to determine what evidence is relevant to the decision. The terms of a licence condition may well be relevant.
I do not believe it would be right to include a provision that would be uncertain in its interpretation, risking unnecessary appeals to resolve it, that would at best have no real effect, but which could at worst make it more difficult to tackle cases of real abuse. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the detailed response given to this important amendment. Nonetheless, I am somewhat disturbed by it. If, as I pointed out, the licence conditions include strict conditions to prevent anti-competitive behaviour by the dominant supplier, then it seems to me that observance of the licence conditions should be regarded as predominant in cases where such conditions apply. The trouble is that that must create uncertainty in the enterprise.
The noble Lord referred to notifications. Even though strictly in compliance with the licence, having regard to the fact that anti-competitive behaviour cannot be indulged in, would they nonetheless have to think of notifying under the Competition Act? That leads to a confusing situation of an additional administrative burden which should be avoided. If there is any weakness in the Acts under which these utilities operate, then those Acts should be corrected. We and they should know where we stand. While I have no intention of pressing the amendment tonight at this late hour, I would like carefully to reflect on the situation and I may well come back to it at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 48, line 7, at end insert?
("( ) An international arrangement relating to civil aviation and designated by an order made by the Secretary of State is to be treated as an international obligation for the purposes of this paragraph:).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be helpful if I take this amendment separately. I shall take Amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 58 together and Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 together.
As I indicated in Committee we were continuing to review the extent of the exclusions set out in Schedule 3. Paragraph 4 of that schedule provides a power for the

973
Secretary of State to exclude agreements from the scope of the prohibitions if she is satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so in order to avoid a conflict with an international obligation of the UK.
As currently drafted, the term "international obligation" only covers formal treaties. It has been pointed out to us that this could be unduly narrow in the aviation sector. Inter-governmental agreements permitting flights between the UK and other countries are often not made as treaties. For example, they may take the form of memoranda of understanding. In practice, however, such agreements are honoured as if they were treaties. We therefore believe it right to make this limited extension to the scope of the exclusion-making power to cover agreements in the aviation sector made pursuant to such inter-governmental arrangements which fall short of treaty status. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 48, line 30, leave out from ("agreement") to end of line 31 and insert (-which relates to a coal or steel product to the extent to which the ECSC Treaty gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.
( ) Sub-paragraph (1) ceases to have effect on the date on which the ECSC Treaty expires ("the expiry date").").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. They are technical amendments to put the ECSC treaty into the right context as regards the treaty that governs the Competition Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
Page 48, line 32. leave out from ("apply") to end of line 33 and insert ("to conduct which relates to a coal or steel product to the extent to which the ECSC Treaty gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.
( ) Sub-paragraph (2) ceases to have effect on the expiry date.").
Page 48, line 35, leave out from first ("the") to end of line and insert ("ECSC Treaty; and
"ECSC Treaty" means the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert—
("Agricultural products
6A.—( I) The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to an agreement to the extent to which it relates to production of or trade in an agricultural product and—

(a) forms an integral part of a national market organisation;

(b) is necessary for the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty; or

(c) is an agreement of farmers or farmers' associations (or associations of such associations) belonging to a single member State which concerns?

(i) the production or sale of agricultural products, or

974

(ii) the use of joint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing of agricultural products.

and under which there is no obligation to charge identical prices.

(2) If the Commission determines that an agreement does not fulfil the conditions specified by the provision for agricultural products for exclusion from Article 85(1) of the Treaty, the exclusion provided by this paragraph ("the agriculture exclusion") is to be treated as ceasing to apply to the agreement on the date of the decision.
(3) The agriculture exclusion does not apply to a particular agreement if the Director gives a direction under this paragraph to that effect.
(4) If the Director is considering whether to give a direction under this paragraph, he may by notice in writing require any party to the agreement in question to give him such information in connection with the agreement as he may require.
(5) The Director may give a direction under this paragraph only as provided in sub-paragraph (6) or (7).
(6) If before the end of such period as may be specified in rules under section 49 a person fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement imposed under sub-paragraph (4). the Director may give a direction under this paragraph.
(7) The Director may also give a direction under this paragraph if he considers that an agreement (whether or not he considers that it infringes the Chapter I prohibition) is likely, or is intended, substantially and unjustifiably to prevent, restrict or distort competition in relation to an agricultural product.
(8) A direction under this paragraph—

(a) must be in writing;

(b) may be made so as to have effect from a date specified in the direction (which may not be earlier than the date on which it is given).

(9) In this paragraph—
"agricultural product" means any product of a kind listed in Annex II to the Treaty; and
"provision for agricultural products" means Council Regulation (EEC) No. 26/62 of 4th April 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No, 59, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 60. Both are technical government amendments. As I said during the first Committee day, a good case has been made for an amendment along the lines of EC Regulation 26/62. This provides for special treatment under Article 85 for certain types of agricultural agreements, including agricultural co-operatives. I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Stanley, and to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton for raising the question of the treatment of agricultural agreements.
We are now proposing an exclusion from the Chapter I prohibition of anti-competitive agreements along the lines of EC Regulation 26/62 which covers certain agricultural agreements, including agricultural co-operatives. The exclusion is designed to ensure that agreements in the agricultural sector will be treated under the Bill in a similar way to how they are treated under EC competition law. This furthers our overall objective of seeking, so far as possible, consistency in the treatment of agreements under the EC and UK prohibition systems. Extending the exclusion beyond the scope of agreements covered by EC Regulation 26/62 would not be consistent with these objectives.
As is the case with the exclusions for mergers and agreements cleared under Section 21(2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the director general will have the ability to clawback individual agreements to be considered under the prohibition. However, such a clawback can be exercised only if the director general considers that the agreement is likely or is intended substantially and unjustifiably to prevent restrict or distort competition in relation to an agricultural product. This is a high threshold, but one which will enable the director general to take action against agreements causing serious harm.
The exclusion also provides a power for the director general to request information from the parties to an agreement which benefits from the exclusion. This is the same information-gathering power as applies to the exclusions for mergers and agreements which have been cleared under Section 21(2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. We have discussed today in relation to those exclusions the reasons why the director general must have this information gathering power as part and parcel of the provision of such automatic exclusions. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment and explaining it so fully. I hope that the noble Lord will not accuse me of looking a gift horse in the mouth if I raise certain problems—at least the chief of which are fairly short.
I am not sure that I fully understand why the director general is being given all these powers which are not necessary in other types of business. Due to the speed with which the noble Lord produced the amendment—I very much welcome that—the agricultural co-operative movement has not really had the time to digest its possible effects—I stress that they are "possible" effects—and in particular how the courts might interpret it. What I do know is that if the noble Lord had not tabled an amendment, the co-operative movement would have been wiped out. That is why I thank him very much.
If events should prove the amendment to be seriously flawed—my lawyers always say that everything could be flawed—so making the future of agricultural co-operatives uncertain, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be prepared to take further steps to correct the matter. I am asking quite a nasty question here. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment, but I wonder whether he is prepared to let his officials and those of the agricultural co-operative movement meet to discuss their particular problems. I think that they are in as big a muddle as I am.
To save time, perhaps I may break the rules of the House for a moment by thanking the noble Lord for the action that he has taken on my Committee-stage amendment to Schedule 12 on potatoes. As the government consultation period does not expire until 16th March—I am grateful to the noble Lord's officials with regard to this—I shall not move my repeat amendment at this stage of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord for his help on that also.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in trying to get to the bottom of some of the technical points in the Bill. We find ourselves in very much the same position. Without making any commitment to extend the nature of the amendments that we have drafted, we are prepared to meet the NFU, the Federation of Agricultural Co-operatives and other interested parties to take the technical debate to a stage of greater clarity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 62 not moved.] Schedule 4 [Professional Rules]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 63:
Page 50, line 9, after ("(2),") insert ("and having consulted industry trade bodies,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, due to a misunderstanding and following advice I do not wish to proceed with the amendment. My main amendment is Amendment No. 136 in Clause 39. I leave others, in particular my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, to move their amendments.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 50, line 25, leave out ("or solicitors") and insert (", solicitors and Notaries public").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment clarifies the terms of Schedule 4, Part II, paragraph 1, which details the legal professions whose professional rules are excluded agreements under Clause 3 of the Bill. The Bill strengthens competition law by bringing United Kingdom law more closely into line with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. It recognises, however, that certain professional rules should be excluded from general competition law because of the value placed on self-regulation by the professions. That exclusion is achieved by Clause 3 and Schedule 4.
The Law Society of Scotland has concerns that the definition of the legal professional services in Schedule 4, Part II, paragraph 2, does not include the profession of notary public. Notaries public are clearly members of the legal profession. In Scotland notaries are governed by the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 which provides for specific admission and removal procedures. A person can be admitted as a notary in Scotland only if he or she is qualified to be admitted as a solicitor. Most applicants for notaries public are admitted as solicitors at the same time. That dual nature renders it logical for notaries to be included in the terms of Schedule 4 to avoid the possibility that solicitor notaries are subject to two competition regimes, one as solicitor and the other as notary.
Notaries in Scotland are subject to the professional rules and regulations of the Law Society of Scotland, and that society is actively engaged in developing the specific regulation of notaries. For example, in February 1997 for the first time the Law Society of Scotland

977
published guidance on the activities of notaries. The society is of the view that the definition of "rules" in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4 covers that guidance. Common law regulation of notaries applies as well as regulation via solicitors' practice rules. The Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has upheld findings of professional misconduct against solicitors acting only in a notarial capacity.
Scottish notaries are also involved in the cyber notary project relating to electronic data interchange and the role of the trusted third party. The society is closely involved in the creation of a cyber notary association in the United Kingdom which would lead to further development of notarial protection with a requirement for notary specific rules to deal with that new environment. Accordingly, it is likely that within a very short period of time, professional rules and regulations relating specifically to notaries will need to be developed, rather than the current reliance on existing guidance on the common law, or on solicitors' regulations.
The Law Society would like, and would be grateful for, a guarantee from the Minister that all notaries public in the UK will be covered by the new law. The situation which applies to notaries public in England and Wales is somewhat different. In that jurisdiction, notaries are subject to the Court of Faculties under the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533. The most recent legislation relating to notaries in England and Wales is contained in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. They are also subject to rules enacted by the Master of the Court of Faculties.
In Scotland, on the other hand, notaries were nationalised as long ago as the reign of Mary Queen of Scots. Only in 1990 was the royal prerogative in relation to notaries given up. I move the amendment as I believe it is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure consistency of approach to the regulation of the legal profession. It has the support of the Society of Public Notaries of London, the Notaries Society of England and Wales, the College of Notaries in Northern Ireland and the Law Society of Scotland. It also has the support of the UK Notarial Forum which met last Friday in Dublin. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, as I explained a little while ago in speaking to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who is not in his place, the Government consider that it is right to confine the list in Schedule 4 to those professional services which are exempted from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act by Schedule 1 to that Act. Your Lordships will not therefore be surprised to learn that the Government do not agree that notaries public should be added to the list in Schedule 4 to the Bill.
In the case of notaries, there are however two additional reasons why it would be inappropriate to add them to the list. First, there is a very substantial overlap between the profession of solicitors and that of notaries. As noble Lords will observe, solicitors are already included in the list, and it therefore seems to us to be somewhat supernumerary to add notaries. I recognise that that is an argument that can be deployed in support
978
of either side. However, my second point reinforces the case for saying that not only would the addition of notaries to the list be redundant; it would also be inappropriate.
The Chapter I prohibition bites on agreements between undertakings, decisions between associations of undertakings and concerted practices. It is not concerned with requirements imposed under statute, which is the basis of the regulation of notaries. Clearly, there is no need to exclude something which does not apply in the first place. That is not necessarily the case for all of the rules of the professions currently listed in Schedule 4 to the Bill. In the light of those points, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord commented about the position in Scotland. I am not sure whether it is appropriate to discuss that at this stage. We shall be debating later the effect of the Bill in Scotland. It may well be that Scottish notaries could be debated then.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I had anticipated that he would advance that line of argument. This Bill does not follow precisely the terms of Schedule 1 to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. For example, Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act provides that legal services are restricted to the services of banisters, advocates, or solicitors in their capacity as such. The phrase "in their capacity as such" is omitted from the Competition Bill and as a result may produce a different outcome. Perhaps the Competition Bill envisages that the professional services of banisters and solicitors should not be restricted to those individuals acting in their capacity as such. For example, it might include insolvency practitioners or independent financial advisers. Surely, that is not a correct interpretation.
I should be grateful if the Minister would reconsider the matter before Third Reading. The omission of the notaries from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 may have been an oversight. I shall reflect on the Minister's reply and if necessary return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree moved Manuscript Amendment No. 64A:
Page 50, leave out line 33 and insert—
("4. The services of ophthalmic medical practitioners, ophthalmic opticians (optometrists) and dispensing opticians other than (in each case) the sale or supply of optical appliances.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Schedule 4 as currently drafted will not do what the Bill intends. It is clear that the intention is to exclude the services of various professions from the provisions of the Bill. But if we leave the wording as it is in respect of ophthalmic services the law will affect a range of things which the authors of the Bill surely did not intend to affect.
In recent years, there have been enormous advances in the care and treatment of eyes. The clinical activities of optometrists go far wider than just sight testing. For instance, the fitting of contact lenses demands high levels of expertise. Currently, the law provides that only

979
professionally qualified people can do that, but it is not the testing of sight and it will therefore not be covered by the Bill.
What about shared care, to use the current jargon? That system brings together GPs, ophthalmologists, other doctors and optometrists to monitor such things as the clinical progress of a patient suffering from glaucoma or perhaps diabetic retinopathy. That is an important service, but it is not the testing of eyes and it will not be covered by the Bill.
The Government appear to believe that the current wording linking the words "ophthalmic" and "the testing of sight" are sufficient to protect the activities of optometrists. However, the profession does not agree and I believe that in respect of such matters we should listen to the profession. It states that, as Schedule 4 stands, some of the professional and clinical activities of optometrists and dispensing opticians will be included and some excluded. If in future a court is asked to interpret the Competition Act it is likely to declare that Parliament decided to exclude some activities and to include others.
However, why should the optometrist's clinical monitoring of a patient suffering from glaucoma be subject to the rules on competition? That is not a commercial activity; it is essentially a clinical and professional activity. The Government propose to exclude professional activities from the scope of the Bill, so why will they not exclude the monitoring of glaucoma?
I do not seek more than the profession seeks—to exclude from the Bill commercial activities such as selling frames, glasses or contact lenses—but I want to ensure that all aspects of professional eye care are properly covered. That is not the case at the moment.
Will the Minister look at the matter again? I am sure that he shares my wish to have a clear law and a fair law and one which will not lead to a number of court cases. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, this amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 65, as far as I understand it, unless the grouping has been changed, and I do not think it has, although that amendment has nothing to do with optometry.
I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, said. She may remember me from a previous incarnation long ago in the House of Commons. We sit diagonally across the House from each other and I can scarcely see her from here. I am sure that if people hear that plea from the faint sighted, they may pay some attention to her amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 65. I do not wish to add anything to the list which has been put in the Bill. It is always dangerous to add to lists because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, used to tell us over and over again, the longer the list, the longer the list of people left off it. Therefore, a list was dangerous.
980
However, I am more interested not in leaving something off the list or adding to it but dealing with the definitions with which the list is concerned. I am weary of raising the subject of engineering in this House, and no doubt noble Lords, such few as are here, are tired of hearing me doing it, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who delights in it. But Whitehall can never get engineering right somehow. It has a hang-up or problem with it. As I understand it, there have been discussions between the Engineering Council and the Government but, as far as I can see, those discussions have not, as yet, been fruitful.
If one looks at paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 at the bottom of page 51, a list of a sort can be seen. Under the heading "Engineering", the Bill states:
"The services of persons practising or employed as consultants in the field of … (a) civil engineering".
That either leaves out or includes structural engineers. The structural engineers would not like to be left out; the civil engineers might be happy if they were. However, an accommodation should be arranged in that respect.
The Bill goes on to refer to mechanical, aeronautical and marine engineering and others. It then refers to, "mining, quarrying, soil analysis", and this is where I begin to become a little bit worried about Whitehall,
"or other forms of mineralogy or geology".
We engineers admire mineralogists and geologists and we often depend upon them. But however admirable and dependable they are, they are not engineers. A geologist is not an engineer; he is a geologist. He is a scientist of some kind. He is not an engineer. He may impinge on engineering and engineering may depend upon him, but an engineer he most emphatically is not.
I move on to agronomy. I am sure that is very good. The Bill then mentions forestry. I am rather unhappy that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe is not here because he is a great forester. However, my noble friend Lord Taylor, for all his goodness as a forester, is not an engineer. Foresters are not engineers. Let's pull ourselves together. The Bill then refers to "livestock rearing". I should have thought that livestock rearing had something to do with fanning. Farmers are sometimes engineers when they drain their fields but they are not engineers when they are rearing their livestock, I do not think, unless I am in some way misled.
The Bill then refers to ecology. Ecology has to do with a variety of things—mushrooms and newts. Ken Livingstone would be an engineer under this definition, I imagine. There must be some mistake here.
I move on to metallurgy, which is near enough. My old friend, but not noble friend in the sense that it is used in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is a metallurgist, and he is a chartered engineer because we permit metallurgists to describe themselves as chartered engineers.
I move on to the reference to chemistry. The most notable chemist I know from recent years is the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. However, with all her virtues, she is not an engineer; she is a chemist. My younger brother is also a chemist, but he would be affronted to

981
be described as an engineer. We know that there are chemical engineers, but chemists are not engineers. Indeed, the word "chemist" is used in Scotland to describe pharmacists who are most emphatically not engineers. However, that is another matter.
The next item is biochemistry, to which the same applies, followed by physics. Some practitioners in physics are engineers, that is most usually so if they happen to be electrical engineers. However, most practitioners of physics are not electrical engineers. Therefore, to include physics under the general heading of "Engineering" is—I hesitate to use the word "ignorant"—preposterous. In a way, the whole paragraph is gathered together both roughly and readily under sub-paragraph (f) which refers to,
"any other form of engineering or technology analogous to those mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e)",
which I suppose is meant to include the people I have mentioned as having been left out; namely, chemical engineers, petroleum engineers, naval architects, and so on. Indeed, this set of definitions is a rag-bag and is almost entirely useless.
I have been asked by the Engineering Council to refer to the clause and propose a rather simple amendment to it. In doing so, I shall look further up page 51 of the Bill and to paragraph 10 which refers to, "The services of architects". I believe that we all understand what an architect is—or do we? We know that an architect is a man who designs buildings, houses and things of that nature and makes them rather lovely, and so on. However, in professional terms, an architect is someone who is registered under what used to be called ARCUK. I know that that name has recently been changed but, unfortunately, I cannot quite remember the new name. Perhaps my noble friends on the Front Bench will be able to tell me. However, the service of an architect must refer to one who is registered, otherwise it does not mean an architect at all because the title of "architect" is protected.
I propose now to move on to rather shaky ground; indeed, rather thin ice. I say that because the title "engineer" is not, unfortunately, protected in the same way as that of an architect. My amendment suggests that we leave out that farrago—that misleading collection of titles—and quite simply insert the words,
"chartered or incorporated engineers and engineering technicians".
It is quite possible that all those words should carry capital letters, but I suppose that that would be too presumptuous. What we need is a simple definition of "engineer" here which is understood in the profession rather than this "Whitehallese" which is quite un-understandable.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the point just raised so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, merits some consideration. I feel quite simply that if the heading "Engineering" could be headed "engineering and technology", as is stated in paragraph 17(f) of Schedule 4, his problem would be solved.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, before the Minister replies to the amendment, I shall speak to
982
Amendment No. 66 which is grouped with the series of amendments that we are discussing. I should declare an interest as a partner in Watson, Wyatt Partners who are a firm of consulting actuaries and employ benefit consultants. I have been in discussion with the Faculty and the Institute of Actuaries about this amendment. Watson, Wyatt Partners and I are regulated by the Institute of Actuaries.
I am concerned that the Competition Bill currently before your Lordships' House does not specifically exempt the actuarial profession from the revisions of Chapter I of the Bill, which as we know are designed to prohibit commercial agreements preventing, restricting or distorting competition. As it is currently drafted, the Bill could open up the professional rules of the actuarial profession to challenge as anti-competitive practices. This is clearly not the intention of the Bill, which in Schedule 4 lists a wide range of professions which will be exempt from Chapter I, including, among others, solicitors, accountants, architects and insolvency practitioners.
The UK's 10,000 or so actuaries are represented by the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland and the Institute of Actuaries in England and Wales. Like other professional bodies the faculty and the institute are governed by charter which can be altered only by sanction of the Privy Council. The faculty and the institute set their own standards and professional qualifications for the actuarial profession and in order to protect the interests of the consumer.
Before I conclude my remarks, I apologise to the Minister and to your Lordships for not checking the generic title under which Amendment No. 66 has been tabled. It has been tabled under the generic term "Insurance". As I am sure your Lordships are aware, the work of actuaries is not confined solely to insurance. If the Minister accepts this amendment, as I am sure he will, it may be better for the generic term "actuarial" to be used. That would be in line with the other generic terms in Schedule 4. I believe that the omission of actuaries from Schedule 4 of the Bill is an oversight that can be rectified by this simple amendment.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the discussion we have just had proves how wise the Government are to confine the list in Schedule 4 to those professional services which are excluded from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act by Schedule 1 of that Act. It will be apparent from what I am going to say that the Government do not agree that the exclusion should be widened any further.
The purpose of Schedule 4 of the Bill is not to confer a mark of respectability upon particular professions. The purpose is to carry forward into the Bill an exclusion for the professional rules of those professions which are presently excluded from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Those professions are listed in italics under Schedule 4. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is helpful because the headings in italics such as "Engineering" carry no weight in the Bill. It is the listed activities which are not in italics which are important. Certainly the Government would consider

983
whether these headings should be changed. Perhaps that will help to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howie.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it will not do so in any way. Changing "engineering" to "technology" will make no difference to what I said. I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I turn to the question of actuaries. I do not wish to disparage the profession of actuary, but the fact is that it is not one of those services which is excluded from the Act. If there were a need for actuaries to be reconciled with competition law, they would already have to ensure that they complied. In the light of that point, I hope that the noble Earl will not move Amendment No. 66.
Amendments Nos. 64A and 65 take us into different territory. Instead of adding an exclusion they amend existing exclusions. I do not wish to underestimate the worth of the Engineering Council or the engineering profession. In the noble Lord, Lord Howie, it has a doughty champion. The effect of the amendments would be to narrow the scope of the services whose professional rules may be designated under the Bill.
As I understand it, the purpose of Amendment No. 64A is to make the words in the schedule conform more closely to how optometrists view their profession. However, the present provision referring to the testing of sight is not only longstanding—it is drawn from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act—but it is also drawn from Section 36 of the Opticians Act 1989 which is identical to Section 30 of the Opticians Act 1958. It is true that the provisions need to be seen in their different context and that, for example, the Bill and the RTP Act do not need to concern themselves with the criminal offence of the Opticians Act relating to the testing of sight for the purposes of prescribing glasses. But I do not see a case for changing the longstanding link between the Opticians Act and the provisions in the Bill.
As your Lordships know, the existing criteria are copied from Article 85(3) of the EC treaty. To change the criteria would defeat one of the main objectives of the Bill since it would mean that competition law and practice domestically, and at European level, would diverge.
Objectively justified standards of professional competence and good practice are designed to protect the consumer, and to be objectively justified they should not deny consumers a fair share of the benefits or impose restrictions which are not indispensable to that objective or substantially eliminate competition. I have no doubt that if professional rules are justified they are capable of satisfying these criteria. Of course it may also be that an objectively justified professional rule did not infringe the prohibition in the first place.
We have had a lengthy discussion on professional rules. The Government recognise that a case can be made for a wider exclusion as regards professional rules, and for a narrower exclusion of such rules. We have
984
sought to take account of the different arguments and to bear in mind both the particular nature of professional rule making and the different historical treatment of particular professional rules.
I hope that all noble Lords who have spoken will recognise that other noble Lords have taken a contrary view. The Government believe that they have taken a balanced view on the matter.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he replying to the right amendment? I was not aware that we were talking about professional rules. I do not think that I mentioned professional rules at any point during my brief intervention. Had I known that he would do so, it might have been longer. I will give my noble friend ample time to recover his memory. I was talking about the definition of "engineer", which had nothing whatever to do with rules or anything of the sort. It was entirely to do with the farrago of a definition which is in the Bill. I proposed to him a very simple, two-line amendment which covers the matter adequately. I wonder if he would turn his mind to that and perhaps just say, "Yes, what a good idea".
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 64A, 65 and 66. Other noble Lords raised the question of professional rules.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend would actually reply—
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is Report stage. The noble Lord is allowed to ask some brief questions for elucidation.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I yield entirely to the Chief Whip.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's remarks, although I am very disappointed, and certain that there will be a time ahead when he will regret the number of court cases that the matter will engender, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 not moved.]
Clause 9 [The criteria for individual and block exemptions]:
[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Requests for Director to examine agreements]:
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 7, line 33, at end insert?
("( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the application of sections 13 to 16 and Schedule 5, with such modifications (if any) as may be prescribed, in cases where the Director

(a) has given a direction withdrawing an exclusion; or

(b) is considering whether to give such a direction.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Notification for a decision]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("if it is not otherwise exempt").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 145, 221 and 222.
These are technical amendments designed to ensure that the term "infringe" is used consistently throughout the Bill. They are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Notification under Chapter 1: Procedure]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 52, leave out lines 40 to 43.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 74 to 78, and Amendment No. 161. These amendments respond to amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on which we gave a solemn and binding undertaking to reflect.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, argued that the ability of the director to convert an application for guidance into a formal decision might discourage businesses from seeking guidance because of concerns about confidentiality.
It is our intention that the provisions on applying for guidance should provide a relatively informal procedure whereby businesses can obtain confidential guidance which, because third parties have not been consulted, cannot be as certain as applying for a decision that is made with the benefit of the views of third parties.
We accept the noble and learned Lord's point that the ability of the director to convert an application for guidance into an application for a decision might undermine confidence and procedure. These amendments put the noble Lords' proposals into practice. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Government for listening to what we had to say in Committee. We warmly applaud the introduction of these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
Page 53, leave out lines 7 to 29.
Page 53, line 41, leave out from ("decision") to end of line 43.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Notification under Chapter II: Procedure]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 78:
Page 54, leave out lines 41 to 44.
Page 55, leave out lines 4 to 22.
Page 55, line 34, leave out from ("decision") to end of line 36.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Director's power to investigate]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 13, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are intended simply to ensure that there is no overlapping jurisdiction in relation to competition matters by excluding an express sub judice call from the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, this amendment would prevent the director from conducting an investigation or exercising any other functions in respect of matter which is the subject of proceedings before any court.
I do not think this is a desirable restriction. The prohibitions are a matter of public law. If there is an agreement or conduct to which they apply then the director should be free to act nowithstanding the existence of civil proceedings as his concern is with the effect of the agreement or conduct on competition generally and not just between the parties. There will obviously be cases in which he will leave the matter to the civil proceedings to determine. However, equally there may be cases where he considers he should investigate because of the effects on those who are not party to the proceedings. It would be wrong for him to be prevented for so long as the proceedings may continue.
If a third party were to pursue a case that a particular agreement was void on the grounds that it infringed the prohibition, the parties to that agreement might wish the director to make a decision on whether or not to grant an exemption. The court cannot grant an exemption; the director can and should be able to do so in these circumstances. It would be wrong to prevent him from doing so.
In general terms, I would advise that we should require the freedom for the director to be able to operate at two levels. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to reconsider the case for the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall reflect on what he said but may well wish to return to this issue at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("he has a reasonable suspicion") and insert ("there are reasonable grounds for suspecting").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 25 is the first clause in the important section of the Bill dealing with the director's powers of investigation. We discussed these clauses extensively during Committee. I shall bring forward later significant amendments to strengthen the various safeguards that were discussed in Committee.
But at this stage I must begin by reporting to the House that in one respect Clause 25 is defective and needs to be corrected. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 80. As a point of principle, we believe that it is essential for the director general to be able to delegate his functions to his officers.
This provision applies to the Competition Bill, because of the reference to "any other enactment". Accordingly, the many other functions of the director set out in the Bill can be delegated by him to a properly authorised member of staff. We consider that the same position should apply to the initiation of an investigation as applies to these other functions. The power to delegate should apply.
The fact that Clause 25(2) makes explicit provision for delegation casts doubt on the applicability of Schedule 1 of the Fair Trading Act in this area of the Bill. Specifically, the unintended effect of Clause 25(2) was that the director general would personally have to be satisfied each and every time information was sought under Clause 26 that the threshold of suspicion that the prohibitions had been infringed was crossed.
This is not practicable nor desirable, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, realises. The Office of Fair Trading is anticipating in the region of 1,200 complaints per year. Many, indeed a large majority, may well be disposed of easily without the need for the use of any formal powers. But a substantial number, perhaps up to 300, may require at least initial investigation by the seeking of information under Clause 26. Accordingly, it is important that his ability to delegate to an officer, properly authorised in writing, should be put beyond doubt. Amendment No. 80 rephrases subsection (1). It is intended to put beyond doubt that the director does not require personally to "suspect". I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for his response to Amendment No. 80. If I remember rightly, during Committee stage I was pressing for a "reasonable suspicion" to be replaced by "reasonable grounds for belief'. I have been met at least half-way. In light of the number of times that I have been met at least half-way on the previous amendments that I tabled, I regard that as an excellent result.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 13, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Powers when conducting investigations]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 13, line I I, leave out ("person") and insert ('officer or senior employee of an undertaking").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, looking to the hour, I reflect on the time that we agreed for Report stage, particularly seeing the Chief Whip in his place for which I am grateful, and I feel sorely done by. Neither my noble friend Lord Kingsland nor myself have taken up anything like a quarter of today's proceedings and there have been some exchanges latterly which hardly enhance the reputation of your
988
Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. I wonder whether we will achieve much more at this time of the night.
We still have some important small amendments. I can move them briefly now, but I anticipate and have to give warning that we may need more time for Report stage or shall certainly return to these at Third Reading. It has been thoroughly unsatisfactory, as the Minister will appreciate. We have sought to be as constructive and positive as we have been throughout the passage of the Bill.
I turn to Amendment No. 83, which is coupled with a significant number of other amendments on the same theme. To describe it in shorthand, it is the "tea lady" problem. We are concerned that if requests are made and people are going to be interviewed, it should not be just any person; it should be any officer or a senior employee of an undertaking.
This is not merely a matter of being difficult. What follows from a number of these requests is that ultimately there is a risk of criminal sanctions being imposed on people. Although this is a brief set of amendments, they contain some important points. If people do not comply it may be because they are too junior. We do not want to see them subjected to the risk of any criminal sanction following from a failure on their part.
I appreciate that the context of the Bill sets a high standard if there are to be prosecutions at a later stage; it is not just a question of someone shrugging their shoulders and saying, "I do not understand". But in our view it is unreasonable to include present or past junior employees and that is what lies behind this set of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, Amendment No. 89 is grouped with this series of amendments and I should like to speak to it briefly. Its aim is to introduce a safeguard which allows the company under investigation to comment on the role of ex-employees being questioned, and on the appropriateness of so doing without wishing in any way to dilute the powers of the investigators. Obviously specific difficulties may arise where the departure of the employee was not on amicable terms.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 101, which is grouped with these amendments. I believe that the powers granted by Clause 27 to enter premises without a warrant are unduly strong and that the Bill would be improved if it ensured that investigating officers check that the people they deal with in exercising their powers under subsection (4)(b)(ii) of the clause are those who are responsible for any relevant document and understand the meaning and purpose of such a document. As drafted the Bill refers to "any person on the premises". The safeguard which Amendment No. 101 introduces would ensure that the investigating officer, in seeking an explanation as to the meaning of any particular document, would be required to check that the person under interrogation is indeed an appropriate person. The

989
amendment largely follows the wording proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in Amendment No. 89, which deals with a similar point.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 83, 95, 98 and 107 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, would limit the persons who can be required to produce documents or explanations or statements in this way to officers or senior employees of an undertaking under investigation. We debated similar amendments in Committee at some length and I see nothing here which would cause us to change our view. In particular, as the amendments seem specifically aimed at removing junior employees from the scope of these provisions, I would recall the words of my noble friend Lord Simon. He said in Committee:
"As regards junior employees…it is important that we seriously have the ability to speak to both secretaries and personal assistants. They may be younger but they may, effectively, have a great deal of knowledge of the activities under investigation. We must also remember that the range of things that may appear in documents needing explanations is wide. Therefore, it seems to me to be right that the powers should also he exercisable when asking that category of employee or past employee for explanations".—[0fficia/ Report,17/11/97: col. 391.]
There is a further point about Clause 26. The "person" here may be a legal person; for example, a company that is asked to produce documents. Indeed, when an investigation is started using these powers the director will not know to whom to direct a request, and so I would expect him to require the company—a legal person—and not an individual to produce documents and perhaps also ask the company for explanations. In Clauses 27 and 28 the persons can only be individuals.
I would add no more other than the fact that we already have a defence in respect of failing to produce in Clause 41 and are bringing forward further amendments to that clause dealing with offences to ensure that persons who are genuinely unable to give such explanations will not be guilty of an offence.
Amendment No. 89 seems to be aimed at adding a form of safeguard when explanations of documents are being sought under Clause 26. The director would be required to consult the undertaking as to the role of the employee or officer in the matter under investigation and the appropriateness of requiring them to provide an explanation. The object appears to be to give the undertaking or person being investigated an element of involvement and influence in respect of the persons against whom the director is to exercise his powers.
I suggest that this would not be a proper procedure to achieve that end. The director is deliberately given powers under the Bill to enable him to obtain as wide a
990
range of information as possible in an investigation. He should be able to exercise those powers by asking those whom he believes can produce the documents or give the explanations he requires without being subject to the limitations proposed or having his choices scrutinised by the undertaking concerned. Surely it is for him to judge whether the person from whom he seeks information is a suitable person able to produce the document or give an explanation. If in so doing information he obtains is irrelevant or unreliable and if he based a decision on such evidence that there had been an infringement of one of the prohibitions, the proper course of action would be for the undertaking concerned to appeal against it under Clause 45. I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment and to rely on the judgment of the director.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not much inclined to rely on the judgment of the director. However, the noble Lord might be encouraged to know that I am prepared to rely on the very useful comment that he slipped into the middle of what he said, namely that he may bring forward amendments to Clause 41 because that is what is at the centre of our concerns. It is not that the director should not be able to investigate but that junior people who do not really know what is going on may find themselves open to a set of criminal sanctions. That could be extremely serious for young men and women, junior in a company, who have no intention of being obstructive in any fashion but who do not understand what is going on. That is the clear interrelationship between the two provisions that we wish to explore and clarify.
It would be extremely helpful if we were advised at the earliest possible opportunity of what the noble Lord proposes to do in relation to Clause 41 because that would not only potentially affect our assessment or judgment on amendments to this clause, but also to Clauses 27 to 30. With that lure I shall withdraw the amendment. This may be an appropriate time for the noble Lord to reflect on what he is going to write to me about Clause 41. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  International Development Strategy
  International Development Strategy
  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Scottish Judiciary
  Scottish Judiciary
  British Coal Former Employees: Concessionary Fuel
  British Coal Former Employees: Concessionary Fuel
  Naval Training: Partnership Arrangement
  Naval Training: Partnership Arrangement
  Royal Household Helicopter Service
  Royal Household Helicopter Service
  Iraq: Chemical and Biological Weapons Programme Disclosure
  Iraq: Chemical and Biological Weapons Programme Disclosure
  Iraq Crisis
  Iraq Crisis
  Vehicle Stereo Systems: Excessive Noise
  Vehicle Stereo Systems: Excessive Noise
  Road Works Signs: Removal
  Road Works Signs: Removal
  Major Planning Applications: Publicity
  Major Planning Applications: Publicity
  Roads Review and Transport White Paper: SACTRA Report
  Roads Review and Transport White Paper: SACTRA Report
  Coastguard Stations
  Coastguard Stations
  English Local Government: Discussion Papers
  English Local Government: Discussion Papers
  Rendered Condensate on Farmland: Safety
  Rendered Condensate on Farmland: Safety
  BSE: Inquiry Remit
  BSE: Inquiry Remit
  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee
  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee
  European Union: Educational Material
  European Union: Educational Material
  Independent School Pupils Supported by Central Government Funding
  Independent School Pupils Supported by Central Government Funding
  GCSE: Analysis of Results 1994–97
  GCSE: Analysis of Results 1994–97