Sitting of 6 July 1998

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

    Housing Benefit Fraud
    Mr. David Hanson: What steps she is taking to tackle housing benefit fraud organised by landlords. [47468]
    The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): I thank my hon. Friend for his persistence with this question. Since the general election, we have made it easier for local authorities to stop payments to bogus landlords, to recover such payments and to collect information on other properties that the landlords may have and from which they may be making bogus claims.
    Mr. Hanson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is unacceptable for £4 billion-worth of housing benefit fraud to be perpetrated each year, and that the steps that he took in the regulations in November last year will go some way towards helping to prevent that abuse? Prevention is certainly better than the taxpayer being swindled by fraudulent landlords.
    Mr. Field: I can confirm all my hon. Friend's assertions. I draw to the attention of the House the record of his local authority, which has doubled its fraud savings target and introduced mechanisms for checking whether landlords are bogus, to prevent such claims from being made in the first place.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What representations she has received on the Government's proposals to assist the poorest pensioners. [47469]
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What representations she has received on her proposals to assist the poorest pensioners. [47479]
    Mr. Phil Hope: What action she is taking to help the poorest pensioners. [47482]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): We have received representations on a number of issues facing the poorest pensioners. An estimated 1 million of today's pensioners are not receiving the income support to which they are entitled. We are taking steps to tackle that by a programme of research into why so many pensioners do not receive their entitlement, and a programme of action involving nine pilot projects to test ways of getting more automatic help to pensioners.
    Mr. Thomas: Age Concern Harrow and Harrow Pensioners Action Group, two excellent organisations representing elderly people in my constituency, share my concern and that of my right hon. Friend about the number of elderly people not taking up their right to benefit. When does she expect her Department's research to be concluded, and can she assure the House that its findings will be acted on speedily?
    Ms Harman: We have already had interim findings from the research, showing that pensioners are losing out on between 24p and £51 a week in income support. We have also identified, through the interim report—I will let my hon. Friend have a copy—some of the reasons why they do not claim: the complexity; not understanding the system; and not wanting to have to prove that they are poor. We will take all those issues into account. The full report will be published at the beginning of next year, and we will certainly take action thereafter.
    Mr. Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the long term, the answer is not to offer pensioners more effective ways of claiming benefit but to make them independent of benefit, and is not the best way of doing that to phase back in the link with earnings?
    Ms Harman: In the long term, we need what has always been important to allow people to have a decent standard of living in retirement: the basic state pension topped up by a good second pension. We are committed to the basic state pension as the foundation of income in retirement, but we are also committed to extending occupational pensions and introducing stakeholder pensions so that people can put money aside and get good value for money from pensions on top of the basic state provision.
    Mr. Hope: Is not it an indictment of the system that 1 million pensioners are not claiming the benefit to which they are entitled—a situation that we inherited from the previous Administration? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the independent report, "We All Need Pensions—The Prospects for Pension Provision", by Tom Ross, which says that there is likely to be a rise in pensioner inequality and that the majority of the poorest pensioners are women? Can she assure me, and the pensioners in Corby, that the Government will make meeting the needs of the poorest pensioners an urgent priority?
    Ms Harman: We will take immediate action to meet the needs of the poorest pensioners without waiting for the results of our review, and we will create a better long-term framework. We want to tackle the problem of growing inequality among pensioners caused by the growing gap in retirement incomes. We must tackle the problem of

    721
    avoidable drops in income in retirement by making sure that people have a decent second pension. We must ensure that low earners or those who do not earn have a decent standard of living in retirement, which is the state's responsibility.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: How does the right hon. Lady justify the fact that 300,000 of the poorest pensioners who do not pay tax but who have small savings will be deprived of their income as a result of the abolition of dividend tax credits? Is she aware that despite assurances given during proceedings on the Finance Bill, Ministers have done nothing to help those pensioners?
    Ms Harman: The best way to ensure that everyone can enjoy security in retirement is to build a thriving, skilled, well-paid economy. The opportunity to work and to put money aside for retirement is important. Companies providing occupational pensions will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax. Rebates for personal pensions will increase from April 1999. There is no long-term problem for occupational schemes. The Government are taking a long-term view of the economy, and of sustaining the investment that will lead to strong pensions. The pensioners who are losing out are those who have no second pension, no state earnings-related pension scheme, no occupational pension and no savings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State take note of the question put by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) about the loss of the link between pensions and earnings? Her party campaigned vigorously in opposition for the re-establishment of that link. Pensioners have lost £20 a week as a result of the loss of the link, and those who are already pensioners have no opportunity to get a second pension. What will she do to make sure that the basic state pension is at an acceptable level, and that people do not have to revert to income support?
    Ms Harman: The Conservative Government's ending of the earnings link has certainly contributed to the growing gap in income in retirement. The poorest pensioners have been left behind. We have acted; within two years, an extra £400 million will be invested in support for pensioners, which will mean more money for pensioners than they would have had if we had reinstated the earnings link for this year and next.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Government's plans for the poorest pensioners are believed to include a guarantee for older, poorer pensioners, if we are to believe the latest leak—and leaks from the Department of Social Security seem rather reliable. Will the Minister set out her thinking on how money can be guaranteed for the oldest, poorest pensioners?
    Ms Harman: In the short term, we want to see more pensioners on income support because we want all the pensioners entitled to income support automatically to receive their benefit. In the longer term, a combination of basic state pension and wider provision of second
    722
    pensions will mean that fewer people are left to depend on means-tested benefit. The basic state pension is part of that equation.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The right hon. Lady failed spectacularly to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). Let us hope that she does better with me.
    Why have the Government taken the heartless and thoroughly sickening decision to tell local authority social services departments to change the operation of the rules so that where poor pensioners have their assets eroded to £16,000 through payment of residential and nursing fees, they will no longer be allowed to top up fees from their remaining £16,000? As a result of that, many poor pensioners will be forced to move to cheaper homes. Does the right hon. Lady realise that a forced move can be threatening to the health of old, frail people? It may even threaten their lives. Do the Government care?
    Ms Harman: The Government are very concerned about health and social services for all pensioners, particularly the poorest pensioners. The responsibility for social services authorities and for health service provision for the elderly lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, we work across Government to see how different departmental policies affect pensioners. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), is chairing a ministerial group to explore how Departments work together to ensure proper support and provision for pensioners.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: When she expects to announce her proposals for changes to the Child Support Agency. [47470]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be making a statement within the hour.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that most surprising answer. I am sure that all hon. Members are hoping that the new system that my right hon. Friend is about to unveil will be fair to the child and to both parents, and will work administratively. As a valedictory to the present system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope so. Does my hon. Friend agree that the current system has lost all credibility as a result of its record of inaccuracy, delay and failure to communicate? That system has been a nightmare for the many people caught up in it. In view of that fact, does not the new system deserve a new name?
    Mr. Bradley: It would clearly be totally inappropriate for me to give details at this stage of the proposed changes. However, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the Child Support Agency has experienced problems and that its staff have had difficulties dealing with the system that Parliament put in place. It is appropriate to put on record that the staff have worked extremely hard to make the system work as efficiently as possible against a background of legislation that is almost impossible to

    723
    understand. I am confident that the statement that will be made later this afternoon will address many of the problems that my hon. Friend has identified.

    Child Care
    Mr. Stephen Pound: What steps she is taking to improve the quality of child care. [47471]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women (Ms Joan Ruddock): Quality is one of the three watchwords of our national child care strategy, which aims to ensure good-quality, affordable child care for children in every neighbourhood.
    Our plans to raise quality of care include: better integration of early education and child care, a more consistent regulatory regime, and a new training and qualifications framework for early years workers.
    Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In Ealing, North, many parents are becoming increasingly reliant on child minders and ensuring the quality of that care is becoming increasingly important. Many child minders are low paid and receive little or no formal training. Is my hon. Friend prepared to comment further on the present system? Does she have confidence in it?
    Ms Ruddock: Many parents have confidence in the present system but, as I have said, we are always looking to raise quality in this area. We want to improve the image of working with children and to make it an attractive career. We are concerned that 70 per cent. of child minders do not have formal qualifications. However, some local authorities—including my own—provide a great deal of training and advice for child minders. We want to encourage them to gain qualifications and to achieve nationally recognised standards, and we are doing a great deal of work in that field. My hon. Friend will be aware of the current consultation paper on regulations and the overall strategy in which I hope that all hon. Members will be involved.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Minister accept that child benefit is important for many parents—particularly lone parents—when it comes to providing quality child care? Will the Minister confirm reports that the Secretary of State intends to change the date for payment of child benefit to 16-year-olds from the first Monday in September to 26 June? Will that not mean that some mothers will lose up to £856 and that all parents will lose £114 on average? Will the Minister tell the House why, given that state schools usually recess for the summer in mid to late July, the date of 26 June has been chosen? Is the Secretary of State confusing that date with the rising date of public schools, such as Fettes college and St. Paul's school?
    Ms Ruddock: I really do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information from. In respect of his benefits inquiry, the answer is definitively no.

    Child Support
    Mr. Tony McNulty: What action the Government have taken to improve support for children through the social security system. [47472]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): Our commitment to support families and children is central to our policies to modernise the welfare state. We will increase benefits for all families with children by increasing child benefit for the oldest child by £2.50. We are increasing benefits for children in the poorest families by increasing the child allowance on income-related benefits by £2.50 from November. We are ensuring that parents can work, and that work pays.
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my right hon. Friend. Does she agree that the new Labour Government have done more in the past year to help children through the social security system than the Conservatives ever did? Given their record and policies, which caused so much neglect and abject poverty for children, rather than sneering at our policies, should not they hang their heads in shame?
    Ms Harman: I welcome my hon. Friend's points. We have not only taken action to give extra benefits to the families with the poorest children but, above all, by helping their parents into work, we are helping such children to become better off than they could ever be in workless households.
    Mr. James Gray: In that case, will the Secretary of State assure us that she has no plans to abolish child benefit for 17 and 18-year-olds still in full-time education?
    Ms Harman: We have said that child benefit for those over 16 will be subject to review. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that before the general election. He has expressed his commitment to child benefit and increased it. He has said that we want to do even more and that we are going to make it fairer by clawing it back from higher-rate taxpayers.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given that disproportionate numbers of our poorest citizens are children under five, will the Department consider reviewing the pros and cons of introducing an under-fives child benefit premium? That would not only target poverty without a means test, but give parents of children under five a proper choice about whether to seek employment in the labour market or stay at home to look after their children.
    Ms Harman: As ever, my hon. Friend raises an important point. It was always an assumption and a principle of benefit policy that as children get older, they get more expensive and therefore their benefit should be increased. It is also evident that some of the poorest children have been young children in poor families. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor took a step towards sorting this out when he introduced the premium for children in workless families under 11, on the basis of the Joseph Rowntree research report. My hon. Friend made a further point about the problems of children under five. We will carefully examine poverty among young children.

    Lone Parents
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What progress has been made in increasing the take-up of work by lone parents. [47473]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): The Government are committed to providing viable choices for lone parents who, in the past, were written off to a life on benefit. The new deal for lone parents is a major step in achieving this objective, and independent research has shown that it is having a clear effect on the number of lone parents getting off income support. Our approach is in tune with what lone parents want: the opportunity to work, and a better quality of life for their children. Progress is encouraging—10 per cent. more lone parents moved off income support and on to family credit in 1997 than in the preceding year.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. How many personal advisers are employed in Coventry to help lone parents? How many lone parents in Coventry has it been possible to assist? I congratulate him on the last quarterly figures, which show that 30,000 lone parents have found employment. Put another way, the number of lone parents now out of work is below 1 million, which is a lot more than can be said for the time when the Conservative party was in power.
    Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, although I am not able today to give him the precise figures for Coventry alone; I shall look into that. I have visited the new deal for lone parents pilot area in the midlands and seen the quality of the personal advisers and of the support that they are giving lone parents, who welcome the opportunity to return to work. The national roll-out of the new deal for lone parents will follow in October and, currently, many more personal advisers are being trained, which will be of further major benefit to lone parents in the midlands.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Can the Minister explain why his Department has rejected the model set out in the new deal for the young unemployed, which is that the objective should be to increase employability, and adopted instead in the new deal for lone parents an objective of getting people into work?
    Mr. Bradley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. The new deal for lone parents equally looks at the employability of lone parents, helps with the barriers to work such as child care, looks at the appropriate training they require and ensures that there is a link between that and the labour market. We have a common approach towards all unemployed people to ensure that they can maximise their opportunities to return to work, which is what they want to do.
    Mr. Derek Foster: My hon. Friend will know that I strongly support the new deal for lone parents and the making work pay strategy. Will he investigate the circumstances, which I am sure neither he nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intended should arise, in which a lone parent on family credit with one child leaving school at the end of June can be £25 a week worse off than a lone parent in identical circumstances on income support?
    Mr. Bradley: I recognise that that matter has been raised in the press—the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has already commented on it.
    726
    The press report is totally inaccurate: the date for child benefit has not changed. Similarly, we inherited the date for family credit, which was changed in July 1996. Any proposal that now has an effect on work disincentives that we inherited will be looked at by the Government.
    Mr. David Rendel: Does the Minister accept that the increase in the number of lone parents who are finding a job specifically as a result of the new deal is a mere 0.9 per cent., and that each costs about £22,000? Given the rate at which the money is being used, what plans has the Minister for continuing to help lone parents to get into work when all the money allocated from the windfall tax has been used up?
    Mr. Bradley: Yet again, the Liberal Democrats are interested only in criticising a scheme that, by their own admission, is helping lone parents to get back to work. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, because much of the cost arises from the initial expenditure on getting the scheme up and running. For once, the Liberal Democrats should applaud a Government who are trying to help people to get back into work, instead of adopting their usual practice of criticising anything that comes forward.
    Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend will be aware that many lone parents in Slough and elsewhere have been able to get into work, in part because of individual advisers. However, a matter that concerns me is that lone parents in work have nobody to share the burden of family crises and other problems that occur while they are at work. Is there a case for continuing support once lone parents are in work, to help them to retain their employment by helping them to deal with family crises? Does my hon. Friend plan to give lone parents better support so that, having won a job, they can hang on to it and earn a better income for their family?
    Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have visited most of the lone parent schemes in the country and what is remarkable is not only the support given to lone parents trying to obtain work, but the fact that that support continues after they have got into work to ensure that any crisis can be addressed immediately, so that the person can remain in work and does not have to return to benefit. Linked to that is an obligation on employers to look closely at their own employment policies and to make them much more family friendly, so that they can appreciate the problems that a lone parent might experience and, in conjunction with the lone parent's personal adviser, sort out the problem and ensure continued employment.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is not the Minister avoiding the point? The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), made exactly the right point, which is that at a cost of £22,000 to £23,000 per job, the programme is very expensive. It is no good the Minister saying that those are the wrong figures and that they include start-up costs when there is a continuing rolling cost, such as the recent advertising campaign of £2.15 million which was intended to get more lone parents involved.

    727
    Is not the real truth that the Minister avoids the fact that there is a series of failings in the programme, such as 15 per cent. of women who are lone parents falling out of work within three months and 75 per cent. of the women written to not even bothering to reply? The Government are going national with the programme in October, and they have absolutely no idea of how effective or ineffective it is because they will have no measurement available until, at the very earliest, next year.
    Mr. Bradley: Once again, I reject the figures that the Opposition spokesperson has identified. Independent researchers have said that the Opposition figures are "meaningless". Most importantly, we cannot afford to allow lone parents who want to work to remain on benefit without substantial help from the Government to get them back into work. The Opposition did nothing but leave lone parents to languish on benefit. No help was forthcoming; no schemes were brought forward which helped lone parents back into work. The Labour Government can be proud of the new deal for lone parents.
    If the hon. Gentleman went round the country, met the lone parents who have got back into work and talked to them, he would see a great beam on their faces. For the first time, they are getting the help and support that they require. If the hon. Gentleman talked to them, he would not ask ridiculous questions in the House on the adequacy of the scheme.

    Crime and Disorder Bill
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: What representations she has received on the impact of the Government's proposed crime and disorder legislation on women. [47474]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women (Ms Joan Ruddock): I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Women's organisations, many of which depend on volunteers, do not find it easy to enter into partnerships with public bodies such as local authorities and the police. In their representations, women's organisations have made the point that there is not enough working together of all the key players, including women's organisations. The provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill for effective inter-agency working should, we believe, address these problems.
    Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of these organisations, the Women's Refuge Movement, undertakes valuable work on domestic violence. However, quite often it does not get the co-operation at local level that we would all like to see. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the national guidelines for co-operation between local authorities, women's refuges and the police are implemented?
    Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I want to give her the reassurance that she seeks. Co-operation at local level, as my hon. Friend says, between different agencies has not always been as good as it might be. For the first time, a statutory duty will be placed on local authorities and the police to create partnerships to tackle crime. One of the main duties of these partnerships will be to undertake audits to establish local crime statistics and experiences, with the idea that crime should be reduced. In looking to devise those audits
    728
    and carry them out, we expect that women's organisations will be able to give valuable expertise to the other partners that they might otherwise lack. I give the assurance that domestic violence will be one of the crimes that we regard as extremely serious and that we shall give guidance on the new partnerships.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Home Secretary gave a clear commitment to the House that women victims in rape cases would not be cross-examined by the defendant. Has that commitment been dropped and overturned by him?
    Last week, there was the tragic suicide of a woman prisoner. Will the Government now be minded to support my Prevention of Delay in Trials Bill, which provides that women should not be kept on remand for more than 110 days before being brought to trial?
    Ms Ruddock: I am sure that the hon. Lady should properly direct that question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I certainly have no knowledge of any change of heart on his part. We have made recommendations about the treatment of rape victims and they are now being consulted on. I will, of course, refer the hon. Lady's remarks to my right hon. Friend, and I undertake to write to her in due course.

    Housing Benefit Fraud
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What incentives she is giving local authorities to decrease the number of cases in which those committing housing benefit fraud are not prosecuted. [47475]
    The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Government have released £200,000 of taxpayers' money so that legal resources in the Department can be made available to local authorities to bring, we hope, successful prosecutions where they are so desired.
    Dr. Lewis: The Minister was recently reported as having told the Child Poverty Action Group that it is not true that most benefit fraud is accidental. He will be aware of the Public Accounts Committee's criticism that only one case of detected fraud in every 100 proceeds to prosecution. Will he explain what further measures might raise the prosecution rate? Will he confirm that any steps that are to be taken will be revealed first to the House, and not, like the Child Support Agency proposals, to the press—let alone to the dreadful Derek Draper to enable him to stuff his bank account with another £250 an hour?
    Mr. Field: Tomorrow, I shall meet the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to follow up the very points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I hope that we shall shortly be able to make a statement to the House on our counter-fraud strategy.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that one of the disincentives to local government in managing housing benefit is the enormous administrative cost associated with that benefit, which must be borne by local government? In effect, local government throughout the country is asked to subsidise

    729
    the Department of Social Security in that respect. Will the Minister make proposals fully to fund all the costs of administering housing benefit?
    Mr. Field: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that I shall think about it.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith): Does the Minister of State essentially agree with the Public Accounts Committee's report and its general criticism? Will he tell the House when he is likely to introduce a Green Paper on the changes?
    Mr. Field: The Public Accounts Committee's report is a serious document, and I drafted part of the reply to it. As with the Green Paper on welfare reform, counter-fraud proposals will be brought before the House soon.
    Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why we have such a legacy of fraud in housing benefit is the reduction in assistance to local authorities that the previous Government introduced in their final days, which prevents local authorities from effectively detecting and prosecuting fraud? Does he agree that another problem is the failure to ensure that we have a coherent information technology system linking the Benefits Agency and local government, as I witnessed when I worked in Luton Benefits Agency office for a day last week? The information technology system is crumbling and needs greater co-ordination. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that measures are taken swiftly so that we have a comprehensive review of the information technology system to link the Benefits Agency and local government and achieve more effective tracking of housing benefit and fraud?
    Mr. Field: My hon. Friend's second question is linked to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). That is an issue that we take seriously. We are also concerned that some local authorities do not bring any prosecutions whatever. The biggest fine that fraudsters can face is the loss of benefit, and they can then continue to claim in the same local authority area or that of a neighbouring local authority. I hope that shortly we shall put plans before the House which deal with each of my hon. Friend's questions.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Tim Loughton: What is her estimate of the net effect on benefit levels of the introduction of the minimum wage. [47477]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): The national minimum wage is one element of the Government's strategy to make work pay. People receiving in-work benefits may see a reduction in the amount of benefit paid, as they would with any increase in income. However, the current benefit system is structured so that increases in income are not deducted pound for pound from benefit entitlement.
    The introduction of the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit will increase the return from work for low and middle-income families with children and
    730
    ensure that recipients keep more of any increase in income. In addition, major changes in the national insurance system from April 1999 will reduce contributions for low-paid workers.
    Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister confirm that, if a single mother of two who is working full time and currently earning £3 an hour is lucky enough still to have a job when the minimum wage of £3.60 is introduced, her family income will rise by just £3 per week, with £21 clawed back by the Exchequer in lost benefit? Only 7.5p per hour will go to that employee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for all the soundbites about attacking poverty pay, the minimum wage is just a tax on business, designed as a revenue-raising exercise for the Treasury?
    Mr. Bradley: The national minimum wage is an essential part of our strategy to put a floor under in-work benefits and ensure, by combining the minimum wage with the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit, that people in work are significantly better off than they are currently. We shall ensure that, as the national minimum wage and the changes that we are making to in-work benefits through the tax system unfold, people see the benefit that the Government are bringing about by that combination of measures.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that those on low pay throughout the country know that, as a result of what the Government are doing on the national minimum wage, national insurance, tax and benefits, they will get a much fairer deal than they ever would have done under a Tory Government? Is it not also a fact that employers paying a fair wage to their employees are fed up with paying in taxation to subsidise those who are paying poverty pay?
    Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on every point.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: With several reports this morning showing that Britain sadly appears to be on the edge of a recession, I wonder what work the Department of Social Security has done to estimate what the impact of a minimum wage will be if the economy is to dip into recession, bearing in mind the fact that the minimum wage will not only increase the wage bill nationally for those on low pay, but have a knock-on effect on differentials.
    Mr. Bradley: I refer the hon. Lady to the appropriate Departments: the Department of Trade and Industry for the national minimum wage and the Treasury for the state of the economy. However, on the changes that we are making in the social security system, the working families tax credit and the child care disregard have been warmly welcomed throughout the country by those who recognise that work should pay, and that employers should pay a decent wage.
    Mr. David Winnick: Whenever a Conservative Member gets up to attack the minimum wage, would it not be useful to find out how many jobs that Tory Member has and the likely total income

    731
    received? Is it not the height of hypocrisy for such people to criticise a scheme which would give the lowest-paid workers something of a lift-up?
    Mr. Bradley: Once again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. The previous Government were not prepared to put a floor under benefit levels. They allowed family credit and other in-work benefits to take the strain of low wages, ensuring that very poor employers did not take their responsibilities seriously and provide a decent wage for their employees.

    Part-time Workers Directive
    Judy Mallaber: What assessment she has made of the impact on women of implementing the part-time workers directive. [47478]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women (Ms Joan Ruddock): This Government are committed to part-time workers having at least the same rights as full-time workers. This is particularly important to women as 83 per cent. of part-time workers are women. Implementation of the part-time workers directive will remove discrimination against them and increase the status of part-time work generally. This, I suggest, is a positive step for all those who choose to work part time in order to balance work and family life.
    Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she share my regret that Britain, which has the second highest proportion of part-time workers in Europe, is one of the last countries in Europe to introduce legislation covering part-time workers? Does she agree that the 1984 equal pay directive was implemented inadequately, creating hurdles for women seeking equal treatment, and that such directives provide minimum standards on which Governments may improve? Will she therefore give an assurance that she will work closely with her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that the directive is implemented in a way that gives effective rights to part-time workers?
    Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question. I very much share her concern that, as a result of the previous Government's failure to sign the social chapter, employees in this country were denied a raft of improvements to their working lives. She draws attention to the deficiencies of the equal pay legislation. I assure her that we share the concern that it has not brought equality of pay to women; at present, women are paid about 80 per cent. of the average for men.
    The Equal Opportunities Commission has been undertaking a consultation on that matter, and soon we, as a Government, will receive its recommendations. I assure my hon. Friend that the Ministers for Women are working closely with the Department for Education and Employment in considering those recommendations and preparing to give our opinions on them. We are also working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that women's interests are served by the proper implementation, as my hon. Friend suggests, of the part-time workers directive in United Kingdom law.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the changing patterns of work in the United Kingdom, which are to be welcomed, and given the great value of part-time jobs to women and, indeed, to men, does the Minister agree that the steps rightly taken to protect those jobs should be balanced by our making sure that there is sufficient scope for latitude in regulation, so as not to hinder the creation of many more part-time jobs for women?
    Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman has not asked me a specific question. The wording of his remarks is not at all clear. As he knows, the Government have repeatedly said that we want flexibility at the workplace, properly protecting workers but preserving the interests of employers who have taken advantage of flexibility and given us a vibrant economy.
    Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my hon. Friend agree that the part-time workers directive is part of the Government's acknowledgement that family-friendly employment is essential to create stable environments at home and at work? We must ensure that women can continue to play a vital role in employment—there has been an explosion in the number of women in part-time work—and that they can work secure in the knowledge that there will still be enough flexibility for them as mothers to play a full role in home life, especially when the children are sick. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Ministers for Women will work with the Department of Trade and Industry team to ensure that the White Paper on family-friendly employment considers the responsibilities of women and families when children are sick, and when women need to dip in and out of employment?
    Ms Ruddock: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have in circulation a consultation document on fairness at work, which lists the ways in which the Government propose to legislate for a range of opportunities for people to combine their working lives with good parenting. For example, the parental leave directive which is to come into UK law will make provision for people to have time off work around the time of the birth or adoption of a child. We are also considering time off for family emergencies. The consultation will attempt to define such emergencies.
    We recognise overall that child care provision must underpin employability and opportunities, especially for women who still have the major caring responsibilities. For both women and men, family-friendly employment practices by employers will be encouraged and promoted by the Government, because we consider that appropriate in modern times.
    Mrs. Theresa May: As was evident from the figures that the Minister gave in response to the main question, part-time work offers many women opportunities to enter the workplace that flexibly meet their needs and those of their family circumstances. Conservative Members have noted that, when asked to do so by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the Minister failed to support the continuing need for a flexible economy and an increase in the number of part-time jobs for women.

    733
    From the figures that the Minister gave, it is clear that any loss of part-time jobs will disproportionately affect women. What assessment has she made, therefore, of the number of women who will lose their part-time job as a result of the Government's policy to sign up to the social chapter? What discussions has she had with fellow Ministers on the impact of that policy on women, or was she absent when the discussion of the impact of that policy on women was held, as she was when her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced the Government's new policy on the appointment of women to public bodies?
    Ms Ruddock: I shall answer the second point first. I am sure that the House is unaware that the hon. Lady referred to an occasion on which I was not present when the publication of an important document on public appointments of women and men was announced. The Ministers for Women had contributed substantially to that programme. We have a principled position of 50:50 women and men in public appointments. For various reasons, the date chosen for the announcement was one on which I was speaking at an important conference in Bristol. There is no difference between my right hon. and hon. Friends and me on these matters: 50:50 women and men in public appointments, which the previous Government signally failed to achieve.
    The hon. Lady asked whether any assessment had been made of the number of women who would lose their part-time jobs as a result of the Government's policy of signing up to the social chapter. The Government as a whole have examined the issue of the social chapter, and the various measures that we think will improve the conditions of United Kingdom workers in comparison with those in other member states. We have not concluded that those measures will result in a loss of jobs; on the contrary, the view of the Government, employers and workers themselves is that they will provide a flexibility in the workplace that will enable our workers to continue to enjoy opportunity and employment. We do not think that there is any question of the new measures' leading, in themselves, to a reduction in jobs.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If she will review the 25p per week pension addition to pensioners aged over 80 years. [47480]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): The pensions review is looking at the central areas of insecurity for elderly people, including the value and uprating of the basic pension.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it not an absolute disgrace that the 25p age addition for pensioners over 80 has not been increased since its introduction in 1971? If it had been uprated since then, it would probably now be worth about £1.70 or £1.80. Is it not a fact that what pensioners
    734
    over80 really want is a decent state pension? If we are to continue with the age addition, it should be uprated—otherwise it should be scrapped.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right: no Government have uprated the age addition since it was introduced. That is one of the reasons why a fundamental pensions review is necessary.
    Many older pensioners are the poorest, which is why the House has welcomed the pilot projects set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into ways of securing more automatic help for the poorest pensioners. As the House has already heard this afternoon, we are finding that those pensioners—many of whom are the oldest—are going without between 24p and £51 a week, and we are taking action to deal with that problem for the benefit of the poorest and oldest pensioners.

    New Deal (Sick and Disabled People)
    Mr. Mark Oaten: If she will make a statement on the consultation process undertaken in connection with the new deal for sick and disabled people. [47483]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): The Government have four strategies for helping disabled people who want to work. We are providing the active help and encouragement that people with disabilities need to move into work under the new deal for disabled people; taking obstacles to work out of the benefits system; making sure that work pays; and promoting radical change in the workplace to ensure equality and opportunity.
    In developing the new deal, we have been consulting closely with disabled people and the organisations that represent them, and with other interested parties. We have ensured consultation at each key stage of the programme's development, and we will continue to do so.
    Mr. Oaten: Does the Minister share the concern felt by many disability groups about the fact that, of all the new deal programmes, those aimed at encouraging disabled people to return to work are taking the longest to get off the ground? We were promised that the contracts for the pilot schemes would be awarded in June, but to date there has been no announcement. Can the Minister reaffirm his Government's commitment to making progress, so that disability groups realise that getting disabled people back to work is at the top rather than the bottom of the Government's agenda?
    Mr. Denham: It is not true that disabled people are at the bottom of the Government's agenda. The new deal pilots are very important, as we need to establish what measures will be most effective in enabling disabled people to work.
    We received more than 120 bids in the first tranche of bidding for the new deal pilot projects. We aim to let the first contract shortly, and I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement very soon.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: If the mobility component of disability living allowance related to people living in accommodation provided by the NHS will be included within the welfare benefits review. [47485]
    The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): Yes.
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful for that reply, succinct as it was. Is my right hon. Friend aware that people with learning disabilities and physical handicaps who move from long-stay hospitals to live in community homes run by health trusts are classed as in-patients? As a consequence of changes to the higher mobility component within disability living allowance that were introduced in 1996, they are no longer able to claim it. Such people, however, are classed as out-patients in respect of prescription charges and are allowed to receive the benefits of that classification. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an anomaly, and that a review is required? Will he liaise with the Department of Health to ensure that that vulnerable group of people are able to get out and about, as they need to if they are to take part in community life?
    Mr. Field: Yes to the first question; yes to the second; and yes to the third.

    Additional Pension Contributions
    Mr. Julian Brazier: What representations she has received on the subject of individuals being required by law to make additional pension contributions into private sector funds. [47486]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): Many submissions to the pensions review have argued that compulsory second-tier pensions should be extended to groups not covered, and that the minimum second-tier contribution should be raised from current levels. We are looking at these proposals seriously, and will publish our response in a Green Paper on pensions later this year.
    Mr. Brazier: The previous Government were rightly proud of the growth in private sector pension provision and the rise in living standards for millions of pensioners which that has provided and will provide. Will the Minister none the less accept that if any Government went further than encouraging such provision, and coerced people by the force of law to engage in it, they would be morally obliged to stand behind any such fund which failed?
    Mr. Denham: As I said earlier, we are considering these issues carefully, and the type of pension vehicle that might be suitable for second pension savings is an important part of our consideration. It is certainly true that, whatever we do on pension policy, we need more cost-effective, value-for-money and flexible second pensions than are currently available, especially for those who cannot join an occupational pension scheme.
    736
    We must not, under any circumstances, have a repeat of the pension mis-selling scandal for which the previous Government were so clearly largely responsible.
    Madam Speaker: Dr. Iddon.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On a previous occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question 19."] I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker; Question 19.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend has a speech for every occasion.

    Benefit Integrity Project
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If she will make a statement on measures taken to improve the quality of treatment under the benefit integrity project of those suffering from mental illness. [47488]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): The benefit integrity project seeks to secure the correctness of certain awards of disability living allowance. In June 1998, we decided that people who have been awarded DLA because they fall within our definition of severe mental impairment should not be contacted directly as part of the project.
    We are working closely with disability organisations to improve the operation of the project.
    Dr. Iddon: It is Monday, I am afraid, Madam Speaker. On a previous—
    Mr. Stephen Pound: At least my hon. Friend has that one right.
    Dr. Iddon: On a previous occasion—if my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) will allow me to continue—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State kindly told the House that she was discussing with Mencap the way in which mentally ill people are dealt with by the benefit integrity project. My hon. Friend the Minister has also told the House that seriously mentally ill people might be excluded from it. I welcome what he has said this afternoon, but my concern is that a large number of mentally ill people are still losing their benefits by being put through the benefit integrity project. May I suggest that more sympathetic consideration be given and that specialist doctors be employed so that we can genuinely assess those people?
    Mr. Denham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the further changes that we have made to the operation of the benefit integrity project. I can of course assure him that we shall continue to meet and consult organisations of and for disabled people on the project's operation, and we shall always consider further proposals for the improvement of its running. We take steps to ensure that those who advise our adjudication officers on DLA decisions are properly medically qualified to deal with the range of conditions that come before them and to seek additional information where that is necessary.

    Home Buyers
    Ms Linda Perham: What plans she has to assist home buyers on income support following the recent further rise in interest rates. [47491]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): There are no plans at present to change the way in which help with mortgage interest is calculated, using a standard rate. The standard rate is based on variable rates of mortgage interest that are charged by the main building societies and excludes discounted and fixed-rate mortgages, which are available to many borrowers.
    Ms Perham: I welcome that answer. Actually, I do not welcome it; I am so used to saying that sort of thing.
    738
    Every time interest rates go up, another trickle of people come to my surgeries who are on income support and who find it very difficult to meet the payments. Will Ministers continue to liaise with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to take a sympathetic attitude on repossessions?
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have regular discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and it assures us that it will take a sympathetic approach to ensure that people remain in their homes. I announced an increase in the standard rate to 8.34 per cent. from 31 May and the Government are committed, through their housing review, to ensuring that there is sustainable home ownership.

Child Support
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): Madam Speaker, with your permission, I will make a statement on the Government's Green Paper on reform of the child support system.
We promised to reform the welfare state, so that it is modern and fair and strikes the right balance between rights and responsibilities—reform on the basis of work for those who can, and security for those who cannot. Children are first and foremost the responsibility of their parents, but we have a responsibility as a Government to ensure that parents are in a position to support them—that they are working if they can—and that children get the support they need. That is why, as a Government, we place so much emphasis on policies for families. We have increased child benefit for all families. We have embarked on a major welfare-to-work programme to ensure that mothers and fathers can work and improve their children's standard of living.
The new deal for lone mothers will ensure that mothers work, if they can. The new deal for the long-term unemployed and the young unemployed will mean that fathers, many for the first time, can support their children through work. Those new deals, with the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, are important parts of banishing child poverty. Therefore, welfare to work, the first part of our welfare reform, is under way. The second step in welfare reform, to ensure that children are properly supported by their non-resident father, is what I bring to the House today.
The child support system is like no other part of social security. In most of the benefit system, there are just two stakeholders: the benefit recipient and the taxpayer. In child support, there are four: the child who needs an adequate standard of living and is entitled to the father's support; the father who has a responsibility to support the child and needs enough left to live on and to discharge his other responsibilities; taxpayers who need both to support their own children and to contribute through their taxes to prevent other people's children from living in poverty; and the mother, who needs a dependable source of income for her family.
Getting the system right and fair for all four is not an easy task. Few people would seriously disagree with those objectives of child support. Most agree that the current system is not working to deliver them.
In identifying the need for reform, I seek to make no party political criticism of the previous Government. We are all wiser with the benefit of hindsight. Nor will I dwell for too long on the statistics that show the failings of the child support system, except to remind the House that there are 1.8 million children living in families on income support or family credit, in respect of whom fathers pay no maintenance at all. One in six of all children in this country are being brought up supported only by their mothers working, or, more usually, by the benefits system. What message does it send to boys, who may one day become fathers themselves, when the financial responsibilities of fatherhood can be wholly delegated either to the welfare state or to the mother alone?
Seventy per cent. of lone mothers claiming income support try to avoid co-operating with the Child Support Agency. Their co-operation takes their time and energy,
740
and can cause further conflict with the child's father, but if they are not working, it brings no financial gain to their children, as all the maintenance paid by the father is deducted from their benefit.
The formula for assessing maintenance is so complicated that the CSA has to spend 90 per cent. of its time assessing maintenance or keeping assessments up to date, and it is left with only 10 per cent. of its time to chase up payments. The complexity of the formula means that fathers do not know where they stand, and often the first demand for maintenance tells them that they are already thousands of pounds in arrears. Complexity leads to errors.
Our reform of child support involves replacing the byzantine complexity of the current formula with a simple percentage. The assessment of maintenance will no longer require more than 100 separate bits of information. It will no longer require fathers to report their new partner's income. It will rely only on identifying the number of children the father has, where the children live and how much income he has after deduction of tax and national insurance.
We propose that, for one child, 15 per cent. is deducted from the father's net income and paid in maintenance; for two children, 20 per cent.; and for three or more children, 25 per cent. There will be special rules for fathers with a low income. For fathers who are on benefit or whose net income is below £100, we propose maintenance of £5 a week, with a sliding scale for those between £100 and £200.
In assessing the amount of maintenance, we propose to take into account children in a second family. Our Green Paper sets out, for consultation, two different options for reaching the right balance between the children in the first and second families, but both our options are about taking second families into account.
Moving from a complex formula to a simple percentage will have a number of advantages. Men who father a child with a woman with whom they are not living will know that they will have to pay 15 per cent. of their weekly income to that child for the next 16 years. Men who separate from their wife and children will know, before they take on other commitments, that they will have to put money on one side for their children. The CSA will be able to spend dramatically less time assessing maintenance, and more time ensuring that it is paid. Everyone will understand the system. The aim is to ensure that more fathers pay, rather than that fathers pay more.
There is also the issue of what the children receive when the fathers pay. Almost from the outset, the complaint has been made that, for every pound paid in maintenance by the father a pound is deducted from the mother's income support. When mothers who are not working co-operate with the Child Support Agency, it may mean that maintenance is paid by the father, but no maintenance is received by the child. Fathers who do not pay feel that they are merely defying the CSA, and are not disadvantaging their own children.
We are proposing to change that. The child will, in future, receive a child maintenance premium. The first £10 of maintenance paid will go to the mother for the child, and will not be deducted from her benefit. So when a father pays, he will know that he is fulfilling his responsibilities and that his child is better off. When a

741
mother on income support co-operates with the CSA, she will ensure that he is paying his fair share, and that the child gets up to £10 more a week.
As well as a simple percentage, we need a better child support service. We propose a three-stage process. First, when the mother applies for maintenance, the father will be contacted. In most cases, an assessment can be made over the telephone, and he can start paying right away. Secondly, if either parent has concerns about the assessment, there will be a review, where the situation can be explained or sorted out. Thirdly, if either parent wants to challenge the basis of the assessment—for example, the calculation of income—their case can be assessed by an independent tribunal.
We also propose that the tribunal should be able to set maintenance at a different percentage rate if the non-resident parent can show that he incurs special expenses in supporting the child—for example, where the cost of paying the maintenance will make him unable to afford the costs of visiting the child.
Although we propose these reforms, there will need to be time to consult, to take legislation through the House and then to change the computer systems. However, people currently in the system cannot wait that long to see progress. We need to do what we can within the existing system to make it work better for them.
We therefore intend to press forward with the introduction of more telephone lines, and service outside normal working hours. We will take further action to tackle the backlog. We will spend an extra £12 million this year, in addition to £30 million already committed over the next two years to sharpen up our service.
The CSA staff have borne much of the brunt of the complexity and unpopularity of the system. Much of the criticism that should have been directed at the system has been heaped on them—usually unfairly. However, we are counting on them—and I know we can do so—to improve the current system and then make a first-class job of the new system.
This is a Green Paper. Its proposals are for consultation until the end of November this year. We hope that there will be the widest possible debate. To ensure that fathers, mothers and the taxpayer all feel that the system is fair is not an easy task. The need for reform is obvious. The demand for reform has been voiced in hours of debate in this House, hundreds of pages of official reports and thousands of letters of public complaints. I believe that we have charted a new way forward.
I will conclude with a word of caution. Relations between men and women are not always easy. Relations between men and women who are parents of the same child but do not share the same home are often intensely difficult. No reform of the child support system can ever change that, but it can work better than it does now, and it can better serve those children who have a right to the support of both their parents, irrespective of where they live. It is above all for them that I present the Green Paper to the House today.
Mr. lain Duncan Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in giving us the Green Paper and her statement at 12.30 pm today. That was much appreciated, and gave us the opportunity to look at them in detail.
742
This is a very important statement—no one for one moment would downgrade it. The Opposition welcome the idea—stated by the Minister of State and the Secretary of State today—that, in essence, because the House of Commons was the place that put through the original legislation and agreed it, it is the House of Commons that must rectify the problems and inequities. We must all shoulder that requirement across the board, regardless of party.
I wish to concentrate on the questions arising from the statement. I hope that I can do so constructively, but some of the questions are detailed; if they cannot be answered now, I hope that answers will be placed in the Library or sent to me.
The Government claim that, as a result of the disregard, 75 per cent. of absent parents and parents with care will be better off. Will the Secretary of State give full details of the gainers and losers, as calculated by the Department? If those calculations have not been made, I hope that they will be. For example, will the disregard be for both in-work and out-of-work benefits? I am not sure of the answer, even after reading the statement and the Green Paper.
The Government also claim that the change to the system will be revenue-neutral, but have they included the cost of the £10 disregard and of the transitory arrangements in that calculation? How will the system apply? It is not clear whether the Secretary of State intends changes on that; will the new system apply to people on benefits, or to everyone regardless of whether one of the partners is on benefit?
The Secretary of State made much of simplicity, which is a great goal. However, the claim that the arrangements can be made over the telephone may be a touch optimistic, given some of the complex questions that arise. She said that there would be alterations for those with second families, and she offers alternatives. What is the basis for the two alternatives—which are very different—in the Green Paper, and what calculations will the Department make on the implications for both the taxpayer and the absent parents?
Paragraph 27 of the Green Paper deals with special expenses. It says:
"We therefore propose to allow a tribunal to set a different level of maintenance in certain, exceptional, circumstances."
That is part of the real key; it raises a huge issue, from which I do not think anyone should shy away.
What effect will a tribunal have on the system's simplicity? We could be shifting all the decision-making problems from the first part of the system to a second stage. I understand—I am not certain of this—that a similar problem has arisen in Australia. There is simplicity in the first instance, but all the tribunal cases and exemptions jam up the system later, so nothing is solved.
How much variation from the flat rate will a tribunal be allowed? What will the special expenses include? How will the new system deal with those on low incomes with high living and travelling costs, which currently count as protected income, but would not under a simple, flat-rate system?
Will a tribunal have the flexibility to include housing costs, high travel-to-work costs, high travelling costs to see the children, allowances for pensions, long-term

743
illness or disability, pre-separation debt that the absent parent took on for the benefit of the family, pre-1993 financial arrangements that cannot be stopped or that it would be unreasonable to stop, and pre-1993 transfers of property or capital that were not fully reflected in the maintenance assessment? If a tribunal has to assess all those matters, the system will quickly lose its simplicity and speed. Those issues must be addressed.
The Green Paper acknowledges the problem of dealing with existing assessments, which was one of the main problems that the Child Support Agency encountered. It is unclear in the Green Paper—I may be wrong—exactly what the Government plan to do. I think that the Secretary of State is being a touch optimistic when she says in paragraph 7 on page 40:
"We are simply suggesting a change in liability within existing agreements, similar to the re-assessment that takes place when parents' circumstances change."
That brief section of the Green Paper holds the key to whether the changes will be perceived as a success. What calculations has the Department made of the costs of option A and option B, which are outlined in the section?
Dealing with the backlog could be the biggest problem. The Green Paper does not seem to deal with the CSA's backlog and how those cases that still await assessment will be resolved under the new system. That will give rise to some of the most divisive issues; there may be iniquity between those who have co-operated and finalised their assessments and those who will now deliberately delay because they recognise that a new assessment may be made. How will the Secretary of State deal with those backlog cases? Does she recommend considering them on the basis of the new system, or is she saying that all cases are backlog? The Green Paper points to that, but I am not certain how it will work when the cases come in.
What research has the Department carried out into the setting of the percentage? Who will be the gainers and the losers in that area? The backlog will create some problems. Some people may say, "I would rather have been assessed under the new system than the old," and others may say the reverse.
When will the legislation be introduced? That is an important question for the Secretary of State. We have the Green Paper and presumably we will have a White Paper, and then the legislation. If the system is introduced around the millennium, it will have another impact, as she will be asking her Department to make major changes in the way it makes calculations through its computer system, at the same time as it is being asked to make such changes as a result of the millennium. The Government need to think about that carefully, and I wonder whether they have. What are the cost implications of those sorts of changes?
Finally, what did the Secretary of State mean when she said that the absent parent would be paying 15 per cent. of his net pay for the next 16 years at least? Might there be some other changes beyond 16 years, and what does she mean by net payments—what does she include or not include?
The main point about which many lone parents, particularly absent fathers, are concerned is the way in which the other partner in the marriage, the ex-marriage or the relationship often uses access rights as a tool against the absent father—or, in this case, the absent mother. What discussions has the right hon. Lady had
744
with other Departments to find out what can be done about that and whether there are other ways in which those problems can be resolved, when rights might already have been laid down by the courts?
To depart for a moment from the sense of common purpose, I must point out that much of this statement was already known to the public at large as a result of a series of leaks. Perhaps the Secretary of State could also say how, on 25 January, The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph came up with the points that are in the Green Paper; how The Observer and The Sunday Telegraph reported the "extra cash" that lone parents were to receive on 28 June; and how The Daily Telegraph on 29 June reported that there would be a sliding scale reducing the assessments made for absent parents. How did The Daily Telegraph and the "Today" programme come up with the 15 per cent. calculation on Monday 29 June, and why did the story about the £10 bonus appear in The Guardian and The Times on 2 July?
This is a big issue for the House. It is the last chance for the Child Support Agency to prove itself—to prove whether it will work and whether it can resolve the problems with which it was meant to deal. To use a hackneyed expression, perhaps it is dining in the last chance saloon. Perhaps the CSA never can work—we do not know, but we will see. We want changes to be made to make the system work. Therefore, the question for the Secretary of State is whether it will work. We will judge that success against the answers to those questions. I wish it, as ever, the best of luck in securing that outcome.
Ms Harman: I thank the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) for the genuinely constructive spirit in which he greeted the Green Paper. I, too, deplore the leaks. I have done no briefing of our proposals, and nor has anyone on my behalf. I regret the fact that the details were in the newspapers before they came to the House.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, which were all relevant and important, and I will try to deal with them quickly one by one to enable as many other hon. Members as possible to ask questions on this important topic.
There will be a £10 child maintenance premium for those on income support, which will be paid to the mother for the child only if the maintenance is paid. For family credit, the child maintenance premium will be £15, so there will still be that incentive to work.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the assertion that the system will be revenue-neutral. In calculating revenue neutrality, we took into account the cost of the child maintenance premium and the transitional cost that he rightly identified of moving from the existing to the new system. The system is for those on benefits as well as for what are described as private cases.
The point about tribunals is extremely important. If something has gone wrong in the assessment of income or there is a dispute about where the children are living, people must have the right to go to an independent tribunal. A large amount of people's weekly income is affected, so either side must have the opportunity to put a case before an independent tribunal, exactly as happens with tax affairs. That is essential for the credibility of the system.

745
The hon. Gentleman rightly identified the fact that the gateway to the tribunal will be critical in striking a balance between people perceiving that the system is fair, and not going back to all the complexities and individual variations that have bedevilled the current system and have been the central reason for its failure.
I believe that the tribunals should be able to consider matters of fact and assessment about income, the number of children, and where they live. We propose that the tribunal should be able to vary the percentage of income paid in maintenance if there are special issues relating to the cost of child support: for example, when there is a choice between making the payments or seeing the child. In the narrow circumstances in which the percentage may affect the emotional and financial support of the child, it is right to allow the tribunal not only to examine all the facts, disputed as they will be, but to assess whether, in an individual case, 15, 20 or 25 per cent. would be fair.
If we do not keep the gateway narrow, we will return to a situation in which everybody appeals automatically, the appeals system will cause delays, we will be back to the same old problems, and the promptness and fairness that we want to introduce will be lost.
The hon. Gentleman talked about people moving from the current system to the new system. New cases will obviously start with the new system once it is introduced. For existing cases, we canvassed two options. People could either move into the new system when they come up for review, which happens every two years, or we could review them in advance by assessing what they would have to pay under the new system; but there would have to be phasing, because it would not be fair for either the non-resident parent or the parent with care suddenly to have a big change in income. We need to do a great deal of work to reduce the backlog. Progress is being made, and that will continue.
The hon. Gentleman asked about timing. We have to hold consultations, do the drafting, introduce legislation and set up computer systems. There is an urgent need for reform, but we simply must get it right. As he said, we cannot afford to get it wrong. There are 1 million non-resident parents, 1 million lone parents, 2 million children and a great deal of money and concern at stake. We must act as fast as we can, but not so fast that we get it wrong.
The young man who has a baby with a woman with whom he is not living would have to pay 15 per cent. for 16 years, but that could be extended to 19 years if the child stays on in further and higher education. The payment for one child will be 15 per cent., but that could last for 16 years or more.
I agree absolutely with what the hon. Gentleman said about rights of access and maintenance. My starting point has always been that children have two parents, and have the right to both the financial and the emotional support of both. The mother does not have the right to deny access to the father when it is in the child's interests and has been ruled so by the courts. Children need not only their parents' money, but their time.
These matters are extremely complex, but I hope that we have made progress, and that that progress can continue.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does the Secretary of State agree that the large number of children
746
in Britain affected by family insecurity and the resulting poverty and deprivation will burn a hole in Britain's future unless we make her reforms work? The House of Commons has been good at espousing the principle of parental responsibility, but somewhat shriller in attacking child maintenance in practice. Often, the voice of men has overcome the needs of children.
During consultation, will the Secretary of State do her best to build a true consensus in Parliament, including those parties that have previously attacked the principle? Will she also seek consensus among the public so that we can ingrain in our culture the idea that having a child—as mum or dad—brings rights and joys, but also responsibilities, including the financial responsibility to maintain the child?
Ms Harman: I absolutely agree, and I will do as my hon. Friend suggests. I pay tribute to his important work on child support, and the understanding and wisdom that he has brought to bear.
Mr. David Rendel: I, too, welcome the fact that someone is trying, at last, to do something about the Child Support Agency. I also welcome the Secretary of State's important judgment that there is a place for tribunals in the new system. The main question is the size of the gateway. If there is a narrow gateway, a great many people will feel that the system is unfair and that their circumstances have not been properly taken into account. If people cannot agree the amount of maintenance with their ex-partners, that disagreement will be bad for children.
Will not the Secretary of State find, as the experience of the CSA shows, that the small number of exceptions for which she has allowed is bound to grow, until most people, if not all of them, go through the tribunal system? Would it not be best to acknowledge that, and to get the system right now?
Ms Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, which I share with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, Baroness Hollis, who has done a huge amount of work to bring our proposals forward. The hon. Gentleman asked what would be taken into account. The principle is that the system will deal with a specific child, a specific father and the father's responsibility to pay for that child out of his net income. That is the simplification we seek.
A broad gateway, which would allow thousands of matters to be taken into account at tribunal, would take us back to the current system, which is not fair. We must remember that the current system tangled people up until they did not know where they stood. If our system sets a clear percentage, but allows the other parent to go to tribunal and to bring up hundreds of different circumstances that can change the percentage, we will return to lack of clarity. It is fair to set 15 per cent. of net income for one child. That leaves 85 per cent. of net income for the father to spend as he sees fit, or to live on.
The average assessment per father under the new set of formulae will be lower than that under the current system. I know that you, Madam Speaker, take a great interest in assessments, because of Child Support Agency cases in your own constituency. The average assessment per father is £38 under the current system, but the average payment

747
is only £25. Under our system, the average assessment will be about £29, but we expect the average payment to be proportionately higher, because more fathers will pay.
Mr. Terry Rooney: I should confess that I am the only Member who sat on the Committees that dealt with all three pieces of existing legislation. Will the Secretary of State promise us that, at the end of consultation, there will be a draft Bill, but also draft regulations? With social security, the devil is always in the detail, and no one who dealt with the first Bill foresaw how the regulations would turn out in practice.
Ms Harman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will play an important role in bringing forward this reform. He has had a long-standing interest in this matter on behalf of his constituents and on a wider basis. The number of reports that we have received—to which my hon. Friend has contributed—about the problems with the CSA bear testimony to the need for reform. It is now down to the Government and the House to take that reform forward.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In welcoming today's statement, may I ask whether the Secretary of State accepts that there could be a danger in moving from a system that is too complex to one that is too simplistic? Will she give an assurance that account will be taken of particular circumstances, such as high travel-to-work costs in certain parts of these islands? Will she ensure also that the net income of self-employed people is assessed? That can be an extremely difficult exercise. Will that sensitivity be built into the system, in order to ensure that it works fairly?
Ms Harman: When it comes to assessing the net income of the self-employed, we shall bring the situation into line with the Revenue, and calculate our assessment on the same basis as that used by the Revenue. There is a big problem with non-compliance with maintenance assessments on the part of the self-employed, and we must sort it out.
The right hon. Gentleman heralds the start of calls to make the system complicated again. We must resist those calls—we have a choice, and we are proposing that we must resist them. We cannot have fairness and complexity side by side. If a system is too complicated, it will be unfair because of its complexity. We think that we shall achieve clarity through simplicity and getting the system right by using the correct percentages. People will know where they stand, and they will be able to start paying right away. That amounts to fairness and justice.
If we are united in our criticism of the current system—and we are—we must recognise that there is only one way forward. Only one substantial change can make the difference: turning our back on the complexity and all the individual circumstances—we tried that approach, and it failed—and moving to a simpler system that is more like the tax system. People pay their taxes on a fixed percentage of their income, and they should be able to pay for their children in the same way.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The CSA has proved to be very adept at getting large sums of money from people who are salaried, but getting absolutely nothing from the self-employed. What is there in this newly proposed scheme that will carry the power
748
of enforcement so that lone parents do not go through the empty and deeply depressing exercise of asking for moneys that are never forthcoming, and that are constantly taken into account by other agencies?
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. She, too, has been a well-informed and balanced critic of the Child Support Agency. Simplifying the formula will allow the Child Support Agency to spend more time on enforcement. Great frustration is experienced by parents with care, who report their circumstances and who believe that they are never looked into because the Child Support Agency is too busy assessing maintenance and has no time to chase up the payments.
If our basis for assessment is the same as that of the Revenue, the self-employed will simply need to show us the assessment that they have given the Revenue, which has been approved, and we can proceed. That is another benefit of simplification. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have answered the question about enforcement: there will be more time and more co-ordination with the Revenue under the new system, so the situation will be clear.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady accept that many people believe that the Child Support Agency, as a decision-making body as opposed to an enforcement body, should be abolished? Does she understand that many people believe also that maintenance orders should reflect the individual facts and circumstances of every case? That cannot be addressed through a formula: it involves the exercise of inquiry and discretion.
If that is so, I think that the Secretary of State will accept that that cannot be done by officials. In all circumstances, is it not right to contemplate returning the whole process either to the courts or to quasi-judicial tribunals, and leaving to the agency only the enforcement function?
Ms Harman: One criticism of the court system that preceded the Child Support Agency was that, without a formula and with decisions left to judicial discretion, there was huge variation and a sense of unfairness. One set of parents might be awarded £15-a-week maintenance while another set with an identical income might be awarded £40 a week by a different court. Such unfairness led the previous Administration, with our support, to introduce a formula instead of judicial discretion.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a problem if we seem to give discretion to officials or a bureaucracy. It is much simpler and clearer if officials are responsible for ensuring that the calculation is made correctly, while we decide what is a fair percentage for maintenance. If something goes wrong with the calculations, the tribunals are a quasi-judicial element in the system.
Unfortunately, the courts did not work—I wish they had. The CSA, with its complicated formula, has not worked—I wish it had. We are trying to take it forward. I think that a simple formula with fair rights of appeal offers some hope.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend think that someone should say a big

749
"sorry" to the thousands of people who have suffered anguish and misery from the monumental incompetence of the Child Support Agency? Will she reconsider the backlog? It is estimated that it will take three years to get through it. Is she really going to turn civil servants loose on the impossible task of going back over the ground to do the assessments on the basis that she now proposes? Would it not be sensible to a take some short-term measures to achieve brutal fairness, as it were, until the new formula is in place, in order to avoid expensive duplication?
Ms Harman: We should all say, "Sorry," to the children in respect of whom no maintenance has been paid, to the mothers, to the fathers who have been tangled up in a system that has presented them with thousands of pounds of arrears that they feel that they can never hope to pay, and to the staff who have been given an impossible job. We should all be determined to reform the CSA.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State deserves the support of the whole House in her attempt to reform the CSA. This is the last chance, because much work needs to be done to rebuild public confidence in the CSA after its past actions. I exhort her to hasten slowly. It is right that this be done with due dispatch, but, once this important consultation process is over and a draft Bill is available, will she consider allowing the Select Committee on Social Security to produce a pre-legislative, interim report, so that some of the points on consensus and the complexity of regulations can be properly considered?
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman, who is the Chair of the Social Security Select Committee, makes an important proposal by offering that his Committee will consider the legislation in draft and hold pre-legislative hearings. We all feel that, last time, the House agreed the principle but the implementation was not got right. There were some things that we could not have foreseen, but others that we could. I hope that proper consultation—certainly I take up his offer and will make the draft Bill available so that he can conduct pre-legislative hearings—will make the reform proceed on a stronger footing.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the problems with the original scheme in 1992 was that it was pushed through just before a general election? In my view and that of many who were around at the time, it was not properly scrutinised. One of the redeeming features of this scheme is that it will be dealt with in a proper manner. It will get a lot of time, and people will be able to scrutinise it to make sure that we try to get a decent result, notwithstanding the fact that we are talking about trying to find a formula against the changing social fabric of society, and that ain't easy.
Tribunals are important, because that falls into line with other social security tribunals, with many of which we have been involved over many years. May I enter a plea that there should be equal representation of men and women on those panels? May I also argue that there should be no more closures, such as those that took place under the previous Government, of industrial tribunal centres, because they will be used much more than they
750
have been in the past? If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State manages to crack this hard nut, she could get the finest accolade of all—she could end up among Draper's 17 useful people.
Ms Harman: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who, above all, takes seriously his duties in the House, will be a key scrutineer of the Government's proposals. He makes a good point about equal representation: with a three or two-person tribunal, it is right that we should have equal numbers of men and women. He also makes the point about locally accessible tribunals, and that, too, is important. In every town, there are people who have concerns about child support, and we do not need to make it impossible for them to appeal by making them travel miles.
I shall discuss the issue with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to ensure that, when we introduce the tribunals, we have equal representation, and that the tribunals are locally accessible. I thank my hon. Friend for making those important points.
Mr. Edward Leigh: No doubt the Secretary of State will win plaudits for trying to simplify the system, until, that is, we hear in our postbag from the losers—we shall not hear from the gainers, I fear.
Is the right hon. Lady aware that she has created an essentially valueless system? Many people already feel that they can lose their spouse, their home and their children, without any account being taken in existing family law of their behaviour or that of their spouse. Now, it will make no difference whether one wants to go and see one's absent children, or whether one has high travelling costs—nothing will make any difference.
Is the right hon. Lady aware that that will cause much grief and despair, and that, while we might raise children out of physical poverty, we might well reduce them to psychological poverty? Is that the right way of going about things, or should we not have a proper, flexible system that takes account of people's desire, if at all possible, to look after their children, not only financially but physically? Looking after children is about care and compassion, not just money.
Ms Harman: I think that one need not exclude the other. It is important for children to know that their father is financially supporting them, as well as has time for them. I said that in response to an earlier question. There is a morality that runs through the proposal: it is that parents have a responsibility for their children and that children are, first and foremost, the responsibility of their parents. The role of Government is to make sure that children get the financial support to which they are entitled when they do not live with both parents.
I would not say that the system is valueless. It seeks to enforce the value that children are entitled to the financial support of their parents. However, what it does not do is make moral judgments about how families end up as they are. If a Government try to make it a public policy to make men and women stay happy in their marriages, they will not succeed. What we can do, as a Government, is make sure that men and women can work, that they can support their children and that there is a simple system of ensuring that, when the parents separate, the children do not lose financially.
Caroline Flint: I welcome the statement today, and the fact that children are put to the forefront

751
of the proposals. I am sure that all of us, when dealing with our case work and leaving our surgeries, wonder about the children who are caught up in the middle of a battle between so-called adults, who are at that time acting more like young children.
Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, in reducing the amount of time that has to be spent on assessment, the development of a more personalised service—one that helps to create better communication between both parents and a better understanding of what is necessary for parents to comply-is prioritised? People's dissatisfaction at not being able to have face-to-face meetings adds to the stress, and often to the hostility between the two parents.
Ms Harman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. CSA staff will need to spend less time sweating over a hot computer making endless calculations. Even if they can understand those calculations, they can never hope to explain them to those who will have to pay under the assessments. They will therefore be able to spend more time on enforcement and chasing up payment, and on explaining the payments and the basis of the assessments, so there will be a more personalised face-to-face service.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State has been as clear as she possibly can be about the existing flexibility in the system, such as travel-to-work costs, housing costs and debt costs, which are all to be removed under the right hon. Lady's new plans. Bearing in mind the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), when he said that there will be losers in the system, who will be banging on our surgery doors, will the right hon. Lady give us an estimate of how many losers her Department thinks there will be?
Ms Harman: The hon. Lady talks about losers. How would she describe the 200,000 or more fathers who we think, with a simplified system, will end up paying maintenance for the first time? Presumably, on the hon. Lady's balance sheet, she would describe them as losers. Surely we could not possibly describe those fathers just as losers without explaining that their children will be gainers from their paying maintenance to the tune of up to £10 a week.
That is the difficulty that I tried to set out at the outset. There is a square formed by the taxpayer, the child, the father and the mother. Although it is important under the new system to consider what people's relative but different situations will be, the simple assertion of gainers and losers, which we are able to use in other parts of the benefits system, tells only part of the story in this instance.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? I am sure that the House will appreciate its importance and the need for it. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in his place, because last week I received a letter from a regimental sergeant after 22 years of service in the Army, serving his country. He has been charged more than £600 a month out of his salary by the CSA. Not one penny of that is going to his children or the wife. He has been forced out of employment. The position is the same throughout the gamut of employment. The CSA, which has been a disaster, has forced people out of employment into dependency, costing the taxpayer more, not less.
752
I make a special plea for the single parent, usually a mother, who is in employment, where the CSA has walked away from her because she was not in benefit and did not chase the other parent to pay a fair contribution to the children.
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the CSA supporting the mother in work to ensure that the father pays a fair share, and that she has a reliable income stream to go towards the children.
Perhaps I can offer to look into the specific case to which my hon. Friend has referred just to check that everything is in order in the circumstances that he has outlined. Finally, may I say how good it is to see my hon. Friend back, and in what great shape he looks?
Sir David Madel: A frequent mistake made by the CSA is to add overtime and bonus payments to basic pay and assume that it is all basic pay. The result is that people receive demands for increased contributions during the financial year. Will the reforms stop the CSA demanding increases until the end of the financial year, when it and the Revenue will know how much has been earned?
As Members, will we have the power to call in tribunals to examine particular cases? Here is one such case. When an ex-wife stops earning because she has remarried to somebody who is not short of a bob, why should the ex-husband receive a demand for an increased payment to the CSA? There must be something wrong there.
As for CSA staff, my constituents are always polite and courteous, as I am sure are those of all other Members. All our constituents are polite and courteous. Therefore, we expect CSA staff to be equally polite and courteous to our constituents, with the result that everybody will be happier.
Ms Harman: The income of the first wife's new husband or partner will not be taken into account in the new system. We shall look only at the father's income, and his financial responsibility to the child. With the complexity in the investigation of countless different personal circumstances in which the CSA has been engaged, there has come a sense of invasion of privacy and of things being taken into account that really should not be. The simplicity of the new formula should remove that, and the CSA will not have to ask whether a man is a new boyfriend or whether he is just passing by.
We are not proposing that Members of Parliament should be able to take cases to the tribunals. The only parties who would be able to do so are the parents.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many parents who are living apart share not only custody but care of their children, and that such arrangements should be encouraged and supported? If necessary, will she consider making available taxpayers' money to pay for the extra travelling and housing costs that such arrangements might entail?
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the old days, it was very simple—the man and woman were married, they had children, and if he left, she kept the children and he saw them at weekends. Under the current system, that pattern is increasingly less

753
common. There are much more complicated arrangements of shared care, which are often in the interests of the children, who spend the maximum amount of time with both parents.
To reduce maintenance liability, the current system takes such arrangements into account only if the child spends 104 nights or more with the non-resident parent. We propose that, for the purposes of setting maintenance, the level should be 52 nights or more, and for every night that the child spends with the non-resident parent, his weekly maintenance liability should be reduced by one seventh. That is fair, and it is not a complexity that people could not understand or would not think was fair.
Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that most countries that have a fixed percentage formula apply the formula to the father's gross income, will the Secretary of State explain why she decided that her formula should apply to the net income? Secondly, will she confirm to the House that the criterion that brings the CSA into play in the first place—namely, that the spouse with care is on income support or that one of the spouses elects to involve the CSA—will not change as a result of her statement today or the Green Paper?
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is right to base the formula on an assessment of gross income or net income. The important point is that people are able to understand how much money they have left after deductions of tax and national insurance, which are then taken out of the picture, how much of their remaining income they should allocate for their child, and how much they then have left to live on. I am afraid that I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's subsequent question.
Mr. Gibb: It was about the criterion for involving the CSA.
Ms Harman: If a lone parent makes a claim for income support or family credit, that triggers an application for child support. If a lone parent who is not on benefit makes an application, that, too, triggers an application for child support. We do not envisage proposing to change either of those criteria.
Mr. Chris Pond: Given that between 40 and 60 per cent. of CSA decisions are deemed to be in error, I very much welcome the statement, as other hon. Members have. I welcome also my right hon. Friend's agreement that the Social Security Select Committee may have an opportunity to consider the proposals prior to legislation being introduced. Will my right hon. Friend
754
urge the Select Committee to include in its consideration and consultation process the inefficiencies and incompetence of the CSA's operations, without putting the blame for those on staff? Simplification will help, but it will not remove all the problems.
Ms Harman: I know that my hon. Friend takes very seriously his role on the Select Committee. He implied that he would like to examine further the administrative nitty-gritty of the system. I welcome that, and I am sure that the staff would also welcome it. He has played a key role in issues of child poverty. He is right to refer to the high error rate. We must deal with those issues, and I look forward to my hon. Friend's important and constructive involvement in the debate.
Mr. Simon Burns: May I wish the right hon. Lady well on the inevitable tightrope that she will have to walk in the coming months, before any legislation reaches the statute book?
Will the right hon. Lady please clear up an issue that is causing concern? As I understood it, she said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), that the new arrangements would apply to parents on benefit as well as to those who are not on benefit but who make their own private arrangements. If that is what she said, it suggests that she is planning to extend the remit of the Child Support Agency to all families in which the relationship has broken down, and it is important that she tells us whether that is right.
If the right hon. Lady is planning to keep the criterion as it is, that is understandable; but if she is suggesting that she will extend it, in accordance with the original, 1991, plans—later abandoned—for the CSA to apply to all relationships that break down, regardless of whether any of the parents are on benefit, that would cause the Opposition great concern, because it would extend the remit and compound the problems that she is trying to mop up by making the system more effective, more efficient and more acceptable.
Ms Harman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to clear up a misunderstanding that, clearly, I have unintentionally caused. There is no intention that the CSA should extend its remit to cases where parents are not on benefits and where they have not called in the CSA. We have quite enough on our plate for the 1 million on income support, their 1 million former husbands, the 2 million children and all those who are not on income support or family credit who call in the Child Support Agency. I hope that I have put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest on that.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his best wishes; why do they give me a sense of unease, though?

ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES 1998–99
    Class IX, Vote 1

      Further Education
      [Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Education and Employment Committee of Session 1997–98, on further education, HC 264-I, and the Department for Education and Employment's departmental report: "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1998–99" (Cm 3910).]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a further, revised sum not exceeding £6,019,940,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1999 for expenditure by the Department for Education and Employment on voluntary and special schools; the Assisted Places Scheme; the provision of education for under-fives; city colleges and other specialist schools; grant-maintained schools and schools conducted by education associations; music and ballet schools; the school curriculum and its assessment; the youth service and other educational services and initiatives; careers guidance and services; payments for or in connection with teacher training; higher and further education provision and initiatives; loans to students, student awards and other student grants and their administration; the payment of access funds; reimbursement of fees for qualifying European Union students; compensation payments to teachers and staff of certain institutions; expenditure on other central government grants to local authorities; the provision of training and assessment programmes for young people and adults; initiatives to improve training and qualifications arrangements and access to these; the promotion of enterprise and the encouragement of self employment; payments for education, training and employment projects assisted by the European Community and refunds to the European Community; events associated with the UK presidency of the EU; the UK subscription to the ILO; help for unemployed people; the promotion of equal opportunities, disability rights, childcare provision and co-ordination of certain issues of particular importance to women; the payment of certain fees to the Home Office; the Department's own administration and research and that of Capita; the information and publicity services; expenditure via training and enterprise councils and amounts retained by them as surpluses and spent by them on training and other initiatives within their articles and memoranda of association; expenditure in connection with the sale of the student loans debt; and on expenditure in connection with Welfare to Work Programme and Millennium Volunteers.—[Dr. Howells.]
      4.31 pm
      Ms Margaret Hodge: The Government have placed education at the heart of their agenda but, although we have spent much time on lengthy debates on schools and on higher education, rarely does the House devote time to debating further education. Yet the sector is vital to Britain's future.
      It is FE which provides two thirds of all post-school education; which educates the majority of full-time students in the 16 to 19-year-old age cohort; which gives adults that crucial second chance to gain qualifications and skills if they failed at school; which creates the opportunities for access to higher education for those who have traditionally been excluded from it; which provides the vital bridge between education and employment, ensures that individuals have access to appropriate vocational qualifications and personal development
      756
      opportunities and offers specific training courses to meet employers' requirements; and which provides all adults with access to lifelong learning opportunities, whose purpose may be purely to enrich and where the reward is nothing other than sheer pleasure.
      FE plays a crucial role, both in enhancing the nation's competitiveness and in promoting our social well-being; yet, for years, the sector has been the Cinderella of education, and the area subject to the fiercest expenditure cuts. Perhaps that is because FE colleges are seen as less glamorous than universities and less emotive than schools; perhaps it is because, traditionally, Members of the House have had few links with the FE sector; or perhaps Governments have simply failed to realise its importance to the United Kingdom economy.
      In the first year of this new Labour Government, schools have rightly been at the forefront of the learning revolution. Schools must form the foundation of any culture of lifelong learning. If children learn the basics in school, they have a sound platform from which to move toward higher learning. However, that does not mean that further education should take a back seat. Indeed, in the view of the Select Committee, further education has a vital contribution to make.
      Five years on from the incorporation of colleges seemed a good time for the Select Committee to take stock of the sector, to assess its strengths and weaknesses, and to identify what we believe should be its and the Government's priorities for the future. We did not want to duplicate the valuable work done by Helena Kennedy and her committee, nor the study on lifelong learning recently presented to the Secretary of State by Bob Fryer's committee.
      We tried to focus on key areas of current concern and on matters that are vital to the Government's education agenda for qualifications, skills and lifelong learning. We were also determined to place on the political agenda specific recommendations for the Government that we believe that they need to address and on which we think that a public debate is needed. Our report contains 50 detailed recommendations that we believe should equip FE to meet the challenges of the new millennium. Some are more controversial than others; all are important to the future health of the sector.
      I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to today's debate, so I shall focus on only some of the key recommendations. I shall first tackle the issue of funding. It is unquestionable that the FE sector was starved of resources by the previous Government. The Tories released the sector from the shackles of local authority control, only to burden it with unacceptable financial cuts. Although some colleges believe that the problem has been the distribution of the FE funding cake among colleges, the Select Committee believes that the real issue is the size of the FE cake itself. There is a funding crisis in the sector and it is left to the Government to confront it.
      Further education has had a raw deal, and a much harsher deal than other sectors in education. The figures speak for themselves. From 1993–94 to 1997–98, the real-terms funding of full-time equivalent students in FE was cut by 27 per cent., while the funding of students in universities was cut by 13 per cent. At present, two thirds of the post-school budget is spent on universities, despite the fact that two thirds of those who continue in post-18 education do so in FE colleges. Indeed, if we exclude the

      757
      controversial student maintenance, Government spending in HE stands at about £4,600 per student, whereas only £2,800 is spent on each full-time equivalent student in FE.
      Similarly, Government figures show that unit funding for students in FE has dropped a dramatic 10 times more in that sector since 1993–94 than it has for students in schools. Think what that has done for young people in sixth-form colleges who found themselves, almost by accident, part of the FE sector after incorporation. The position is so acute that the Further Education Funding Council has categorised more than 100 colleges as experiencing financial problems, with the percentage in the weakest category in financial terms having increased from 6 to 27 per cent. in the three years to 1997. I have no doubt that more up-to-date figures would show an even more dire position.
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: As my hon. Friend knows, I am entirely in sympathy with what she has said up till now, but one matter concerns me, and I hope that she will return to it. When the Public Accounts Committee examined the sector, it found a relationship between efficiency and financial viability, and the way in which the quality of management impacted on those aspects. I am a great champion of further education, but I am worried about bringing the two thirds up to the one-third best practice.
      Ms Hodge: We, too, considered the governance and management of the FE sector. I am not sure whether I understand my hon. Friend correctly, but we, too, found that there was not necessarily a direct correlation between financial resources and good management. Be that as it may, the FE sector has not been able to sustain quality, partly because of the financial cuts with which it has had to deal.
      If the Government are serious about their lifelong learning agenda, if they want to ensure that the new deal is successful, if they want the university for industry to bring real benefits and if they genuinely intend the individual learning accounts to provide new opportunities for the many, they must, through the comprehensive spending review, inject a considerable sum into the sector.
      The Select Committee warmly welcomed the measures that the Government have already taken to bring in extra money but, in our view, they represent only the first small step. I personally believe that the Committee took a pretty moderate view of what resources are needed. We did not attempt to reinstate amounts cut in the past, but we thought it wrong to expect greater efficiency savings from further education in the future than the Government expect from universities. We thought it essential to inject moneys for capital investment in both buildings and information technology. We considered the £10 million set aside by the Further Education Funding Council to widen participation in education and training derisory and grossly inadequate.
      We were conscious of the Prime Minister's pledge that an additional 500,000 students would enjoy further or higher education by 2002, which needed to be properly funded. In our view, all this means that, by 2001–02, further education will need at least an extra half a billion pounds each year to provide an efficient, high-quality service. That is a lot of money, but we consider it essential if we are to meet our pledges on education and training.
      758
      Britain's problem is not educating our high fliers; we do that as well as any country in the world. Our problem is our long tail of under-achievers—the 7 million British adults who have no qualifications at all. Nearly 30 per cent. of young people fail to reach national vocational qualification level 2 by the age of 19. Whereas 8 per cent. of adults in Sweden, and 14 per cent. in Germany, have no basic literacy skills, more than 20 per cent. of adults in Britain have not progressed past level 1 in basic reading. Investment in schools is obviously vital, but it should not be at the expense of further education. We must put right the failures of the Tory past if we are to equip our adults with the necessary skills and qualifications to ensure the competitive, productive economy that we need for the long-term wealth and stability to which we aspire.
      If we are serious about widening participation and improving skills, we must address the issue of student support. While undergraduates are adjusting to paying partial fees, many further education students have been paying full fees for years. While most higher education students are given access to subsidised loans as of right, the system of support for further education students is close to collapse. Most local authorities have cut their funding for student support in recent years. Today, access to such support is entirely a question of geography rather than need. It is simply not acceptable that a student in Cleethorpes can receive a maintenance award for a management course while a student on a similar course in Exeter cannot.
      It is further education students who most need that support. In contrast to students in higher education, two thirds of whom come from the top two socio-economic groups, many further education students are unskilled, out of work or, perhaps, taking time out from poorly paid jobs to better themselves. If we are serious about opportunity for the many, we must address that inequitable legacy of disadvantage for those who need it most. If we are serious about improving skills and tackling underachievement, we must provide better incentives to keep people in full-time education.
      It is outrageous that only half our young people continue in full-time education up to the age of 18. It is unacceptable that the participation rate has failed to increase over the past five years, and it is shameful that we have fewer people in full-time education after the age of 16 than any of our international competitors. That is why the Select Committee wants the Government to introduce a financial incentive to keep more young people in full-time education; that is why we have recommended that the Government abolish child benefit for those over 16, and use the £600 million thus released to help fund a means-tested allowance that would encourage those from disadvantaged backgrounds, in particular, to stay in full-time education and training.
      I know that changes in child benefit are controversial, but child benefit for 16 to 19-year-olds is not universal. It is paid only to those whose children stay in full-time education, and they tend to be the children from better-off families. Surely it is right to target the money better, to encourage those from poorer families to stay in full-time education. Surely that is a better route for the nation to follow to achieve both economic prosperity and social justice. We recommend that the Government consider the proposal seriously. We want them to work towards providing loans covering maintenance and tuition that would be available to all further education students on work-related courses.

      759
      Our inquiry poses a number of other important challenges to colleges, the FEFC and the Government. We recommend that the Government give clearer direction in regard to a range of matters. The Government should determine the funding priorities for the sector; failure to do so would, in our view, impede their ability to achieve solid progress in the nation's priority areas. In the immediate future, for example, work-related courses should take priority over leisure-related learning for Government funds. The Government must also take steps to create a level playing field between further education colleges and schools. They must always level up rather than down to maintain educational quality.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I agree with much of what I am hearing, but may I ask a question about what I still call schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 courses? What was the Select Committee's opinion about finance for courses that serve people with special needs, such as disabled people and those with severe learning difficulties? Such people will never be able to work towards some form of accreditation and recognition under schedule 2, but their education is a lifeline and a way of affording them basic skills.
      Ms Hodge: Our report contains a whole section dealing with qualifications and progressions. We hope for a more modular approach to qualifications. The instance cited by my hon. Friend would be seen in such a context—not as a leisure-related activity, but as a modular course that could lead to further qualifications, especially for people with specific disadvantages. Of course such activities should be supported.
      Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Select Committee's aim in referring to "levelling up" to bring about a level playing field for post-16 education was to deal with full-time 16-to-19 education? That would not cover the schedule 2 type of education to which the Minister referred, which, although vitally important—as he rightly said—needs to be treated and funded rather differently.
      Ms Hodge: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister was taking advantage of a pause in my speech. I must, however, declare an interest in regard to post-16 full-time education. As two of my children are currently in that sector, I recognise more than others the way in which the quality of both enrichment activities and pastoral support has been threatened by some of the cuts imposed on sixth-form colleges.
      We believe that the Government should review the qualifications that they fund. It should not be left to the media to highlight questionable qualifications, and, in so doing, to bring the whole sector into disrepute. Similarly, although the Committee welcomes the steps taken by the FEFC to tighten the rules on franchising, we believe that further action is needed so that franchising really adds value to the nation's education and training. To quote my favourite example, funding courses in ambient display, which is more commonly known as shelf stacking, can hardly be said to add value to anything much.
      Done well, franchising can build valuable partnerships between further education, the private sector and the community. It can create training opportunities for some
      760
      who would not normally get involved further education, but we believe that colleges should not be allowed to franchise courses outside their area, except in exceptional circumstances. The Government should consider time-limiting the subsidy to the private sector so that resources can be recycled and the private sector encouraged to accept responsibility for the funding of training.
      Allowing a free market in FE in the name of consumer choice is nonsense. FE should be more actively planned, nationally and locally, to ensure the most effective and efficient use of resources. Our report recommends that local partnerships, led by the FEFC, should be established to bring together all those involved in further education, from local education authorities to training and enterprise councils to employers. The FEFC should set clear criteria for mergers, and encourage them.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Are not many opportunities missed by training and enterprise councils, which do not always take into account the fact that further education colleges are capable of delivering the training required by businesses? Does she also agree that it is important to encourage that kind of relationship, along with local authorities, to ensure that there is a coherent strategy for further education in a particular area?
      Ms Hodge: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, which is why we have suggested a planning framework and a level playing field between not only FE colleges and schools, but FE colleges and private providers.
      I have talked about some of the most important recommendations in the Select Committee's report. We have laid down a strong challenge to the Government, and if my right hon. Friends are serious about lifelong learning, as I believe that they are, they must meet that challenge. After years of neglect, it is time for further education to emerge from the shadows: it has a vital role to play in the Government's central purpose of raising education standards; extending opportunity to the many, not the few; and creating a strong, competitive economy.
      Out there in the colleges—among the staff and among the students—people are waiting to play their part in turning the Government's vision into reality. That will require money, commitment and effort. I hope that our inquiry and our report will set that ball rolling, and that FE will gain its rightful place in the educational landscape.
      4.52 pm
      Mr. Damian Green: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on her Committee's report, which has raised many thought-provoking issues. I merely regret that, although this is exactly the right debate to have about the future of an important part of our education system, we are, unfortunately, condemned to have it at exactly the wrong time: we are all waiting with bated breath for the results of the comprehensive spending review. To an extent, that will prevent the Minister from giving us as much information as he would wish to. Indeed, the luxury of making his speech before the comprehensive spending review is announced will allow him to play the sort of dead bat that would be extremely in order today in other parts of the nation, such as Old Trafford.
      The Select Committee raised many issues in its interesting and important report—funding, expansion of numbers, franchising, governance and standards—but the

      761
      greatest is money, as the hon. Member for Barking made clear. The distribution of money is a subject of infinite fascination in the FE sector. In the relatively few weeks in which I have been covering this brief, I have already discovered that discussions about the methodology of funding could, if we wanted, keep the debate going all evening, to the extent that we would squeeze out the debate on freedom of information. I shall resist the temptation to go down that route, and merely touch on some of the wider issues raised by the Select Committee report and by other important, recently published documents such as the Kennedy report.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why FE colleges are fairly obsessed with money at the moment is that the unit of resources fell so dramatically in the 18 years of Tory government, and that that is causing the stress?
      Mr. Green: I was about to come to the wider issue of funding and address the rather unbalanced presentation by the hon. Member for Barking of what happened to FE under the previous Government.
      All our arguments about FE are based on what has happened since incorporation. Incorporation and the reforms introduced by the previous Government have, broadly speaking, been hugely welcomed by the FE sector. Indeed, the FEFC memorandum to the Select Committee states:
      "Further education colleges have responded magnificently to the challenges of incorporation".
      They have obviously been placed under an obligation to produce efficiency gains, but the fact that they have done so year after year suggests that those gains were capable of being achieved. The result is that many more students have been able to gain the benefits of FE courses. Labour Members should welcome that.
      The Select Committee report states:
      "The number of colleges and their structure has changed only marginally, but there has been a rapid expansion in the number of student enrolments—up by nearly one-third since incorporation."
      If such an enormous expansion of numbers had taken place in a non-compulsory education sector under a Labour Government, the hon. Members for Barking and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) would have been the first to get to their feet to ask the Under-Secretary or the Prime Minister to agree with them that the Government should be congratulated on that performance.
      Mr. Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Will he comment on the fact that the number of students at Harrogate college, which is in severe financial difficulties, increased from 7,899 in 1994–95 to 15,087 in 1996–97, although funding went up by less than £100,000 on a £7.1 million budget? That is the real issue, which his Government failed to address—more students, but less money.
      Mr. Green: There are more students and more money. Clearly the unit cost has gone down—no one can argue with the facts. I invite Liberal Democrat Members and Labour Members to acknowledge that the massive
      762
      expansion in the FE sector over the past five years is a matter for congratulation, not only for the FE colleges, which have done good work, but for the previous Government, who enabled it to happen.
      Mr. Sheerman: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) had to make a couple of political points—one expects that in this place—but she more or less kept to the Select Committee report and the long-term challenge. I urge the hon. Gentleman to do that. He was absolutely right to say that no party can claim any real bonus over the years; after the passing of the Education Act 1944, Labour failed to introduce the crucial aspects of community colleges recommended in it. Labour has not been good: this area has been the Cinderella, and it has been neglected by all parties. We should take that as read and stop making party political points: let us get down to discussing the future of FE and what the hon. Gentleman intends to do about it.
      Mr. Green: I should be more than happy to do so; I mentioned that matter only because the hon. Member for Barking introduced it in her speech. Indeed, I have been making a point that has been interrupted by constant interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Of course, I am always more than happy to take interventions. However, I am more than happy to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests, because the bulk of what I want to say is precisely to do with the future—where we are now, how we can go forward and the challenges and problems that face the Government as they attempt to improve the FE sector.
      The Select Committee makes some important long-term points, not least that FE colleges are now the main provider of education for 16 to 19-year-olds. The hon. Member for Barking was possibly right to refer to the sector as a Cinderella. One of the least-known facts outside the FE sector is that more 16 to 19-year-olds undergo education in FE colleges than in schools or higher education. That is a key point. The FE sector provides many students extremely cost-effectively—not just 16 to 19-year-olds, but those in other age groups—with a vital bridge between education and employment.
      That is where we are now and the future is likely to bring another huge expansion of the FE sector. The Select Committee calculates that, of the 500,000 students whom the Government wish to see going into further and higher education over the next few years, 430,000 will go into the FE sector, which provides 140,000 full-time equivalent places. That is where the main message of the debate arises: where will the money come from?
      If the Government are going to meet the aspirations of the sector itself, of the many students who want to go into it and indeed of the Select Committee, the central issue is whether the Government will be able to will the means as well as the ends, otherwise FE will continue to be a troubled sector. The issue of funding will continue to be the ghost at this evening's intellectual feast. If the Minister seeks to reassure, simply with warm words, hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly his hon. Friends and the Chairman of the Select Committee, one will be entitled to be a little suspicious, because we have reached the stage, given the number of commitments that the Government have made to FE, when warm words will not be enough.

      763
      I agree with the hon. Member for Barking: it would be foolish to deny that there are difficulties in the FE sector. A number of colleges are experiencing financial difficulties. Indeed, the evidence that was given to the Select Committee suggests that the financial pressures on the sector are such that the achievements over the past five years are at risk, as well as any future improvements to the sector.
      Mr. Derek Twigg: On that point about the financial health of colleges, will the hon. Gentleman comment on this matter? Between 1994 and 1997, the percentage of colleges that were deemed reasonably robust went from 70 to 43 per cent. and, in category C, the percentage of colleges that were deemed financially weak went from 6 to 27 per cent. Why did that happen?
      Mr. Green: I should be grateful if Labour Members could get their act together. Those who have the brief to read out constantly try to push me backwards. Others who want the debate to go forward constantly urge me not to make party political points. I wish that Labour Members could decide what type of debate they want this to be. Do they want a sensible and constructive debate, or constantly to look backwards? I am happy to bandy figures about with the hon. Gentleman until the end of the debate, but I do not think that the more sensible Labour Members think that that is a useful way to spend our time.
      As I and, indeed, the Select Committee have observed, it is the quantum of money that will be available to the FE sector that is the key to the Government's meeting the ambitions that they have set themselves. The amount that they have given it so far simply does not meet the aspirations. If the Government are to meet their targets, there needs to be a balance between the various education sectors. Clearly, the main need is to balance the resources available among the three education sectors.
      Since the sector was set up many decades ago, FE has at times been the least regarded sector. The severe danger is that, with the Government's many commitments to schools and with the commitment that they like to make to higher education as well, FE will again fall into the hole. That will hugely disadvantage not just the sector itself, but the many types of students who find FE education much more congenial than other types of education, and the country as a whole. Clearly, we need a balanced education system which allows a range of people to reach their potential and to provide and enjoy the skills that this country needs if it is to continue the economic progress of the past 18 years or so.
      That is the key area with which I hope the Minister will deal in his speech. Are the Government going to move beyond mere rhetoric? If they are, will there be any losers in other educational sectors? It would be naive for anyone speaking in the debate to assume that simply more money will be available across the board in education. The Minister would make a serious contribution if he explained the priorities that the Government will take into the comprehensive spending review. Without that, we will be back to mere warm words.
      The concept of the level playing field for funding is clearly important, but the TEC National Council Ltd. has made an important point:
      "Whilst we want equity across post 16 funding we think equity is about treating everyone differently, not treating everyone the same."
      764
      One theme which I should like to impress on the Minister is that the idea that a level playing field means simply applying the same formula to different types of people in education is likely to prove both short-sighted and destructive. Whatever comes out of the comprehensive spending review, the Government's attitude to further education should be more subtle than that.
      To that degree, I agree with the Select Committee. It does not think it is sensible to create a common currency for the funding of post-16 education. That would be an unrealistic ambition. It is one of those areas where tidiness is the enemy of common sense, and I hope that the Government will not go down that route.
      The other great funding issue is convergence. Again, I hope that, when the Government move towards convergence, as I am sure they will, they do not do so in a way that is too mechanical. There have been arguments—I have heard them from South Kent college, the FE college in my constituency—that convergence inevitably creates losers as well as winners and that trying to move too far, too fast will mean that the losers outweigh the winners. This is an important issue when discussing other important issues such as access. In particular, one of the sectors that would be damaged by too quick a move towards convergence would be inner-city colleges, especially those in London. Indeed, as the Minister will be aware, the Inner London Colleges Group said:
      "If convergence continues at the current rate, then a sizeable portion of the FE infrastructure that will be necessary to deliver the Government's aims in the most deprived areas of the country will be dismantled".
      I am sure that he is aware of that evidence to the Select Committee and that he is conscious of the fact that he will need to be fairly nimble and light on his feet to avoid that type of, I am sure, unintentional damage to the sector.
      On the wider issue of the expansion of numbers, which is, to some extent, the central thrust of the Government's hope in this area, I should be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees with the Select Committee's figure—whether he thinks that 430,000 of the extra 500,000 will indeed be educated in the FE sector. If so, does he agree with the Select Committee's views on money? The hon. Member for Barking has made it clear that her bid is for £0.5 billion. She described that as modest, and I dare say that many people in the FE sector could come up with much bigger numbers fairly easily. She will know as well as I do that the Minister has to juggle with the various demands of the education brief. Battles are being fought across Whitehall, from which only the occasional strangled cry emerges through leaks to the outside world.
      The FE sector will be doing very well if it obtains the money that the Select Committee recommends. People in the sector would find it illuminating if the Minister could bring himself to give us any clues about whether the Select Committee is in the right ball park.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman not a little embarrassed by the almost total lack of interest in this subject shown by Conservative Members? Apart from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) on the Front Bench, only one Conservative, the hon. Member for

      765
      Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who is a member of the Select Committee, is present on the Back Benches. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Green: There are now two, and others have attended the debate. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise the difference between quality and quantity.
      Support for students in the FE sector, especially if it is expanded, is an issue worth addressing. I must part company with the Select Committee on this matter. The hon. Lady seemed to elide the Select Committee's recommendation. She referred to loans as the recommended way of proceeding, whereas the Committee's report clearly refers to grants.
      Ms Hodge: Both are required.
      Mr. Green: The hon. Lady says that she is in favour of both. This is an extremely interesting area for the Minister to address, as the Government have already gone against the Dearing recommendation that maintenance grants for students in higher education should be continued. If the Minister has no intention of responding positively to the Select Committee's recommendation for FE students to have maintenance grants, he should say so this evening so that we know where we stand.
      The Opposition support the Dearing report. We believe that maintenance grants for students in higher education should be maintained. However, I part company with the Select Committee on the issue of converting child benefit money into grants. Wider aspects of the use of child benefit to hold families together are possibly not relevant to this debate.
      Ms Hodge: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman parts company with the Select Committee. He said that he recognises the pressures on public expenditure and the battle that the Minister will have to find the extra £0.5 billion by 2001–02. If he does not want maintenance grants for 16 to 19-year-old FE students to be funded through child benefit, how does he propose they should be funded?
      Mr. Green: I do not have to take that decision for a few years.
      Dr. Howells: That is convenient.
      Mr. Green: The Minister has to take that decision, and it would be extremely interesting to hear what he has to say about this matter. It will be a few years before we have to make that decision, and we shall do so. We take the use of child benefit to support the family and family values extremely seriously. We would consider carefully whether the hon. Lady's suggestion would be the best use of that money, even for 16 to 19-year-olds. I am at best dubious about her proposal. I would be fascinated to hear the Minister on the matter.
      Funding affects the wider issue of access. The Kennedy report, which is seminal in this area, is an interesting and radical document. What it boils down to is that there should be access for all, and that, if necessary, there should be discriminatory funding to achieve that. That is
      766
      a radical idea, and, to be candid, the Government's response was pretty thin. They are slightly worried and embarrassed about how to approach this issue, and they have not said anything concrete about what is required.
      There are dangers in the Kennedy approach, some of which were identified in the Select Committee report. Identifying favoured students from different areas in certain towns—the right postcodes—would give rise to discriminatory funding that may not, in individual cases, either be fair or be seen to be fair.
      Dr. Howells: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman seizes on that aspect of the Kennedy report. I shall leap to the Baroness's defence. She was referring to partnerships with training and enterprise councils. Focus can be placed on specific postcodes and addresses where there are great difficulties. The previous Government looked into some of those projects carefully. I know of TECs that have fostered successful partnerships between education and business, and that has raised attainment in the area. The hon. Gentleman would surely acknowledge that such an approach has value.
      Mr. Green: It may have value if it is done sensibly. The crudity of the measures gives rise to concern. The term "Kennedy student" is already in the public domain. The Further Education Funding Council uses that term, and the Select Committee sensibly said that it did not want to go down that route. If students are identified as "Kennedy students", they may be stigmatised. The next phase will be "Kennedy estates". Such an approach has dangers.
      Dr. Howells: Sink estates.
      Mr. Green: The Minister uses the term "sink estates". I hope that he does not propose to introduce a method of funding that stigmatises individuals or people who come from a particular area. The danger implied by the Minister's well-meaning intervention is that he will go down that route.
      There are other dangers. It is interesting that the new deal, which should, broadly speaking, be welcomed by the FE sector, has already created a degree of danger. FE colleges have pointed out the disadvantages of the new deal for their funding. The Times Educational Supplement on 20 March ran a story under the headline "New Deal strains college coffers". I hope that the Minister will reassure colleges that that will not continue. That claim was based on the early pilot projects under the new deal. The article states:
      "Some inner-city colleges are looking at cuts in excess of £300,000, while having to increase significantly the time spent teaching trainees."
      Many people are taking courses under the new deal similar to those that they were previously taking, but they are doing more hours, so they cost more and are funded from a different pot, which pays the college less.
      The principal of Stoke-on-Trent college told the Select Committee:
      "the sum of money we will get through the New Deal will be somewhat smaller than what we are getting through the current 16 hour rule…It is not clear that the sum of money to deliver this will necessarily he totally adequate".

      767
      The Select Committee report says that the director of FE development at the Association of Colleges has stated:
      "the New Deal is a major area of uncertainty".
      Does the Minister have any concrete proposals to compensate colleges for the losses that they may incur as a result of the new deal?
      The Select Committee addressed some other important areas, including franchising, to which the hon. Member for Barking referred. The key point is not to be over-prescriptive. It is extremely dangerous to try to produce an all-embracing set of rules in which all good franchise courses fall inside and all bad ones fall outside. The danger is that, by trying to drive out all of the bad, some of the good will go as well. I am sure that the Select Committee would recognise that there are dangers, and that some courses may not bear much scrutiny—the hon. Member for Barking pointed out one. The danger of driving out the good with the bad is one that I hope the Minister will bear in mind.
      I take the Select Committee's point about the danger of confusion about the Government's criteria for funding the training of those in employment. That is another difficult technical matter which I hope the Minister will address.
      I wish to refer to an area that the Select Committee thought was important—the role of regional development agencies. Frankly, those are the potential fifth wheel on the coach. I am happy to agree with the noble Baroness Blackstone that RDAs will be too big to carry out the role of co-ordinating FEs. I think that RDAs will be too big to carry out the role of co-ordinating anything and will be dangerous in almost all areas, so I am happy that—in at least one area—the Government have recognised that the role of RDAs should be minimised rather than maximised.
      If the Government and the Liberal Democrats are—as they seem—so besotted with regionalisation, and if the Government are to move towards convergence in funding, perhaps regional convergence would be better than national convergence. At least then the Government would be following the logic of their own argument, false though it is on the issue.
      Mr. Derek Foster: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves regionalisation and training and enterprise councils, is he aware that the British Chambers of Commerce recently produced a powerful document which wholly endorsed the wish of the Education and Employment Select Committee to have all the funding for TECs routed through the RDAs? That is not the same as having the RDAs co-ordinating further education, I grant him, but let him not dismiss regionalisation, or even more of his erstwhile friends may desert him.
      Mr. Green: I commend the latest report of the British Chambers of Commerce, on the British economy, to the right hon. Gentleman. The friendship of chambers of commerce with the Government is about to disappear, given that their overriding view is that the Government are making a supreme mess of the economy on which all of their members depend. I will not dwell on regionalisation; I merely point out that it is inappropriate in this area, and I am happy that the Government have noticed that.
      On the standards, terms and conditions which the Select Committee thought were very important for those working in the sector, I urge the Minister again not to be
      768
      over-prescriptive. A degree of local freedom for the colleges to negotiate terms and conditions is extremely important. I hope that the Minister and the Government recognise that as time goes on.
      In summary, the Minister clearly has a number of balls to juggle, and the severe danger for him is inflated expectations. I am fully aware that the FE sector was one of those which welcomed the advent of a new Government who were going to cheer the sector up and provide everything that it needed. Already, those expectations are moving away from the Minister. Professor John Field of the university of Warwick is a professor of lifelong learning. There cannot be anyone who is more interested in the Government's project. He has said:
      "Imaginative and innovative proposals…will help if properly resourced. Nothing I see convinces me that the Government has got to grips with the task."
      Dr. Howells: He is a good bloke.
      Mr. Green: The Minister may say that, from a sedentary position. Unfortunately, we can see from that quotation that that is not reciprocated. The Minister will have to reassure Professor Field as well as everyone else.
      FE colleges will be vital in any lifelong learning prospectus. The hon. Member for Barking said that she had taken a modest view that £500 million would be required. These are the last few days when the Minister will get away with warm words. When we see the comprehensive spending review, we will know whether he will put his money where his mouth is. My great fear—which I hope is wrong—is that, after all the Government's words and rhetoric over the past few months, Cinderella will still not get to the ball.
      5.24 pm
      Charlotte Atkins: I hope that the Select Committee report will mark the beginning of the end of the Cinderella status of further education. A recent survey in my local area found that nearly a quarter of employers with more than 100 staff have identified gaps in skills in their work force, yet the percentage of school leavers in Staffordshire who are to remain in full-time education has fallen since 1994.
      Blame cannot be laid at the door of further education lecturers. Efficiency gains made by the sector since incorporation have been greater than in any other part of the education service. Over the past five years, student numbers have increased by a third, but costs per student have been cut by a quarter. That is not a matter for congratulation—the impact has been damaging.
      Staff have faced growing job insecurity and new so-called flexible contracts which mean teaching more hours but spending less time supporting students. The increasing numbers of part-time staff—and, worse still, agency staff—have meant that staff have been parachuted in just to lecture. Students inevitably suffer. Staff cannot get involved in curriculum issues, and student pastoral care flies out of the window.
      Some colleges have tried to make ends meet by franchising. While, at best, franchising can widen participation in further education, at worst it just pays the employer to provide the training needed to keep the employee on the payroll—he or she would have done that

      769
      anyway. Franchising can be a real money-spinner, particularly for those 20 colleges which carry out nearly 60 per cent. of all franchising.
      For other institutions, such as my local college in Leek—which chose not to franchise because it is a small college and felt that it might overstretch itself—the effects have been damaging. Effectively, colleges have been penalised by the distortion of the funding process by franchising. That has led to my local college having to close its creche—an important part of increasing participation—and its refectory. I strongly support the Select Committee recommendations on the funding and operation of franchising; it should grow from the college's primary task—helping students to learn—and should not be merely a way of maximising income.
      Ten miles from Leek, the college at Stoke-on-Trent demonstrates yet another weakness in the FE sector—college governance and accountability. There, the unhealthy control exercised by the previous principal and the chairman of the governors led to the college having to repay large sums of money to the funding council. That led to big cuts in courses and staff posts, devastating the college. What shocked me most about the whole episode was the hands-off approach of the funding council. Even when it was alerted to the problems several times by staff at the college, the funding council refused to intervene.
      One recommendation is that the funding council must have a duty to intervene at the first danger signal. That is vital. Colleges must be more open, and allow information from governors' meetings to be revealed and easily accessible to staff and students. Transparency is vital. Otherwise, we will have more colleges such as Stoke-on-Trent to worry about.
      FE students are very often those whom the school system has failed. Further education is not their second chance—it is their only chance to get back on track. No investment gives a better return than education, especially if it is focused on the most disadvantaged. Without it, we make potential design engineers into assembly workers, potential nurses into supermarket shelf stackers and potential retail staff into benefit liabilities. The under-realisation of potential is, in human terms, catastrophic; it condemns millions to unemployment or to boring jobs well below their potential. It is also catastrophic economically. The undereducated students whom we are currently turning out will be underperforming in the economy for the next 40 years.
      Underfunding FE is a bit like progressive arsenic poisoning; if one waits for the symptoms to show, it is too late. Additional financial support for FE students and additional funding for the FE sector are an essential investment in the future.
      5.29 pm
      Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats welcome the Select Committee's report on further education—indeed, we warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and the Select Committee on producing what we believe is a powerful report; it has considerable cross-party support, broadly reflecting, as it does, the views of Liberal Democrats and, I hope, of the Labour party. I am sure that the hon. Lady and the Minister will accept that Liberal
      770
      Democrats offer a different perspective on some matters, reflecting our policies, but I trust that we shall be more positive than the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). It was distinctly disappointing to hear a Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson speak in such a negative and carping way when there is the will for us to move forward.
      The report reflects the strong recognition that the further education sector is in a state of crisis; it is good that that has not been hidden. That crisis was born not of a lack of commitment by the vast majority of college staff, principals and governors but of a lack of policy direction and, above all, of financial support.
      The Select Committee acknowledged the huge task that the FE sector faces if it is to help to solve the problem of underachievement, which was identified in the Green Paper on lifelong learning and which has been mentioned by all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. The fact that 30 per cent. of young people fail to reach national vocational qualification level 3 by the age of 19 is depressing; the fact that 21 million adults do not have level 3 qualifications is even more depressing.
      What hit home hardest was the 1994 national literacy survey, which calculated that 8.4 million people aged between 16 and 65 had a level of literacy so low that they would be unable to compare and contrast simple pieces of information or to fill out a simple standard form. That is a terrible indictment of an education system that has failed so many people. In the words of the song, things can only get better.
      Mr. Sheerman: Never heard of it.
      Mr. Willis: My daughter's boyfriend sang it, so I have to plug it.
      The Select Committee's report must be judged against its vision of the size of the problem to be tackled. There is a recognition that, although incorporation in 1993 brought many benefits, strategic planning has been a problem. We fully support both Baroness Kennedy and the Select Committee in their view that central Government should not interfere in the detailed operation of the sector. We should not go back to those days, or, indeed, to the days when local education authorities were in control. Central Government's role is to make clear what they expect the sector to deliver and to set clear targets for evaluating performance.
      We welcome the Select Committee's proposals on regional and local planning, but we do not think that they go far enough. The reliance on planning through funding control alone has severe limitations. Although the Further Education Funding Council should have a greater role in strategic planning, we believe that the regional development agencies—and the regional assemblies that we hope will be their parent bodies—should also have a significant role.
      We accept that, under current legislation, RDAs have no direct educational responsibilities, but there is no reason why, as we move forward to the next millennium, they should not have. The RDAs should have a statutory responsibility to produce a lifelong learning development plan for the region, following detailed consultation with all relevant employers, organisations, FE colleges, private sector providers, the local education authority and the training and enterprise councils—indeed, the right hon.

      771
      Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who has now left the Chamber, made a powerful point about the recent report by the British Chambers of Commerce.
      If FE colleges are to have an enhanced role in the provision of lifelong learning, they must become more open and publicly accountable. The governance of many FE colleges since incorporation has given rise to grave concern, and the Select Committee's proposals on that are excellent. It is right to allow wider participation for staff, students, community groups and the local authority and to maintain a strong business community presence; that is a proper balance. Liberal Democrats also whole-heartedly support the proposals to appoint independent clerks, to open meetings to the public, to register the interest of governors and, in particular, to introduce a further education ombudsman.
      As well as changes in governance, there must be a change in attitude to teaching and support staff in further education. Frankly, the Select Committee report does not do justice to the significant achievements of the vast majority of FE lecturers and their support colleagues. Few sectors would have tolerated the changes to conditions of service and to career and salary structures which have been imposed on the majority of FE lecturers over the past four years.
      The report recognises the need to raise morale and to improve professional standards. The development of a national training organisation is a positive proposal, but greater emphasis must be placed on postgraduate training before entry to FE teaching. We believe that the General Teaching Council has an important role to play and that it should not be disregarded.
      Nothing will do more to improve the morale and status of FE lecturers than dealing with the basic conditions of employment. Liberal Democrats do not support a return to silver-book conditions of service. We recognise the need of colleges to be able to vary contracts and to meet changing needs but such changes must be achieved by negotiation, not by threat and imposition. The Select Committee's proposal for a model contract represents a way forward, but a minimum national entitlement, backed by regulation, is required. We hope that the Minister will confirm that that is what the Government intend. FE lecturers, both full time and part time, are waiting for him to give a strong signal, and I have no doubt that he will give one when he responds to the debate.
      Liberal Democrats welcome the Government's promise to investigate the casualisation of college lecturers. A strong signal must be sent to colleges immediately to start reversing the trend to casualisation. Flexibility is one thing; exploitation is another. If we want a dynamic and energetic work force in FE colleges, we must stop treating staff as expendable commodities as budgets come and go.
      We are pleased that the Select Committee did not lay the blame for casualisation entirely at the door of the colleges, the Education Lecturing Services or even Roger Ward. The root cause is the previous Government's gross underfunding of FE and their almost complete disregard for the sector's well-being. How else can the huge disparity of treatment between the different educational sectors be explained?
      There are many ways in which to present what has happened to FE college funding. The hon. Member for Barking did it in one way and, last week, the Select Committee heard another set of figures. However, let us
      772
      accept that school funding has been largely neutral since 1993, that higher education funding has declined to 86 per cent. of its 1993 level but that FE funding has dropped to 81 per cent. of its 1993 level, which is a significant reduction. It is no wonder that 60 per cent. of our colleges are operating with deficit budgets and that the number classified as weak by the FEFC has trebled since 1994.
      My college in Harrogate has been technically bankrupt for the past three year—indeed, it has been since incorporation. This year, it was unable to meet debts to the FEFC totalling £500,000 and I must thank the Minister and the Government for agreeing to the merger of Harrogate FE college with Leeds Metropolitan university, which was announced last week.
      Mr. Sheerman: May I say, merely in passing, that I think the Harrogate college needed an infusion from Huddersfield to help it over its crisis? Like the hon. Gentleman, I have three excellent further education colleges in my constituency: Greenhead, New college and Huddersfield technical college. We should not underrate the role of principals as managers, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that they are saying that they have been distracted from getting on with the job of delivering good teaching and learning by the constant barrage of bureaucracy, whether from the FEFC or as a result of worry about how they will carry on next year? That distracts them from their job, which is all about good learning and teaching.
      Mr. Willis: I am grateful for that intervention because of the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the subject and because Huddersfield lent us Dr. Rossiter, who has been an excellent principal. The hon. Gentleman has a good point, but I think he would agree that many of our FE colleges have had to deal with another fundamental problem, which is managing debt. In 1993, many of the colleges began incorporation with significant debts, which they have retained—they have not been able to trade out of them. Judging from the FEFC report on colleges, some of those with the most severe debts are not criticised for poor management. The historic funding issue is a major problem. I want far more of the time of our college principals—their planning and structuring time—to be spent on dealing with moving their college forward rather than simply managing debt restructuring and reorganisation, as would the hon. Gentleman, I am sure.
      The Select Committee has recognised the problems of FE funding and the new resources that it proposes are welcome. However, the Treasury has seduced the Select Committee— [HON. MEMBERS: "Seduced?"]—although not the hon. Member for Barking, obviously. I would never accuse anyone of seducing her. [Interruption.] I think at this point I had better move on.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Perhaps it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman found another metaphor.
      Mr. Willis: I believe that the hand of the Treasury has been on Labour Members in the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Barking was honest enough to say that she did not feel that the Select Committee had gone far enough to give the FE sector what it needed, and I agree.
      Even if the proposed efficiency savings of a further 1 per cent. bring us into line with higher education funding reductions, they are unrealistic for a significant

      773
      number of colleges. The 1 per cent. saving will in fact mean further loss of provision in many colleges that are already facing major financial difficulties.
      The sector sought about £250 million to halt the decline and to meet the needs of existing students. There were variations on the figure, but it was roughly that total. The Select Committee has asked for somewhere in the region of £84 million, with a further £60 million for capital works. The widely quoted £500 million figure would come into play only when the additional students announced by the Prime Minister at the Labour party conference had been recruited—that is where that figure comes from. The £350 million extra suggested by the Committee would be on top of the money already requested.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) last week questioned Michael Bishard, the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment, and revealed that the Department does not know not only what proportion of those students will be full or part time, but what proportion will be FE or HE. What is more, until the comprehensive spending review has been concluded, targets for FE will not be clear. It has now emerged that the amount of money that the spending review allocates to FE will equate directly to the number of students that it can recruit, which is a different tale from the one that we have been told so far.
      The Select Committee may have worked on the basis of about 430,000 extra students, but as was revealed last week, only the Prime Minister knows where the original 500,000 extra students came from. The Minister may well be able to explain that figure in more detail—I am pretty sure that the Prime Minister will have brought him into his confidence.
      The Committee has suggested a further £350 million by the year 2000–02. Frankly, until we have the results of the review, that figure merely clouds the present crisis. It would be wrong to bandy about the figure of an extra £500 million when that is not really what the Select Committee report asks for.
      For those reasons, we ask the Government seriously to consider the future role and funding of training and enterprise councils. While they have never reached the £3 billion of expenditure that was first envisaged, their annual grant last year was around £1.46 billion compared with the FEFC budget of £3.1 billion. The huge bureaucracy of the TEC empire, with the lavish office complexes and even more lavish publicity materials, and the TECs' complex audit and monitoring proceedings
      "mean that for every pound of Treasury funding less than 20p actually gets down to the person that needs it."
      That is a direct quotation from the House of Commons Employment Committee report of 1995–96. Surely the Minister and his colleagues need to consider that funding and how it can be reallocated.
      Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that four weeks ago, we announced the first ever review of training and enterprise councils. That subject will certainly be one of our major areas of focus.
      Mr. Willis: I am grateful, as always, for the Minister's intervention. Indeed, I would hurry that process along.
      774
      The transfer of a mere 20 per cent. of resources from bureaucracy to front-end delivery would meet the present FE shortfall. That is where a simple transfer could take place.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help us by telling us how much, as a ratio of their own funding, the TECs receive from the private sector for spending on training?
      Mr. Willis: If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, he should read research paper 97/48, "Training and Enterprise Councils", which contains much of the detail. We are talking about Government money and where FE will get its funding in the future. We Liberal Democrats propose that TEC funding should be studied carefully. If only 20p of every £1 is being used, a simple transfer of some of that money would solve many of the problems.
      However, it is not simply TEC funding that must be reappraised. The whole basis for funding post-16 courses must be examined. A level playing field needs to be created, as the Select Committee recognised. It cannot be right to fund a student taking three A-levels in a school sixth form differently from a student on an equivalent course at an FE college, although we understand that exact parity will never be possible.
      We do not want a levelling down of provision. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bath shout a stout "Hear, hear" when the hon. Member for Barking mentioned that, because it is at the root of the problem. There must be not a levelling down, with money taken from school sixth forms to fund something else, but a levelling up.
      We believe that the time may well have come to examine whether school sixth forms should be funded via the FEFC, rather than the LEA. We would like schools to be liberated to bid for more traditional areas of work in the FE sector. Schools are often ideally placed to offer aspects of FE provision to students of all ages, and should be given the freedom to do so, but only on an equal footing with FE colleges and other private sector providers.
      The Select Committee rightly recognised that, without an improved package of student financial support, the expansion that we urgently need is unlikely to take place. The damning conclusion of the Policy Studies Institute was:
      "Access to financial support for students is a lottery".
      The previous Government may have devastated the financial stability of the FE sector with their draconian cuts, but worthy of even greater condemnation was their almost total withdrawal of financial support for students, and especially part-time students. Let us not talk about widening participation unless we are prepared to offer greater support for students, and especially those who choose to study part time.
      It was a pity that the Select Committee did not have access to the Lane report, "New Arrangements for Effective Student Support in Further Education". That report estimates student support costs at £400 million a year—
      significantly more than was recommended by the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will accept that students must be given support in the crucial areas of transport, fees, child care and maintenance, and that such support must be universally available.

      775
      Further education is at last receiving the attention that many of us have long wanted it to receive. Cinderella is preparing for the ball; a golden coach awaits; charming Prince Blunkett is already at the palace; and it only remains to be seen whether Baroness Tessa is a fairy godmother or a wicked witch. When the clock strikes midnight, and the results of the comprehensive spending review are announced, we will know whether further education can stay at the ball or whether, like Cinderella, it must return to its present lowly status.
      5.51 pm
      Mr. Michael J. Foster: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I remember his heartfelt contribution to a debate on corporal punishment; as I spent the six years before I became a Member of Parliament as a further education lecturer, my contribution today will be similarly heartfelt.
      I and all my former colleagues in further education are a little tired of the sector being called the Cinderella sector, and we should try to move away from that classification. We owe it to all our students and would-be students no longer to use that term; we should value more highly that crucial part of our education system. I had intended to make some comments about the Minister and Prince Charming, but as allegations have been made about Labour Members toadying, I am glad that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough got there first.
      Much of what hon. Members say will allude to the comprehensive spending review. That will always be the case with further education, because it has been so poorly funded for so many years. In the review, the Government must deal not only with revenue funding but with the increased capital investment for which further education is crying out.
      The university for industry and universal access to all the information on the internet are very well-meaning ideas, but I remember that, in my old college, my department—the department of management and professional studies—had one computer for 26 staff. The ideas are fine, but we need the capital investment if they are not to become totally meaningless.
      When we talk about widening participation and encouraging the so-called "Kennedy students" into our colleges, we must consider the extra capital costs of, for example, increasing the number of creches that are available. The creche at my local further education college is booked out the year before people embark on their courses, such is the demand. If we are to encourage people back into education, we must consider the capital investment that is needed.
      The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned the bitter and prolonged dispute between lecturers and employers. I do not think that the previous Government did all they could to bring that to an end. They left it to local colleges to go their own way, but those colleges were more often than not encouraged by the then College Employers Forum to consider the most "productive" use of the lecturers' time.
      Lecturers such as myself bitterly resisted the attempt to force us to sign new contracts. No lecturer thinks that the silver book is there for ever, but we were faced with the decision of signing a new contract, and getting a pay
      776
      rise for doing so, but knowing that that would lead to a deterioration in the quality of teaching that we could provide.
      That dilemma has not yet been fully resolved. I hope that the Select Committee's proposal of an agreed standard contract will help. It will certainly be warmly welcomed by all concerned. I am glad that the Association of Colleges and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education are now talking to each other. That has been a long, long time coming, and it is most welcome.
      The previous Government washed their hands of their responsibilities for the governance of further education colleges. We were promised many things from incorporation. As a further education lecturer, I listened to the candidates in the 1992 general election campaign talking about what they thought would happen post-incorporation.
      In my college, the two staff governors suddenly found that their places were gone; we never had a student governor; and the LEA representatives disappeared from the governing body. A search and nomination committee was set up with the deliberate intention of recruiting "like-minded individuals" to run the corporation. I warmly welcome the idea of not only allowing but forcing corporations to have staff governors. A community facility cannot be run without stakeholder representatives. Student representation is also vital if we are to have a truly representative board to run a college.
      I have been lobbied by the chair and principal of my local college, who seem to think that there is something wrong with having democratically accountable representatives on the board, and prefer the idea of continuing to seek and nominate. They have two staff governors, whom they selected, and two LEA representatives, whom they also interviewed and selected. That is not in the spirit of democratic accountability in which I believe colleges should operate.
      On part-time and full-time students and the casualisation of labour, I speak as someone who has managed courses, and I know that it is great to have the flexibility of being able to bring in experts part-time, to do the hours that full-time lecturers may not be able to do, given the increased hours for which they are expected to teach. It is not possible to get all the people together at the same time and in the same place to discuss important quality issues about a course. With the comprehensive spending review in mind, I must say that the rate paid to part-time lecturers sometimes leaves a little to be desired, particularly if we expect them to do preparation and to contribute towards the assessment of students.
      I promised to keep my speech short, but there is a lot to be done in further education. Please let us not keep referring to it as a Cinderella; it is not.
      5.59 pm
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I am delighted to speak tonight, just as I was to participate in the Select Committee on Education and Employment. I must apologise to the House because I shall have to leave before the debate ends for a service at Guildford cathedral to celebrate 50 years of the national health service. My speech will be somewhat shorter, therefore, than it would otherwise have been, and I know how much that will disappoint other hon. Members.

      777
      I do not want to sound a note of controversy, but the previous Government's decision in 1993 to give further education colleges their freedom may, with greater hindsight, come to be seen as almost as significant as the changes to our health system 50 years ago. Colleges of further education are to be the prime avenue for lifelong learning, and all of us share the belief that the development of lifelong learning lies at the heart of any modern society's efforts to improve itself.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has told us that there were no prizes in further education until now. I am not here to claim prizes for the previous Government, but our debate must remain rooted in reality. We must examine objectively, as the Select Committee did, three vital events. The previous Government's 1993 act of independence for colleges changed their funding, changed their governance and promoted franchising. I am pleased that the Committee's sixth report treats objectively the way in which the subsequent five years treated the colleges in those three areas.
      Paragraph 88 of the report states:
      "while the sector has achieved much in the five years since incorporation, it will not be possible…if it continues to have to find the same levels of efficiency savings as in recent years."
      The critical point is that a significant one-off efficiency gain has been achieved by that sector, which is a great credit to the sector and to the policy that underpinned the saving. Many more people have gone into further education, and the resulting economies allow the Government to plan for hundreds of thousands more to have the benefit of further education.
      It is a measure of the current financial situation that the report proposes an additional £54 million to fund the service provided by the colleges. That is in the context of a budget of £.1 billion, so it means an increase on current provision of less than 1.5 per cent. There is a further proposal for £60 million—another 1.5 per cent. —for expenditure on capital improvements. We should use those terms to judge whether the service has been overfunded or underfunded.
      Ms Hodge: The hon. Gentleman quotes selectively from the report. I am sure that he would share the Select Committee's concern that more than 100 colleges are experiencing severe financial difficulties as a result of previous cuts. Does he agree with the point that he himself made during the Select Committee, that it is easier to find efficiency savings during a period of growth than during a period of standstill? It is the total quantum of £500,000 that will count if we are to see the institutions return to financial health.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for offering to help me to write my speech. There is no dispute between us that a critical juncture has been reached. The process of one-off efficiency gains and convergence has been highly successful, but, as the report suggests, there is a need to change tack. The question is how we do so.
      On the question of governance, we were all aware of one or two horror stories when the Committee began to look into the matter. However, the more we looked into it, the more we found that those were isolated cases.
      778
      Paragraph 160 of the report quotes from the second report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Nolan committee—as follows:
      "we are dealing with isolated cases…that indicate no deep-seated trend. In the circumstances of challenge and change…the 'failure rate' has been creditably small."
      It is worth bearing in mind the evidence of the Further Education Funding Council that the total losses so far accumulated out of a budget of £3 billion a year for five years are about £9 million to £13 million, which is less than 0.1 per cent. of total expenditure. That is a great credit to the discipline and control that the FEFC has developed.
      My final point relates to franchising. There was proper concern at some of the stories that we heard before the Committee got under way. We were worried that qualifications in shelf stacking in supermarkets would be the genre of activity represented by franchising, but that has not happened. Paragraph 129 of the report states:
      "We believe that high quality franchising can play a valuable role in the FE system."
      That is an important finding. The report also discusses time limiting, and the amount of support that should be given to the development of new franchising schemes. On balance, that development was a successful initiative under the previous Government.
      Let me look ahead to the future funding of colleges. As with our earlier debate on child support, there is a balance to be struck between fairness and clarity. The FEFC has developed a formula that is complex, but which the colleges understand. It has achieved a high level of convergence. We hear of £2 billion being taken out of the sector, but let us remember that there has been a levelling down of those colleges that overspent or used resources inefficiently, and a levelling up of those colleges that had the lowest level of funding under the previous, local education authority-run system. That progressive change is why many colleges on low levels of funding look forward to further convergence.
      I endorse the Committee's finding that convergence is a process in which it is better to travel than to arrive. Working towards convergence has created greater fairness. However, absolute convergence would make the system more complex so that it could deal with individual anomalies at each college. That process would become self-defeating at some point. Convergence within a band is surely the right approach, rather than the reductio ad absurdum of what the FEFC was heading towards previously.
      It is instructive to consider convergence in the context of sixth-form colleges and provision in FE colleges. We condone the idea of convergence within a band of plus or minus 2.5 per cent. It is worth putting on the record the fact that table 5 on page xxiv of the report shows clearly that there is convergence of A level funding within a band of 5 per cent regardless of whether a pupil attends a school sixth form, a sixth-form college or a general FE college. While the differences remain significant—I agree that there should be some levelling up—they are not so great as to imply that those who have attended an FE college have been particularly disadvantaged compared with those who have attended a sixth-form college.
      One might go even further. It is in the nature of different types of provision for different children that there may be some funding variation. An even more

      779
      significant factor is whether the quality and nature of the course is relevant and helpful to a particular pupil. That is a much more important criterion when considering narrow band differences in funding.
      That brings me to my next point: whether we should develop a single qualification for those aged 16 to 19. I urge the House to reject that option, as I believe that there is a vocational path. While undertaking the report, the Committee also examined the plight of disaffected children over the age of 14. We found strong evidence for developing a vocational path for those for whom that is suitable not just from 16 but from 14. That would imply a different, but equal, route to qualification that is not inferior to the gold A-level standard, but more vocationally oriented and distinct.
      If we are prepared to be rooted in reality and to make those distinctions, we can credibly say that that is the right route for certain children in that age group to follow. They need not feel disadvantaged at the end of that path. In fact, someone who follows a vocational route from 14 or 16 may be far better off economically for at least the next 10 years than those who follow the classic academic university route, given the burden placed on them in the form of the cut in the maintenance grant and the loading of tuition fees.
      Dr. Howells: I will not take a natch out of the bait offered to me, but I will ask the hon. Gentleman a question. If young people follow the vocational route—it is an interesting idea about which there has been much talk—should universities recognise the equality of that qualification and allow those young people to take up degree courses? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that all universities should now recognise the validity of advanced GNVQs as a route to university?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: The fine university of Surrey, which is located in my constituency, does a great deal of work with the corporate sector in devising and assisting with courses that may lead to HND qualifications. There is also much growing co-operation between the college of further education in Guildford and the university at Kingston regarding which body offers the most appropriate courses for individual students. Rather than getting hung up on equality of accreditation, we should be concerned about ensuring that those who choose the vocational route can develop their skills and enter fields of higher education.
      To answer the Minister directly, it is misguided to suggest that someone who achieves a vocational qualification at 18 would have any complaint because a specific university preferred to take for a specifically tailored course a student with an A-level qualification. It is important that, having followed the correct route, such individuals can develop their skills at sound and able institutions for the rest of their careers.
      Mr. Vernon Coaker: In line with the Minister's comments, equality of accreditation is absolutely fundamental to the debate about vocational and academic education. Without that equality, we get first and second-rate courses based on whether pupils follow the academic or vocational route. The only way of overcoming that divide, with which we have been beset over the years, is by ensuring equality of accreditation and parity of esteem.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I fear that the House is in danger of confusing equality of opportunity with equal opportunity.
      780
      Equal opportunity means that everyone must follow the same type of course, which is completely detrimental to the achievement of a diverse education system. Equality of opportunity means that there is no brick wall at the end of any route that the individual chooses to follow. Having followed the vocational route, nothing should prevent people from switching to a more academic course if they are late developers, develop a different interest, or discover a new educational aptitude.
      We must be flexible in this area, and I am worried about the Minister's comments. I shall read his speech carefully in Hansard, as, unfortunately, I cannot be present to hear it tonight. We must not have a dogmatic accreditation system that, in trying to achieve equality of outcome, destroys equality of opportunity. Genuine opportunity meets the needs of the individual, and is not the same for everyone.
      I think that I have spoken long enough on this diverse subject, but I conclude by urging the House to disregard the suggestion by the hon. Member for—
      Mr. Willis: Harrogate and Knaresborough.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I shall one day remember both parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
      We must disregard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to abolish the TECs. In Surrey—evidence was presented from Manchester and other areas also—there are some excellent local partnerships between further education colleges and TECs. Through such partnerships, we shall develop the courses that the local economy needs.
      It is moonshine to suggest that a regional development agency covering the whole of the south-east could devote sufficient time to the needs of Surrey as distinct from those of Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex or any other area in that region. For us, that idea carries no weight. I commend the report on its excellent conclusion that the RDAs should be limited to a strategic role. In some ways, the report is more balanced than the debate that we have heard this afternoon.
      6.17 pm
      Valerie Davey: At this stage in the debate, I shall use the experience of one college to underline the importance of just two of the recommendations in the report of the Education and Employment Committee. The City of Bristol college is crucial both to the city and to younger students, and it announced last week its exciting plans to make provision in the city centre. That provision would be located next to the central library and adjacent to the harbourside, where developments for new centres in science, natural history and the performing arts are proposed. It is an obvious location for a college.
      We know that the majority of colleges are situated in the suburbs, in dilapidated buildings, with equipment that is long out of date. Therefore, by making plans to look to the future, the college is doing exactly what the report asks of the further education sector. However, those plans will not be realised without capital support. Therefore, I underpin the report's claim for further investment of £60 million per year. That capital investment must be allocated, year on year, to this crucial sector. These demands are made on behalf of students going into industry, who need to use updated equipment and to be attracted to the college by modern buildings.

      781
      The college's principal highlighted the fact that, with all the new equipment and the college's accessibility, it is not possible to deliver all that the Government ask without supporting the students. That is why the Committee asks for resources even greater than the £500 million for the institutions and the £400 million mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). The Committee seeks more than £1 billion to go into support for students. I believe that that is the balance needed in the further education sector. We must support the students.
      At a recent awards ceremony at the college, more than 80 students aged 20 to nearly 70 completed a year's course that gave them the qualifications to enter higher education. Not one of those students had a contribution from grants or loans to fees, books, child care or transport. They all completed the course on their own account, yet the principal knows that many more people would have had the qualifications, determination and enthusiasm to do the course and go on to higher education had they had the minimal support necessary to get them through that year.
      The House has been united in all our debates on getting more students from a more diverse background into higher education. Already, 30 per cent. of students going into higher education come through the further education route. Many more could do so, as the House wishes, if there were greater support.
      It has already been said that the Lane report was not available to the Committee, which is a pity. That report emphasises that the funding of transport should be a top priority. I talked to a small group in a country area not far from Bristol. A key demand of parents and lecturers was that their 16 to 19-year-olds should be able to get to whatever provision was available, whether a sixth form in their school, a sixth-form college or a further education college. To get there, they need transport to be available, and they need to have its cost funded. The Committee would have taken more account of that if we had had the Lane report to hand.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am interested in my hon. Friend's remarks on transport. I agree that it is vital that young people are given opportunities through good transport. Is she aware that my constituency's further education college runs its own transport, giving people in rural areas the opportunity to travel into the city to take advantage of further education opportunities?
      Valerie Davey: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I am delighted that her college is able to do that. Most colleges that I know have had to cut such provision, as have local education authorities. The Lane report notes that, in 1992–93, local education authorities were giving students £187 million a year in discretionary awards that included travel costs. That figure has fallen to well below £100 million. The injustice is that the ability to claim a discretionary award depends on where people live. The whole system must be considered carefully, and something like the Committee's proposals introduced.
      Unlike the Opposition, I think that this debate is timely, coming before the final statement of the comprehensive spending review. I urge the Government to realise that this crucial area of education must be very high on their
      782
      agenda. For the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) to describe the report as inflated expectation was very rich. His Government expected further education to go on increasing the number of students and continue producing quality education while reducing its funding. Theirs was the inflated expectation. The Committee's report is realistic, and I recommend it to the House and to the Government.
      6.25 pm
      Mr. Vernon Coaker: I shall be brief because many hon. Members wish to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) rightly said that it was important to pay tribute to the work of the further education sector over the past few years, given the number of changes and challenges that have been presented to the people who work in it.
      From talking to the principal of my excellent local FE college, Arnold and Carlton college, I know the challenges that face it and many of the other colleges in and around Nottingham. In facing them, they have had a poor deal. Hon. Members agree that the funding of further education has been inadequate. The message to the Minister from the Select Committee report, from his experience and from the experience of all hon. Members is that we must address funding. We have started to do that, and we should recognise that the Government have already made some additional money available. We must continue with that and, in so doing, we shall address another issue: poor morale. We must reinvigorate the FE sector's work force so that they can start to deliver many of the things that we want.
      I forget which philosopher said that there is nothing as practical as a good theory, but if we want the FE sector to deliver what we want we must be clear what we want it to deliver. A multiplicity of demands is being made of it. Of course we want improved funding and to widen participation but to do that more money is needed. We must also address some of the other issues that my hon. Friends have raised, especially student support. Such issues are crucial in respect of the people whom we want to go back to education, such as women returners.
      For many of those people, alongside funding lies the issue of child care provision. The concept of lifelong learning is important, as is delivering training to support our economic needs. We must recognise that FE colleges often deliver courses in the most difficult circumstances and in remote areas. When the pits in my area shut, it was the FE college that moved in to try to retrain miners who had lost their jobs. We still have people out of work or in need of retraining and the FE colleges are trying to reskill them. We should pay tribute to the FE sector; we often fail to recognise the valuable work it does. It is not the grandiose, fantastic, multi-million-pound research that many universities proclaim—important though that is—but the small-scale individual courses delivered in a village hall or community centre that are vital if we are to provide opportunity to all our people.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has gone, because I suspect that our views are not as far apart as he thinks. As deputy head teacher of a city comprehensive for a number of years I was involved in ensuring that further education colleges and the 14-to-16 school sector worked together to raise achievement and increase the participation and staying-on

      783
      rates of 16-year-olds. I am not saying that FE colleges are institutions solely for problem pupils, but they offer the sort of opportunity that schools often find it difficult to offer, in a different environment, which can often help disaffected young people to stay in the education system.
      We talk about social exclusion and about offering opportunity, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider ways in which FE colleges can work with the key stage 4 curriculum, which is the 14-to-16 curriculum, to increase participation rates and to encourage young people to stay on in education. I can see numerous ways in which colleges in Nottingham and the schools sector can work together, but that is extremely difficult to organise because of lack of flexibility in funding arrangements. It is to colleges' great credit that, in many cases, they offer courses at or far below cost to ensure that opportunities remain open.
      When talking about widening participation and trying to get more young people into colleges, we have to recognise that the colleges need support. Many city and inner-city colleges are trying to persuade among the most disaffected and difficult young people in society to stay on in or to return to education. Colleges need support to deal with those young people, but too often—this is not a party political point—they are left out on their own when there is a problem as though it is the colleges' fault that the problem has arisen. We need to work with colleges and to recognise that difficulties are likely to arise when we try to re-engage in education disaffected young people who have failed at school, who may have been in trouble with the police or out of work, and who have been left on the shelf.
      If we support colleges and avoid apportioning blame when the odd problem arises—I think all hon. Members know what I am talking aboutwe shall start to address some of the issues of social exclusion in our cities and of disadvantaged young people. I want to emphasise the role of the FE sector in helping schools to deal with disaffection and in dealing with some of the disaffected members of the post-16 age group. FE colleges have a fundamental role to play and we should support them in that role because they offer opportunities to enrich and extend the curriculum that schools cannot offer on their own.
      In my view we have to speak more of the 14-to-19 curriculum and less of the 16-to-19 curriculum. To my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), I say that I thought that the Select Committee report was excellent. It offers an opportunity and a way forward, but we have to grasp the nettle and recognise the way in which FE colleges can contribute to raising achievement in schools and tackling social exclusion and disaffection across the age range.
      6.34 pm
      Caroline Flint: One of my proudest moments this year came when I attended an awards ceremony at which my constituent, Mrs. Sheila Gravel, won the national vocational student of the year award. My hon. Friend the Minister met her afterwards.
      Sheila left school at 16 and went to work as a machinist in a garment factory. After decades of work, she found herself redundant. Despite having a family and a dependent father to look after, she decided to take the opportunity, which had not been open to her at 16, to go
      784
      into further education. In doing so, she embarked on a course that not only provided her with skills for the future, but enriched her life. Having completed her first course, she went on to take a higher education course, which she started at Doncaster college and is continuing at Leeds university.
      Sheila's achievement is one testimony among the many of mature students in Britain who have taken advantage of our further education system even though education and training have not played a role for large periods of their life. That is good and, as far as I am aware, the number of mature students returning to further education is increasing. However, our problem is the number of Sheilas who continue to leave school at 16 and wait decades before taking up education and training once more. We in Doncaster, where almost 50 per cent. of school leavers do not go on to further education, whether at school or at a further education college, recognise what a huge challenge faces us.
      It is important to consider the reasons why young people do not choose to continue their education. As has eloquently been said by my hon. Friends, the key is to treat 16-year-old school leavers as young people rather than as children—and therein lies the importance of financial support. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) that child benefit is taken up only by families whose child is in full-time further education; it is not available to families whose children have left school, perhaps to take up a low-pay, low-skill job, or to families whose children are unemployed. I agree that there are issues relating to support for family life and to recognition of parents' contribution toward their child's upkeep, but we have to look at the motivation and incentives for young people to continue their education. In its report, the Select Committee tried to highlight that as an issue for the Government to consider when determining different funding priorities. Child benefit has to be considered in that respect.
      Mr. Green: If the hon. Lady feels so strongly about maintenance grants for 16 to 19-year-olds, may I ask which way she voted on the issue of maintenance grants for students at university? Did she vote for them to be taken away, or is she consistent in her views?
      Caroline Flint: In the first place, students in higher education get loans. Let me make it clear: having in the past year dealt with several constituents in further education who pay for their courses, who combine that with work and who are on low incomes, I have no hesitation in supporting a fairer and more equitable system whereby people in further education, whether young or mature students, get a better share of taxes and more support for continuing their education, such as currently benefits those in higher education. I want a fairer and more equitable system and, for that reason, I had no hesitation in supporting the Government's recommendations.
      Many graduates understand that their future level of income is enhanced by undertaking a degree course. We have to get across to young people the message that undertaking further education can enhance their future employability and standard of living. A person with a level 3 qualification earns, on average, 25 per cent. more than someone with no qualifications. A person with a

      785
      degree earns, on average, twice as much as somebody without any qualifications. The unemployment rate among people with level 3 qualifications is half that of those with no qualifications. We must impress on young people that investment in their education and training at 16 will really make a difference to their prospects and those of their future families.
      Child care has been commented upon during the debate. Only 0.1 per cent. of Further Education Funding Council funding to colleges is devoted to child care. I am pleased that this year the Government granted an additional £5 million, but I hope that that is only the start.
      I shall give an example of how child care is important. I visited in my constituency a unit that is for young parents under 16—girls who find themselves pregnant and are able to continue their education with the support of a young parents unit working in harmony with schools. Child care and support is offered. However, once they reach the age of 16 and leave the school system, the project breaks down. The local FE college has a creche, but it is only for children aged two and above. That creates a vacuum. In the most difficult circumstances, young women are supported in continuing their school education, but they can find themselves at a loss when they have to leave the establishment.
      When I asked the person in charge of the young parents unit what happened in the vacuum that I have described, she said that young girls often seek to assume more parental responsibilities, thinking, "I might as well have more of my family now than delay for the future."
      We know from the evidence that nine out of 10 lone parents would like to go to work. The two major barriers to their succeeding are child care and access to education and training qualifications. I impress on my hon. Friend the Minister that this is an area that is regarded as important to the life chances of young people and their children.
      The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who had to leave the debate early, for which he apologised, mentioned that in the evidence given to the Education and Employment Committee on the governance and accountability of further education colleges it appeared that on the whole there were few examples of governance and accountability breaking down. The hon. Gentleman was right. It is testimony to the sector that it has successfully made the transition from incorporation, but it was made clear to the Committee that where governance and accountability had broken down it had been to the detriment of the entire sector. The scale of the difficulties caused by that breakdown was such that it left a slur on the whole sector. In addressing that, various suggestions have been made, including the appointment of an ombudsman.
      Mr. Ben Chapman: My hon. Friend makes an important point about governance. There are calls for more funding for further education, but unless governance and accountability are right, more money will not of itself serve the purpose. In my constituency, the board and management of the Wirral metropolitan college managed to create considerable debt by over-grandiose ideas, by straight mismanagement and by creating
      786
      over-dependence on European funding that did not continue. In those circumstances extra funding would not help, yet the very same board and management comprise people who are closing facilities to address a problem of their causing. They are entirely undemocratically unaccountable. That cannot continue. We need to address the issue of governance and management, which cannot be done separately from funding.
      Caroline Flint: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. It is important, as in other sectors of public life, that governance and accountability in the FE sector are transparent and that people can put trust in our national further education service.
      As for model agreements in terms of staff, I do not think that anyone on the Select Committee felt that there was no need for flexibility. What was interesting was the evidence we received from the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers on sixth-form colleges. When asked why there had been little publicity about rancour and disputes in its colleges, it said that flexible models based on a national framework had helped it to succeed, whereas in FE colleges the absence of national models had led to disputes.
      We have had a timely debate that has enabled us to draw attention to the importance of the FE sector. I know that under the Labour Government it will have a healthy future.
      6.44 pm
      Mr. Derek Twigg: I shall be as brief as possible because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
      My local college is an interesting case for examination, given the investigations that are taking place, but I welcome the debate, the Education and Employment Committee report and the Kennedy report that preceded it. Those reports have highlighted the important issues in the further education sector.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) said, it is important that we use the debate to highlight the tremendous work that goes on in FE and sixth-form colleges throughout the country, which involves both staff and students. They should be congratulated. Often the work goes unnoticed.
      The contribution to the country's economy, never mind local economies, and to cultural and social developments in communities, is outstanding. It would not be possible to take away a FE college or a sixth-form college without that being noticed. The removal of a college would be a massive blow to any community and to the economy of the country as a whole.
      Funding is crucial—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has heard the argument about that. It is important that we fund the FE sector well. There are, of course, priorities to be determined and decisions to be made by the Government—and they have made a start. The previous Government incorporated colleges and established certain formulae. Many colleges have suffered as a result.
      I shall give a brief example. Widnes sixth-form college in my constituency is successful and has achieved tremendous educational attainment. It is used by many of my constituents. However, the college is about

      787
      25 per cent. worse off now than it was under previous local authority funding. The principal is in no doubt who is to blame. He says:
      "This is a direct consequence of the horrendous funding cuts imposed by the last Government."
      Demand-led funding has been mentioned briefly. The way in which the previous Government cut off funding was abominable. They did not just stop it; they stopped it overnight without warning. That created massive panic throughout the FE sector and in colleges throughout the country—I remember receiving a call from my local college. The Opposition will not respond to this issue. Similarly, they will not respond to the fact that more colleges are now in financial trouble. Why are more colleges now facing financial risk? The Opposition have sidestepped these issues. Earlier, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) suggested that I was quoting from a party brief. Actually, the facts are in the Select Committee report. They also appear in the Library figures.
      The Government recognise the importance of further education. They have started to make that clear with their commitment to lifelong learning and the learning age. It is important that there is specific help for people on low incomes or with low educational attainment. We can help them improve their education.
      In Halton, there are major problems as a result of structural unemployment. Learning difficulties and low educational attainment are also important to my constituents and Halton college has a fundamental, pivotal role to play. There are special needs and young people with learning difficulties. What happens to them when they leave school, whether it be a special school or a school integrated within a normal comprehensive school? What happens to their education? What role can FE colleges play? It is clearly crucial.
      In terms of national and multinational companies and the economy as a whole, support for FE colleges and the courses that they put on should be recognised as important.
      Halton college is under investigation. The principal and deputy principal have been suspended. A number of allegations have been made. For obvious reasons, I shall not go into them, but the college will be an interesting study, given the current system, especially in terms of franchising. I shall say a little about the college because the investigation may have clouded the good work that goes on there.
      Halton college was formerly Widnes technical college and has existed for more than 100 years, so it is not a new innovation; it has been part of the community for a long time. In 1993 it was incorporated with other colleges. It has 38,000 students, but I bet that it is not the largest college. The students' programmes of study are at the college, in the local community or at their place of work, so they can choose how the courses are delivered, which has a massive impact.
      The college has not only a local impact—it has students from all over the country. A number of issues are under investigation at the moment, along with the franchise. Many colleges have students from all over the country, so they make an important contribution to the economy. The age profile of students is interesting; 12 per cent. are aged 16 to 19 and 88 per cent. are 20 or over. Forty-four per cent. are male and 56 per cent. are female. The college provides work for about 800 people, of whom about 50 per cent. live in the Halton area.
      788
      Crucially for the success of the economy and our future, colleges such as Halton offer a range of courses. Halton offers courses in hotel and catering studies, health and community care and humanities. It also teaches computing and information technology, multimedia and science and engineering, which are four of the most crucial areas for our economy in terms of reskilling and re-educating people.
      Halton college has recently won a number of beacon awards and been commended for its work. It does a tremendous amount of work on links with the local community. There has been specific investment and improvements in links with local schools, such as video conferences, computer link-ups and distance learning in schools. Those innovations will be very important in the next century.
      Several hon. Members have referred to better governance. I met the staff of Halton college last week. What was interesting was the clear split between those on the franchising side and those who delivered local courses. They seemed to be two separate bodies and I wonder whether that is linked to management and how the college has developed. It is important for the way in which the college is managed and assessed that there is wide community representation on the board of governors, including staff, students and members of the local authority. I welcome the Government's proposals on better governance, which will improve the situation tremendously.
      The Further Education Funding Council, which controls the further education sector, has been conducting the investigation at Halton college. We must examine the funding council's role in providing financial controls and checks and balances for the whole sector to ensure that colleges are correctly run, that we get the best value for money from our investment in the FE sector and that we can rely on the work carried out in that sector.
      The FE sector is vital to our economy and our local communities and it deserves the support that the Government can give it.
      6.52 pm
      Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the debate and the Select Committee report. The points that have been made about the timing of the debate are worth dwelling on because, if it had taken place earlier in the year, it might have set the context for the debate on maintenance grants and tuition fees in the proceedings on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. That would have strengthened people's awareness of the fact that the overwhelming majority of students aged 19 and over in further education have no maintenance grants and pay their tuition fees.
      The problem for FE is that it has a different meaning in different parts of the country. In my constituency, every 16-year-old in the state sector is in further education because we benefit from a highly coherent system of education whereby there are eight schools for 11 to 16-year-olds and two colleges—one Catholic sixth-form college and one general tertiary college. Both are of the highest reputation, and one has received an inspection report that was recently described as the best ever written of any similar college. Further education is particularly important for my constituents.
      As the years go on, we might need to think of a different term for further education. The boundary between further education and adult education is

      789
      increasingly irrelevant because the majority of students in further education colleges are now adults. The growth of tertiary colleges and the incorporation of sixth-form colleges into the sector mean that the old Cinderella image of FE is increasingly inappropriate. I congratulate the Government on getting lifelong learning firmly on the agenda and I hope that, in future, the House will have an annual debate on lifelong learning.
      I do not want to go over the previous Government's failures, but they bequeathed to the new Government a legacy of a chaotic and fragmented internal market and a chronic funding crisis leading to intense demoralisation in colleges throughout the country, which in turn led to disastrous industrial relations in many colleges. That is a sad and tragic bequest. I congratulate the new Government on the work that has been done in the past 12 months to remedy the deficiencies of the internal market that we inherited. I particularly welcome not only the Select Committee report but the Kennedy, Fryer and Lane reports, which have all contributed to an important debate on lifelong learning in the past 12 months. I welcome the Government's commitment to increasing by 500,000 the places in further and higher education.
      I want to dwell on three issues arising from the Select Committee's report and then comment on more detailed points. First, I cannot entirely agree that the problem of funding is merely one of the quantum. The funding methodology itself has created a bureaucratic nightmare. Although it does not, perhaps, rival that of the Child Support Agency, on which we had a statement earlier, it is not far short of it.
      I shall quote one example. Several hon. Members have referred to the problems of franchising and the fact that their colleges have experienced severe financial crises because of the vagaries and instabilities of franchising. That is because the funding methodology specifically encourages franchising without there being a full understanding of the consequences of that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the fact that the specifics of the funding methodology have to be changed. We must bring about, exactly as we have done for the Child Support Agency and its formula, a simpler and more stable system. I am not entirely convinced that the changes that have been made to this year's funding methodology, particularly on franchising, will bring about that stability as quickly as is necessary.
      On funding, I also add my support for the proposed changes for maintenance for 16 to 19-year-old students via the reform of child benefit. That is a cause that I have long supported. It is self-evident that the reform proposed in the Select Committee report is the only way forward, and I hope that the Government take that on board.
      My second point on the report relates to planning. I welcome the acceptance that there has been a chronic lack of strategic planning in the sector. I also welcome the improved and enhanced role for the Further Education Funding Council regional committees and the voice that is given to the regional development agencies. Again, I am not sure that the report fully spells out exactly how strategic planning should be done. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that we cannot plan through the funding mechanism alone. If we do that, we shall simply reproduce the mistakes of
      790
      the previous Government. The Government should spell out, in the near future, exactly what powers the FEFC regional committees and RDAs will have.
      I shall quote one brief example of the chaos that exists, particularly in the 16 to 19-year-old sector, in the constituency in which I live, which is not the constituency that I represent. I live in one of the smallest metropolitan districts in the country, in which education for 16 to 19-year-olds is provided by two private schools, two grant-maintained selective schools and five grant-maintained notionally comprehensive schools, which are becoming increasingly selective because of the inevitable dynamics of opting out. There are also four local authority comprehensive schools and a general further education college that has an associateship with a sixth-form college outside the district. In addition, many young people at one end of the district go to the Catholic school for 11 to 18-year-olds across the border and many at the other end of the district go to one of the two sixth-form colleges in the adjacent district.
      The result is chaos, fragmentation and a massive amount of unnecessary travelling by young people. There is inefficiency, duplication of courses and no concept of economies of scale. A generation of young people has lost out because of the failure of the previous Government—I hope that this Government will not do the same—to get to grips with the planning of provision for 16 to 19-year-olds.
      The third major issue in the report on which I shall comment is that of widening participation. I found the appendix to the Green Paper extremely valuable in giving us the figures of those who participate in HE and FE, in adult education, and of those who do not.
      This year, the Government, to their credit, have introduced a widening participation factor in the funding methodology to the tune of £10 million, but that is a drop in the ocean. If we are serious about implementing the Kennedy agenda, we should ensure that the widening participation factor—however calculated—is much greater.
      Most people working in the sector would acknowledge that one reason why it is difficult to encourage those who have been alienated by their school experience to return to continuing education is that they need a great deal of personal support, because they lack confidence and communication skills. I question whether the big policies emerging from the Green Paper—the university for industry, and individual learning accounts—will, in themselves, succeed in widening participation, because the very people whom we need to encourage to become more involved in lifelong learning are the ones who will find it most difficult to handle the new technology that is implicit in the concept of the UFI, and to put some money into an individual learning account. We need to rethink how we might widen participation for people who have not been involved in any education or training since school.
      Finally, I shall raise some specific points, to which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond in his reply, or take back to the Department. The first concerns schedule 2—specifically, the changes that have been made to the accreditation of courses under schedule 2(a). I understand that that is the subject of lively debate. Many colleges fear that the changes to schedule 2(a) will have

      791
      a severe financial effect on them because they have been introduced too quickly, after prospectuses for next year have been produced and students recruited.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider, and take a personal interest in, that issue, together with the issue of schedule 2(a) and the new deal. I understand that new regulations limit new deal over-25 participants to courses under schedule 2(a), whereas many of them will need to follow courses under schedule 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f) or 2(g). That point needs to be reviewed.
      I shall be brief, as other hon. Members wish to speak. On schedule 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) raised a point about drawing the distinction between education for work and education for leisure. That point is strongly made in the report. I am not sure that it is easy to draw such a distinction. I do not believe that we can draw a line between that which prepares people for work and that which prepares them for leisure. I ask the Government to think carefully before making any changes to funding regimes on the basis of such a hard and fast division. Increasingly, as we move into the next century, as work patterns change completely and as people's working lives change, educating people for leisure time will be as important as educating and training them for work.
      The development of a credit accumulation and transfer scheme was also flagged up in the report. The difficulty is that, at the moment, there is no incentive for colleges to become involved in such schemes because the funding methodology works against it. That leads me to the important point that the funding methodology needs to be changed so that a fully flexible unitised curriculum can be developed.
      The national grid for learning is a crucial development, widely welcomed in the school sector. No reference has been made to how that might be extended to the further education sector. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will mention that in his reply.
      I welcome the work that the Minister and his colleagues have done in the past 12 months. There has been more discussion of lifelong learning than at any time in the past 30 years. All we need is for the Government to put their money where their mouth is.
      7.4 pm
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome tonight's debate and congratulate my hon. Friends serving on the Select Committee on Education and Employment, who were responsible for the report. It highlights the importance of further education and permits us to support it and to give it the recognition that it deserves.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) admonished us, telling us not to treat further education as a Cinderella service. He was right to do so; but when I look at those empty green Conservative Benches—on which one Back Bencher has just appeared—I can easily see why further education has been a Cinderella service. It is easy to see why, over the past 18 years, further education has been treated with appalling disrespect, funding has fallen and very few debates in the House have emphasised the importance of that crucial sector of the education system.
      Like many Labour Members, I have been a lecturer in both further and higher education. I have also been a member of the governing body of Cambridge regional
      792
      college, and chair of governors for three of the years that I was a governor. I was determined, in the years that I was a governor, to achieve a new building for Cambridge regional college. It was a matter of symbolic importance because, when I became a governor, Cambridge regional college existed in six ex-primary schools. It was run down; people did not identify with the place, and had great difficulty in finding it.
      Now we have a magnificent new building in the King Hedges area of Cambridge, which the Minister has visited. He will agree that it gives the college the status and importance that it deserves, and sends a very important message to the students, because it makes them realise that they are important to the people who fund the service.
      Recently, I had a meeting with the principals and chairs of governors of the three further education colleges that serve my constituency. I am very fortunate, in that my constituency has three excellent further education institutes, one of which, Hill's Road sixth-form college, is almost always the highest in the list of those state schools that achieve Oxbridge entrance. The other colleges are no less excellent, and produce a very high standard of education indeed. Nevertheless, funding is an issue, and one that must be addressed.
      Before I discuss funding, I shall mention the collaboration that exists between those three further education colleges; it is probably unique to Cambridge, and might be emulated elsewhere. There exists in Cambridge a collegiate board, consisting of all post-16 organisations in the area. The board's mission is to provide informed access for all students to a coherent, flexible and comprehensive programme of high-quality post-16 education and training. The collegiate board is the forum where the heads of the pre and post-16 establishments meet, and in their meetings they are always joined by representatives of the training and enterprise council, of the local education authority and of the schools that have access to, or send their students to, the further education sector.
      The areas of co-operation and collaboration include: common application procedures; guidance to students pre and post 16; strategic planning—which is important, and about which my hon. Friends have spoken a great deal tonight; curriculum development and curriculum mapping; staff development; personnel practices; marketing and promotional activities; and a host of other areas. That amply proves that a group of institutions, some of which are vastly different in character, can collaborate in a way that the previous Government did not think possible. The previous Government set one college against another, creating a competitive environment that was entirely destructive to the ethos of further education. The collaboration that we are now achieving is good for students, for lecturers, for further education and for the local economy.
      On the issue of funding, there are considerable concerns among my colleges. The three colleges this year are delivering 1.2 million Further Education Funding Council units, equivalent to more than 25,000 individual student enrolments. However, FEFC funding is available for only 1.1 million units, so not only are the units of funding smaller than in higher education, but they are not being properly funded.

      793
      All three colleges have been granted funding for about one third of the growth in the current financial year, which means that two thirds of the current shortfall will remain unfunded for next year, unless there can be some great influx into FE funding. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have some good news for us later this year when the results of the comprehensive spending review are announced.
      Another important factor is the serious adverse gap that is beginning to emerge between salary levels for teachers in secondary schools and teachers in sixth-form colleges. One of my FE colleges, Hill's Road sixth-form college, must find substantial capital investment from within a greatly reduced funding allocation. Unlike general further education colleges, many of which have a long history of private income and investment, which often leads to commercial and vocational opportunities, sixth-form colleges are largely dependent on FEFC income. As a result, they are paying their staff less and the funding gap is growing ever wider.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those issues. I welcome the debate, and am grateful for my opportunity to participate in it.
      7.11 pm
      Mr. Ben Chapman: Incorporation has brought some benefits to the further education sector, but more needs to be done about the issue of governance. In my constituency, the board of the local college is cutting its costs by attempting to close facilities. That is presented as a move to a sort of education without walls or buildings, a virtual reality new and exciting world of education. There may be something in that, but to me, buildings, campuses and social interaction among students have been, are and will be a massive component of our further education. We cannot do away with that.
      The pity of what is happening in my constituency is that, although it is presented as educationally driven, in fact it is debt driven. College principals may well be good educationists, but they are not necessarily good managers. Sometimes an inverse ratio is in play. Those who are the best educationists may be the worst managers. Those who talk the best game are often the worst players.
      In simple terms, it is the principal who appoints the board, and the board that effectively supports the principal. That brings a false collateral and respectability to the business of governance. All appears to be well, but it is not. The proposed closure of a campus in my constituency comes on top of an earlier site closure, and presages the closure of a third. It follows the removal of creche facilities and of a theatre. It is a catalogue of disasters.
      There are 7,000 signatures to a petition protesting against the board's actions, there have been dozens of letters, and people have written to newspapers and spoken to me. Not one has supported the action of the governors of the college, but the board presses on none the less. It takes no account of the views of the people. We must find a mechanism to deal with that. Notices go up on a site announcing that it is available for other uses, students are thereby put off the courses, and a self-fulfilling prophecy is at work. It is not good for further education in general or for my constituents in particular.
      794
      I commend the Select Committee's report and the Government's consultation paper, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
      7.14 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House, although Opposition Members are in short supply, for an excellent and well-informed debate, which arose from an excellent and challenging report. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) for chairing the Committee and introducing the report. It is an extremely important report. There have been many contributions; and I shall try to deal with them, but I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I miss some.
      We in the Department are pleased to welcome the report, which is wide-ranging, comprehensive and perceptive. We are pleased that the Select Committee chose the further education sector as one of its first areas for scrutiny.
      The Government will respond in the next few weeks. That will provide the opportunity for a detailed assessment of the report and its recommendations, but I can say now that we welcome the general thrust of the Select Committee's report and its emphasis on the critical importance of FE. The sector requires all the encouragement that it can get.
      The previous growth-at-any price strategy had run aground earlier in the year, with the abrupt cancellation of the demand-led element—DLE—sby the previous Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) made clear. They had promised to fund DLE payments due in the 1997–98 financial year, and we had to make good that promise. We had to find the money—£65 million—to fill the black hole in FE finances left behind by our predecessors, before we even started to work out what additional sums the sector required.
      The sector has been in bad shape. It has undergone continuing and swingeing efficiency gains. There is nothing wrong with efficiency gains, of course, as long as they are sensible and measured, and take full account of the sector's opportunities and needs, but when they become a constant factor in FE financing, they cease to be efficiency gains and become efficiency losses—not only a loss of good teaching staff, as many hon. Members have pointed out, but more seriously, a loss of morale, shared purpose, respect and, most important, a loss of direction. For far too many of our colleges, that has been the case.
      I have travelled around the country visiting FE colleges, and some of them have been the best educational institutions that I have set foot in, including all the universities that I have visited, if one takes into account the task with which those colleges are charged, the use that they make of their limited resources and the brilliance of some of the teaching and practice that go on there. However, some FE colleges are pretty dreadful. Many hon. Members have emphasised that management requires careful consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) made the point that being a brilliant teacher does not make one a brilliant accountant or manager. I know that college principals are giving close attention to that.
      Our first priority, having sorted out the financial mess for 1997–98, was to assess the position for 1998–99. Within the rigorous approach to public expenditure to

      795
      which we had committed ourselves, we have none the less, since last November, managed to make available more than £100 million for the sector, over and above our predecessors' plans. Further education occupies such a key place in our education and training system that the money must be well spent, and I have no doubt that it must be added to year on year. I entirely agree with what has been said about the need for adequate funds.
      Mr. Sheerman: Does that not depend on how many colleges my hon. Friend has visited, and on what percentage he considers truly excellent—the best ever? If the proportion is only 5 per cent., or only 10 per cent., whatever resources we can put in will not be well used. What are we doing to ensure that we bring the remainder up to the best standards?
      Dr. Howells: I will not hector college principals or managers about what they should or should not do. I think that Governments have been all too handy at telling other people how they should manage their businesses. I will say, however, that I think we are very bad at identifying and disseminating best practice in this country. All too often, we do not give credit where it is due. It is easy to use soundbites to criticise colleges, but colleges—some of the worst as well as some of the best—have been in dire financial straits. I will not appropriate blame in that way, and I do not think that there is a blanket method of doing so.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) described the "bureaucratic nightmare" of the funding methodology. He is right: it is a bureaucratic nightmare—almost as bad a nightmare as the method of funding training and education councils, which we are reviewing. In many respects, we have inherited an awful bureaucratic mess, which we must help colleges to clear up—but through a partnership approach, rather than a "top down from Whitehall" approach.
      The Select Committee set out its view of the mission of further education, which I consider worth quoting. It said:
      "The further education sector supports the nation's economic competitiveness and social well-being by improving the skills of the existing and potential workforce and by creating opportunities for achievement for all members of the community."
      I do not think that the position could be summed up better; what worries me is that not everyone may share that view. I am not sure that many employers share it, and I am very sorry if they do not.
      There was a strong link between further education and polytechnics—in a different respect, but we saw the resulting service as being more seamless. I regret very much that, even now, many of our leading firms do not see the further education sector as a natural ally that could make it more competitive. It is vital that that trust and partnership are rebuilt, whatever we do with further education.
      It is not just a question of funds, although funds are important. More employers should realise that, if they invest money in education and training—work-based
      796
      training provided by colleges or other forms of training, perhaps campus-based—they, and we, will ultimately benefit.
      Mr. Eric Insley: Does my hon. Friend agree that restricting collaborative provision to local collaboration could damage relations between colleges and employers even further?
      Dr. Howells: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the excellent further education college in Barnsley, which has emerged at the top of the spectrum in the examination of colleges. It is a superb institution.
      We must look carefully at franchising arrangements, and I am glad that the Select Committee flagged them up. There is a variety of such arrangements, and there is no doubt that, even if they are at a distance, those that work must be encouraged. We must not be too prescriptive, and we must not barge in when we need to be sensitive.
      The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised some important points. Most important, he told us that—I think—4.5 million people had great difficulty with literacy and numeracy and with simply expressing themselves to their peers. There can be no greater condemnation of an education system. Indeed, I have heard that the figure may be as high as 7 million. If further education is to widen access, and to engage people to whom education means nothing, it clearly faces a huge task. There can be no more important task. It has been called the Kennedy agenda, after Lady Kennedy. There is, however, another task for further education, which has not been talked about much tonight.
      Mr. Dennis Turner: I know that all Labour Members appreciate my hon. Friend's work for further education colleges. Before the debate finishes, however, may I raise a question about basic education? What is the position on new deal 25-plus? I am thinking especially of those—literally hundreds—who need basic education before they can proceed to courses that will give them the jobs that our Government want them to have. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that that is being addressed.
      Dr. Howells: It is being addressed. We are in constant contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is currently running the great new deal project.
      The Kennedy agenda must be one of the most important before the country. Its aim is to widen access to education, and to re-engage what is almost a lost generation. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is right to stress the importance of that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) spoke of the need for further education to deal with problems of social exclusion and disaffection. That is hugely important. Another issue was hardly discussed tonight—
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
      Dr. Howells: I am sorry, but I will not. The hon. Gentleman has only just entered the Chamber, and I must finish my speech.

      797
      There is another agenda: the agenda of training expert technicians. It could be described as the other end of the further education spectrum. In this country, we have not been very good at teaching intermediate skills. We were good at it once, but we stopped somewhere along the line.
      The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) spoke of the benefits of incorporation, and there is no doubt that that has brought benefits, but it has also caused terrible disruption to the relationship between companies and further education colleges. I hope that the bridges can be rebuilt. If we can rebuild them, and use imagination in returning to further education its automatic sense of dignity and self-esteem, I think that we shall succeed.
      7.28 pm
      Ms Hodge: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      We ought to congratulate all who work in further education—not just on surviving, but on prospering over the past 18 difficult years, particularly the most recent. They have provided extended opportunity and improved training and qualifications for the many, and have begun to provide access for more people.
      I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the only Conservative Member who has been present throughout the debate. I do not suggest that that is because he is on the Opposition payroll, but one Conservative Back Bencher and nine Labour Back Benchers have been present throughout. That says it all: that is why further education has been ignored for too long by Members of Parliament.
      The challenges facing the Minister are immense, and I have full confidence that he will rise to the occasion. FE is rich in its diversity, and it faces many difficult problems in the future. We have raised capital and revenue funding, and the funding of institutions and people. We have also made some controversial and challenging recommendations—we wanted deliberately to put them on the political agenda.
      I thank the members of my Committee—we all worked extremely hard to put together a comprehensive report. I also thank our advisers, those who gave written and verbal evidence to the Committee, and those who work and study in further education for ensuring that it is a sector in which we can have confidence. The matter passes over to the Minister. We wish him luck, and think that we have timed the debate appropriately. We look forward to a welcome outcome from the comprehensive spending review.
      Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates).

Class XVII, Vote 1

  Freedom of Information
  [Relevant documents: The Third report from the Select Committee on Public Administration of Session 1997–98, on "Your Right to Know: the Government's Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act", HC 398, and the fourth report from the Select Committee on Public Administration of Session 1997–98, on "Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions", HC 820.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum not exceeding £55,642,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1999 for expenditure by the Office of the Minister for Public Service on the central management of, and delivery of services to, the civil service including the delivery of cross-departmental IT systems; expenditure resulting from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's chairmanship of the Ministerial Committee on Food and Safety; and certain other services.—[Dr. David Clark.]
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, it is a privilege to commence the debate on the White Paper and the Select Committee's response to it. We published our report in May, and although it would have been beneficial to hear the Government's response to it today, we must bear it in mind that it was published only six or seven weeks ago. The Government are usually given two months to respond, and we hope that they will manage to do so within that time.
  Tonight, we need to emphasise how important it is to pass freedom of information legislation along the lines of the excellent White Paper produced just before Christmas by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Draft legislation should be produced as soon as possible so that the Select Committee can go through it and listen to witnesses. A freedom of information Bill should also be in the Queen's Speech as part of the legislative programme for the 1998–99 Session, and I hope that we shall be enlightened on that subject.
  From the Labour point of view, it is important to remember that freedom of information legislation was in the 1974 election manifesto, as well as the 1992 and 1997 manifestos. We formed the Government in 1974, so it is legitimate to ask why people lost interest in the matter. Unfortunately, part of the history of freedom of information legislation to which all commentators refer is that Opposition parties always commit themselves to it, but that, funnily, that commitment always falls by the wayside when they come into government.
  I was told earlier today that, towards the end of their term in office from 1974 to 1979—just before they fell and when the Liberal party was committed to voting against them on a confidence motion—the Labour Government suddenly took an interest in Clement Freud's Back-Bench freedom of information Bill. By the time the Labour Government were buying, the Liberals were not selling, so the Bill fell and did not get through. We have an opportunity, 24 years later, to put that right.

  799
  The issue is always the same. People come into government with a flush of enthusiasm for freedom of information, but that needs to be driven forward to get the legislation on to the statute book before the iron of Administration enters the soul. We are at that exact point: the manifesto commitment has been made, the White Paper has been published, the Select Committee reported on it in May and we are waiting for the Government's response. We have been promised the draft Bill, although it will probably be published in the summer recess, and the expectation is that there will be a commitment to legislate in the next Session in the Queen's Speech later this year.
  The events of yesterday, and the revelations in The Observer, serve only to emphasise how important it is to state the principle that was at the heart of Labour's manifesto: I cannot say too emphatically that information should be for the many, not the few. Restricting information to the few would provide those interstices into which lobbyists would insert themselves, and boast about how they could obtain information that was not available to the general public. Absurd though such boasts may be, in a climate of denial of information to the many, the few would seek to profit from that denial. Perhaps yesterday's events were providential in the light of the timing of the debate and the messages that we hope to hear from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  When they come into office for the first time, Governments want to open up government, but there is also the perception that, from time to time, the availability of information will undoubtedly be inconvenient to the operation of government. All Governments have a control freak tendency and a liberationist tendency, and this Government are no different. The Select Committee's report could not be clearer in welcoming the White Paper, but the litmus test of a Government is not what they put in their manifesto or in a White Paper, but what they enact in legislation.
  We hope, therefore, that the draft Bill at least will be available before the 18-month period between last May's Queen's Speech and the next one, in November, has ended. We also hope for a commitment to legislate, although I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to give such a commitment tonight, because the content of the Queen's Speech has not yet been determined. It is important that we repeat the welcome that the Select Committee gave to the strength of the White Paper, and I hope that the House will back that.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster produced an excellent document, "Your Right to Know: the Background Material". The Government suggested how freedom of information legislation would work in practice by implementing the principle in respect of the White Paper—they published the document. It commits the Government to practising what they preach—what the Americans call walking the walk as well as talking the talk. This useful document states at paragraph 11:
  "The manifesto commitment implies that the Government intends the Act to go beyond the terms of the code of practice on access to Government information, quite apart from the obvious enhanced status of primary legislation over a non-statutory document. In keeping with this, the Government rejected within a few days of taking office options which would have involved simply translating the existing code into statutory form."
  800
  We expect that the legislation will be stronger than the previous Government's code of practice. Having gone back 24 years to the previous Labour Government's commitment, I can go back four years to what the previous Government did and the presumed reasons why they did it. The previous Government introduced a non-statutory code because they believed that a freedom of information Act would cut across the relationship between hon. Members and Ministers. Parliamentary questions could have been asked and not answered, but the Bill of Rights would have been cut across if that had been overridden by an information commissioner. Members of the public would have been put over and above Members of Parliament in their ability to gain access to information from Government Departments.
  A Minister may decide not to provide information through an answer to a parliamentary question, and there is little that we can do about that. We can ask another question in six months' time or whatever. A member of the public, on being denied similar information, could go to an information commissioner and that would disadvantage hon. Members, so the previous Government said, "Let us have just a non-statutory code."
  Unfortunately, as I think all hon. Members would accept, that code has not worked. It has not established rights clearly. The public are cynical about it. They do not use it much. When they do use it, they find the response is full of delays: Departments can always find reasons to fob off the ombudsman because there is no statutory backing.
  Let me cite a recent case. I had submitted a request for information on behalf of Friends of the Earth, Cymru about the Gwent wetland reserve and the mitigating measure for the Cardiff Bay development corporation. I shall not bore the House with the whole thing, but I made a complaint around about Christmas 1996 and it took until a couple of weeks ago—18 months—for the ombudsman to reach a verdict, simply because of the development corporation's dilatory tactics, which the ombudsman could do nothing about. That is the problem with a non-statutory code. The ombudsman, however hard he works, does not have enough stick to penetrate the defences of Departments, next steps agencies or quangos—whichever is seeking to hold the information back.
  That brings me to the most important point about the code. It is not merely the fact that it changes the relationship between Ministers, or could make us have to go to members of the public. One of the curiosities is that, if we do not do something about the House as well, by making freedom of information provisions apply much more effectively to information obtained by the traditional route of parliamentary questions, that route could fall into disrepute, and Members of Parliament could be asking members of the public to get information for them, rather than members of the public trying to get information via their Member of Parliament tabling parliamentary questions. What nonsense that would be. It would badly affect the reputation of the House if we did not sort that question out.
  I refer to the Committee's biggest difference with the Government's White Paper. I have already read out paragraph 11 of the background document that the Government produced, in which they said that they wanted the legislation to go beyond the content of the code. In one respect—law enforcement—the White Paper

  801
  retreats from what is in the code. We thought that that was a regrettable step. We believe that law enforcement should be subject to an exemption, as it is in the code, and not an exclusion, as it is in the White Paper.
  Why is that difference between two Latin words, which appear to mean the same, significant? With an exclusion, there is no appeal to the information commissioner. With an exemption, there is an appeal to the information commissioner, so there is a possible override from the information commissioner. That is a critical difference. It seemed to the Committee that, if that was good enough to be in the previous Government's code of practice, it should be good enough to be in the legislation, and should have been in the White Paper.
  We still recommend strongly that that should be in the draft Bill and in the eventual legislation. Otherwise, that area is untestable. Governments can abuse it if it is untestable and that will undermine the spirit of the freedom of information Bill, if and when we get it. Such a provision is not present in any overseas freedom of information legislation. That area is always testable, in the courts under the American system, or through a commissioner or a third party—an appeal body, if you like—under all the other systems, which do not use the courts as their ultimate court of appeal.
  That was the one big difference: we felt that the Government should not have withdrawn that provision. We still need a change of culture in Whitehall. All the arguments that we read in the press over the weekend—about the meetings last week, about cost and about the need to consider what the impact might be in changing the balance between the criminal community and those attempting to detect its members through law enforcement and so on—seem to tell us only one thing: the culture of Whitehall has not yet changed. We believe that that culture needs to change and to be retrained, so that civil servants will participate, in a proactive way, in the passing out of information and will not seek to find every reason either to delay or to deny information to the public.
  We also made points in the report about the need to co-ordinate the Data Protection Bill, which was working against the deadline of October this year, and therefore had to be finished in a great hurry, and the Human Rights Bill, which is another major Labour constitutional reform commitment. We said that they should be co-ordinated and linked.
  We said that hesitantly, because we do not want any of our recommendations to be used as excuses for delaying the freedom of information Bill. We fear that, almost every time we refer to the need to strengthen or improve the Bill, that can be used by the Sir Humphreys in Whitehall as a reason for deferring it and saying, "Even the Select Committee says that more work should be done on it, so do not put it in next year's Queen's Speech."
  That is the last thing that we want. Obviously, we want the Bill in next year's Queen's Speech, but we do not want it to be watered down. We want it strengthened and we want a commitment to it, but we believe that it should be closely co-ordinated with two other Bills that impinge on it—the Data Protection Bill and Human Rights Bill, which are still before the House.
  The new Government's constitutional reform agenda—parts of which are already nearing the statute book—over the past 14 months has been massive. The legislative
  802
  programme has been jam-packed generally and jam-packed with constitutional matters in particular—the Human Rights Bill, devolution to Scotland and Wales, the setting up of an executive mayor and council for London and other matters. Many matters have had to be taken on the Floor of the House because they are constitutional, but this Government's constitutional reform agenda cannot be considered complete without a freedom of information Bill because that is the Bill that will do most to change the culture of Whitehall and, therefore, the relationship between the people and the Government.
  For a Government to earn their corn as a great constitutional reforming Government, they need to implement freedom of information. Only then can they really say that they have completed the unfinished business of constitutional reform, modernising this country's constitution and joining the community of civilised nations, such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and, most recently, Ireland, that have freedom of information legislation—let alone Sweden, which has had freedom of information legislation for more than 200 years. We cannot join that community unless we take that step of having freedom of information legislation.
  From everything that we have read in the newspapers over the past few days, the permanent secretaries and some Ministers have now drawn the covered wagons of Whitehall into a circle and are fighting back. They did not mind the White Paper—after all, what is a White Paper in the end? However, now that it looks as though there could be a Bill in the Queen's Speech in only three or four months' time, they have drawn the covered wagons into a circle.
  It is much worse than anything that ever appeared in any script in "Yes, Minister" because this is not a television soap about top civil servants and Ministers in Whitehall. This is the reality of a struggle at the heart of Whitehall and Westminster about what we are going to have in the Queen's Speech and whether, over the next few years, we shall get the culture change and shift in the relationship between the governed and the governing that we want, so that this Government can be seen to be truly a great reforming Government.
  The plea of the whole Committee, therefore, is that we want to make an honest woman out of the mother of Parliaments; that is why this issue is so important to the whole House.
  7.48 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for the manner in which he has introduced this debate, and I congratulate him and his Committee on some thorough work and an excellent report. I know that he will understand if I also say how good it is to see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who has taken part in the Committee, and, most particularly, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has been in the House for almost 20 years and who has campaigned tirelessly, often to his discomfort, on this issue. No one could begin to doubt his impeccable credentials in this regard. I hope that we shall have the benefit of hearing him later in the debate if he has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  803
  It is one of the quainter ironies of parliamentary life that we should debate the Government's policy on freedom of information the day after The Observer suggested that some Government information is freer than others—the hon. Member for Cardiff, West also referred to that—and the day before we debate the Government's practice on supplying information to one of Parliament's most important Select Committees.
  However, sufficient unto the day is the confusion thereof, and in spite of everything that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said about the support he enjoys, it is fairly clear from articles written by normally well-informed commentators that the Government's policy on freedom of information is far from the seamless robe that he tries to wear. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West referred to that, and I hope that the Chancellor will tonight give us the latest insight into where the Government stand.
  It would seem that the Chancellor, backed by another Chancellor in the other place, is fighting off assaults on his territory by sundry ministerial colleagues who have rallied under the Home Secretary's banner. What Labour leaders were happy to proclaim as the ark of their covenant in opposition, they now see as a rather different, storm-tossed ark. A new freedom of inquiry and other intrusions would, some Ministers believe, threaten their ministerial freedom to act.
  We do not have to rely merely on press comment to know that there is anxiety in and around Whitehall. We just need to read the memos sent by the Ministry of Defence to the Select Committee on Public Administration. We are told that the Ministry anticipates
  "an increase in applications for information, which could impose a heavy administrative load…The change to a requirement to provide copies of documents, rather than providing information, will require time and effort to identify specific documents and"—
  these are the really important words—
  "to decide whether all or part are suitable for disclosure".
  It seems more than a few months since the Chancellor made his December statement. Although it was subject to one of the major leaks for which the Government have become notorious, it earned the Chancellor more plaudits than most of his colleagues have received for their statements to the House. I very much appreciated, as did many hon. Members, the thoroughness with which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster sought to investigate that leak, having denounced it very roundly, and apologised to the House for it.
  This is the first occasion on which the House has had a chance to debate the White Paper. I make no particular complaint about that, but I do complain a little about the fact that we have yet to see the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee of which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West is Chairman. I appreciate what he said about the deadline of eight weeks, but the Government have chosen tonight for this debate, and it is a pity that they did not publish their response so that hon. Members could read it in time for the debate.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy will tell us, I am sure, that he is consulting widely in Whitehall. All I ask is that he tries to get his ministerial colleagues to speed up their replies, because it would be scandalous if we did not get the Government's response before the House rises for the summer recess.
  804
  I confess to being a little disappointed with the Chancellor. He is an old friend, and I hold him in high personal regard. In what he welcomed as a constructive response to his statement on 11 December, I said that the Opposition would be very glad to take part in talks with him. I pointed out that, although we did not share his zeal for constitutional reform—he knows that only too well—we would be more than willing to participate in a constructive spirit, not least because we are proud of our achievements in government.
  Unfortunately, the Chancellor has not yet responded to those overtures. I express the hope that tonight he will pledge himself to seeking to engage all parties, including the official Opposition, in substantive talks when the draft Bill is published, if not before.
  As I said on 11 December, if ever there were a subject on which consensus is desirable, this is it. It is a pity not only that the Chancellor has not responded to my offer, but, more importantly, that the White Paper is almost overtly political in the tone of its criticisms of the previous Government. Specifically, it makes light of the code of practice, which was a substantial step forward. It falls back on that code towards the end: in paragraph 7.3 it says:
  "Existing mechanisms for openness—including the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information—will remain in place…to smooth the transition to the fully-implemented legislation."
  The simple fact of the matter is that the previous Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), made very significant strides in opening up government. They established the code of practice and introduced the citizens charter, which the present Government have rightly retained, although with scant recognition of the man responsible for it.
  Where precisely do the Government stand now? I have to ask that question not only because of the recent press speculation and the concerns expressed by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which, under Maurice Frankel, has done so much to advance this cause, but because we have not had the opportunity to discuss these issues in the Chamber. We need to know how the Bill will be handled and when it will be introduced.
  What about the Chancellor's comments about the White Paper having green edges? How much notice has been taken of the many representations that have been made to him direct—not just those made by the Select Committee—and of the often critical comments contained in the Select Committee report and in the detailed response by the Campaign for Freedom of Information? The campaign's document is substantial: it is even longer than the White Paper.
  I shall touch on some of the issues that exercise the Opposition, and that need clear, definitive comment from the Chancellor of the Duchy. How is reasonableness to be tested? After all, sometimes those with the greatest need for information are campaigning individuals or organisations that few would call reasonable. One wonders how a Wilberforce or a Shaftesbury would have fared if he had applied under these rules for information for fighting their, at the time, unpopular and unfashionable causes. What about "substantial harm"? Adjectives are notoriously difficult to define accurately or objectively. Why should the test be reduced to one of mere harm when it comes to Government Departments?

  805
  The White Paper tells us:
  "Experience from overseas suggests that the essential governmental functions of planning ahead, delivering solutions to issues of national importance and determining options on which to base policy decisions while still maintaining collective responsibility, can be damaged by random and premature disclosure of its deliberations under Freedom of Information legislation."
  One is tempted to say, "Quite so." Perhaps I can be forgiven a wry smile when I suggest that the Chancellor has had little success in persuading his ministerial colleagues, many of whom seem ready, for the sake of a soundbite headline, to proclaim to the "Today" programme what they have presumably agreed to keep confidential. There is little point in the White Paper defending rules which are so regularly broken unless there is to be a new determination to enforce them. Is there to be such a determination? We have a right to know.
  There is a powerful argument to be advanced against the White Paper here, and it has been so advanced with remarkable and persuasive lucidity by Professor Vernon Bogdanor in his memorandum to the Select Committee, published in volume II of the report. I warmly commend the memorandum to any hon. Member who has not read it. He argues:
  "To give Parliament the right to information, which may include official advice, is the only way in which Parliament can be enabled to fulfil its task of pinning responsibility on Ministers."
  In support of his case, Professor Bogdanor cites this fact:
  "Between 1994 and 1997, the minutes of discussions between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England were released six weeks after these discussions took place. On a number of occasions, the minutes revealed serious differences of opinion between the Chancellor and the Governor."
  Why, I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy, does the White Paper not refer to that considerable advance in open government, which was quite revolutionary, and which has not continued?
  Professor Bogdanor also refers to New Zealand, which is cited in the White Paper on a number of occasions and has constitutional conventions rather similar to ours. In New Zealand,
  "It is now customary to release policy advice relating to decisions once they have been made. A New Zealand citizen can, for 20 dollars, purchase the official advice given to an incoming Government."
  I would have been happy to pay rather more than that on 2 May last year. I suspect that some of the gentlemen referred to in The Observer yesterday would doubtless have been happy to fill the Government's coffers a little more.
  Professor Bogdanor seeks to categorise those who take opposing sides on the issue as either embracing the Whig-Liberal view of the constitution—whose most prominent recent spokesman he cites as Sir Richard Scott—or the view
  "given elegant expression in recent years by two ex Foreign Secretaries, Lord Howe and Lord Hurd. This view starts from the requirements of Government rather than Parliament."
  At this point, I should ask who it was who appointed Scott, and gave directions that his report should be published. Again, there is a churlish refusal to acknowledge what the previous Government often did.
  Professor Bogdanor also argues that we might have escaped the poll tax fiasco had policy advice been readily available. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member
  806
  for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and I—who steadfastly opposed that item of Conservative legislation—would read that passage in the good professor's case with particular interest.
  Professor Bogdanor rests his case by saying that, in the last resort, the fundamental argument for freedom of information derives from the principle that, in a democracy,
  "the people have a right to know what Government is doing in their name."
  If the Chancellor intends to preserve his White Paper position unchanged, he will have to come up with convincing answers to the Bogdanor thesis.
  Central to the policy as advanced in the White Paper is the proposal to appoint an information commissioner. It is a pity that, in his enthusiasm for this new appointment, the Chancellor has—perhaps inadvertently— downgraded the role of the ombudsman. The Committee is rather tough on the Chancellor on that, recommending that he should,
  "in his response to this report, correct the statement on paragraph 5.7 of the White Paper relating to the independence of the ombudsman—and cease to draw the wrong inferences from it."
  I am bound to say that I am not persuaded that we need a wholly separate information commissioner. Much could be said for giving the extra responsibilities to the ombudsman, even though that would inevitably mean extending not only the scope, but the size, of his office. Such a move would certainly avoid the possibility of clash and confusion, which could arise if two similar but separate high officials exist side by side.
  Certainly, if an independent commissioner is appointed, there will have to be a clear understanding of where his responsibilities begin and end and where they are different from those of the ombudsman—who, after all, has a specific role under the code, which will, as we have seen, remain important during the transitional period. Combining both roles would have the added advantage of giving all the responsibilities under the Act to an officer accountable to Parliament. That is not something that should be lightly dismissed.
  Other points in the Select Committee report deserve the most careful answers. The Committee has serious doubts that the regime proposed by the White Paper strikes the right balance between privacy and openness, or whether it will be workable. It is important that the Chancellor takes on board the strong arguments advanced by the Committee in that context. The Committee goes further than the Opposition would wish with its comments on the excluded areas, but, again, the cogent case that it advances must be debated fully during discussion of the draft stage of the Bill.
  I can sum up the Opposition's position simply, as one of wishing to play a constructive part in all the discussions, but only on the basis of genuine consultation. There has been little enough over the Government's other constitutional policies. They are referred to by the Prime Minister in the preface to the White Paper:
  "We are committed to a comprehensive programme of constitutional reform. We believe it is right to decentralise power; to guarantee individual rights; to open up Government; and to reform Parliament."
  In response, I would say that we have seen little of a coherent strategy, but rather haphazard, piecemeal reforms based on inadequate consultation, and often no

  807
  attempt to think things out or to establish any consensus. When I think of the Government lurching from policy to policy in this field, I am reminded of the famous story of Winston Churchill dismissing the pudding at the Savoy because it had "no theme". Where is the Government's theme?
  On this policy, Mr. Hugo Young—writing in The Guardian last week—said that the answer to those specific questions is being decided in the secret places. He added that that answer
  "will be definitive for the entire life and meaning of the Blair Government."
  The opening sentence of the White Paper is particularly prescient:
  "Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision-making."
  I rather suspect that that is a sentence that will come to haunt Ministers. I hope that we shall not see a particularly troubling visitation of the spectre tomorrow night.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Peter Bradley: It seems from the attendance in the House tonight that freedom of information is the best-kept secret in Westminster. That is a great shame, but I very much welcome the debate.
  I listened attentively to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P.Cormack). I find it strange that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire cannot find the theme in the White Paper, or in the Committee's response. His speech was elegant, but he lost the thread. He should return to "Your Right to Know" and the Committee's response to it.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I was not accusing the Chancellor in the White Paper—still less the Committee—of not having a theme; I was referring to the Government's policies as a whole.
  Mr. Bradley: Those who have read the White Paper attentively and with less cynicism will have found that it is proposing one of the most radical and irreversible departures from the culture to which we have become accustomed over the centuries—particularly in the past couple of decades; an obsession with secrecy by which, in the name of democratic accountability, previous Governments have limited rather than extended the freedoms enjoyed by citizens in this country.
  The well-known sociologist and political commentator, Noam Chomsky, said some decades ago that freedom of speech, valuable though it is, depends on those who have the power to define language. The same is true of information. Freedom of information depends very much on those who control the flow of that information, and the White Paper—and the legislation that we hope and expect will follow it—will do much to redress the balance between the governed and the governors.
  Until now, freedom of information has been curtailed by interests that are more concerned to limit participative democracy than to allow it to flourish. Ministers, civil servants and those with commercial interests understand that their authority, influence and power over our daily lives would be reduced if we had an automatic right to know and to question the way in which we are regulated
  808
  and controlled. Now, I believe, we have a right to demand access, accountability and transparency in the conduct of national and local government.
  Information is the oxygen of democracy; without it, our democratic system and our institutions cannot flourish. That is why I support what has recently become known as control freakery. I believe that it is important for Government to express messages that are clear, cogent and coherent. People want to know that their Government are under control. They want information to which they can respond and react. Without clear information, there can be no real dialogue or partnership between those who govern and those who are governed; there can be no real bond of trust, and there can be no real opportunity for people to react, to express their views and to participate in the management of their daily lives.
  The White Paper is truly radical. It proposes one of the most important constitutional changes that the Government will pursue—indeed, that any Government for many years have pursued. That change will enfranchise and empower every citizen in the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said, it should be seen in the context of a wide-ranging programme of reform that, as a whole, constitutes a new and mature contract between the Government and the citizen. That is what is known as stakeholding, an expression that was current a couple of years ago but has fallen out of fashion—sadly, I believe, as it is an important concept.
  The Government have been criticised for control freakery, but they are pursuing a wide-ranging programme of reform. That programme includes Scots and Welsh devolution, the return of democratically elected government to London, the introduction of regional development agencies and the modernisation of local government—as expressed in, I think, six recent consultation documents. There have been experiments with proportional representation, and Liberal Democrats have been put on to Cabinet Committees—I do not think that anyone could argue that that is entirely necessary, given the majority that the Labour party enjoys in the House, but it is welcome none the less.
  Moreover, the European convention on human rights will be incorporated into our legislation and a White Paper on better government will, I hope, be published in the autumn. I should also mention the reform of the House of Lords and the whistleblowers Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to his part in bringing forward legislation on both freedom of information and on whistleblowers.
  Freedom of information is the flagship of the programme but, as I said, it is a well-kept secret, which is a pity. That is partly because the press's obsession with personalities overwhelms its interest in policies. For example, when, a couple of months ago, the Lord Chancellor gave evidence for two and a half hours to the Select Committee on Public Administration on the Government's programme of constitutional change, he discussed the most far-reaching changes that citizens in this country will enjoy for a generation—indeed, for many generations to come. The press, however, were interested in one thing only. Those who recall that Select Committee meeting will remember that, the following day, the radio, the television and the newspapers were consumed by one issue—the Lord Chancellor's wallpaper. The story was

  809
  not even new; it was a reheated version of a story that had kept the newspapers going for a couple of days in the previous week. The media's failure to discuss important issues seriously and to involve people in a proper debate represents a great disservice to the citizens of this country.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, on that occasion, the Lord Chancellor seemed to be grateful for the distraction provided by the cost of his wallpaper, as he did not want to talk about hon. Members' criticisms of the way in which judges are appointed? As the record of that meeting shows, the Lord Chancellor instigated most of the dialogue on the choice and the cost of his wallpaper.
  Mr. Bradley: My recollection is not the same; suffice it to say we discussed constitutional change for two of the two and a half hours, whereas for half an hour two members of the Committee—the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was not one of them—pursued Lord Irvine on what can be described only as trivia. I put it to the House that the Lord Chancellor's home furnishings are far less important than those constitutional issues.
  This time last year there was much speculation about the delay in publication of the White Paper. When it was published, it was welcomed for its thoroughness; the delay had been caused by the pains the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Lord Chancellor and others involved in the drafting had taken to ensure that it was right. Indeed, the White Paper is exceedingly good.
  It is important that the Bill preserves and builds on the key principles identified in the White Paper. I am relaxed about whether the Bill will form part of this year's Queen's Speech; I hope that it will, but it is far more important to ensure that the Bill is right than to have it quickly. So long as it is worth waiting for, we should, having waited for centuries, wait a little longer. The key issue is that there should be no retreat from the principles set out in the White Paper.
  The Select Committee's report makes clear our disappointment at the relatively few examples of temerity in the White Paper. I hope that the lobbying done by and for the utilities—which is the subject of press speculation—so that they can escape public scrutiny will not be tolerated. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Select Committee, I found his reasoning unpersuasive that all police operations should be excluded from public scrutiny. If the public had had proper opportunities to know what happened in the tragic Lawrence case, for example, I doubt that we would be where we are now or that the Lawrence family would have suffered so much and for so long.
  I find it inexplicable that the public should not have the right of access to information about police operations, particularly failed police operations. I have in mind fairly humdrum examples, such as were discussed by the Select Committee, relating to the management of disorder or of football grounds and football crowds. Police plans to control public events should be confidential but, after the event, especially when something has gone wrong, the public have an absolute right to know the police's dispositions, what instructions were issued and what
  810
  accounted for the failure. That is a weakness in the Home Secretary's argument and the Select Committee stated its case plainly in the report. I hope that those who draft the Bill will resist any temptation to retreat from the report's recommendations on this important issue.
  The conflict between the right to privacy and freedom of information is a problem. I believe that the right to privacy is very important; I also accept that freedom of information, while important, is not an absolute right. It is crucial that the Bill, and consultation on its drafting, strikes the right balance.
  Once we have freedom of information legislation, the world will not be the same. It is doubtful whether the BSE crisis could have deepened as it did had the public had proper access to information. It is also doubtful that the arms to Iraq affair could have taken the course that it did had there been proper scrutiny through access to information. Quangos and utilities will not be able to operate under the cloak of secrecy as they do today.
  The role of the press will undoubtedly change, not least because there will be fewer leaks and less of a market for leaking information that ought to be in the public domain. One would hope that there will be less scandal because the people in control of information will be much more careful to ensure that they are beyond reproach and those whose job it is to scrutinise their activities will have more access to information about the way in which they are governing us and the country.
  Freedom of information will also come as something of a shock to Members of Parliament. As a new Member I frequently hear older Members in particular telling us about the sovereignty of the House and how important that is. In principle, in our parliamentary democracy, that sovereignty is important, but if it means a barrier being set up between Members of Parliament, Ministers and the people we serve, it is not a good thing. Freedom of information will do a great deal to lower the barrier between the people who sit up in the Strangers Gallery and the people who sit down here in the Chamber. Freedom of information will make truly participative democracy possible. In future, there will be a presumption to disclose information, instead of the culture of secrecy and denial.
  For 10 years I was a member of Westminster city council, which was the subject of possibly the greatest political scandal of the century. When I and other members of the opposition elected by our constituents to serve them as well as we could asked for information from council officers because we suspected that something was going on that should not have been, we were consistently denied access to the information. We were asked to demonstrate why we needed it—to demonstrate our need to know. Frankly, one can demonstrate one's need to know only when one has the information and can justify the request. That is simply unacceptable.
  One of the strongest features of the proposed legislation is that no one should be required to demonstrate why he or she wants certain information. There should be no denial of an individual's right to information on the ground that it is a fishing expedition. If my friends and colleagues on Westminster city council and I had had access to the information when we asked for it and had been given the right to scrutinise the administration as we were elected to do, many of the scandals with which everyone is so familiar about Westminster would not have

  811
  happened. That would have been far better for local democracy there and it would have saved thousands of our constituents a great deal of suffering.
  Freedom of information will make our democracy truly participative. When people have access to information, they can react and play their own role in decision making. It will no longer be possible for the great and the good, that small coterie of those elected and otherwise who dominate public affairs, to do so to the exclusion of our constituents. I enter a plea that, when we have an information commissioner, he or she should not merely have the common touch but common sense so that they can be truly representative of the people they are appointed to serve.
  One of the most pernicious features of social exclusion is the exclusion of individuals and communities from decision making. Freedom of information and the technology that is making information so much more accessible will bring a radical cultural change to the way in which our affairs are managed. The onus is on the Government to ensure that freedom of information is truly liberating—not merely a subject for Hampstead and Islington dinner parties, but something that will be meaningful to every man and woman in the country.
  In welcoming the White Paper, may I enter a plea to the Government? May it come soon, but above all may it certainly not be diluted. I hope that the White Paper is not diluted by those who are paranoid or retentive—by civil servants who feel that they will lose influence and control or by sectional interests who would rather cloak their activities in secrecy. The Government should keep up their courage and stick to the principles of the White Paper. If they do, it will be one of the enduring achievements of this reforming Government.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Like all hon. Members present tonight, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject. Like the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, I and other hon. Members are disappointed that we are debating the matter when we have not yet had the Government's response to the report that the Committee worked so hard to achieve. I must pay tribute to our chairman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for all his work. I also compliment the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is the most experienced member of the Committee and who held the line on more than one occasion, preventing some of us from being misdirected. I am grateful for his help and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who I am sure will want to make some observations, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about information that he has tried desperately hard to get out of Ministers in the past 12 months and the frustrations that have caused him to ask close on 1,000 parliamentary questions,
  Sir Patrick Cormack: An expensive fellow.
  Mr. Hancock: Yes, very expensive. I am glad to say that not all his questions were directed at the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  The Committee's deliberations could have been entitled, "The tale of the two Chancellors" because we had a different approach from both of them. The hon.
  812
  Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) was right to remind us of the fun morning when we questioned the Lord Chancellor. Some of us expected a little more than we got and some were disappointed that he seemed to want to rush quickly on to discuss the quality of wallpaper, where he should buy it and his domestic activities, rather than the serious questions that we wanted to put to him. How different it was when we questioned the Chancellor of the Duchy and how right he was to take the issues so seriously and to spend some considerable time going into detail with Committee members on the rights and wrongs of the White Paper and his ambitions for how it would develop.
  I also hope that the White Paper will develop into a Bill in the Queen's Speech, and will become an Act. That will give us a terrific trinity of good new legislation, with major breakthroughs—data protection, human rights and freedom of information—a trinity of usefulness for the population as a whole to use. Hon. Members stressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy that we hoped that this aspect would not develop into legislation that is available only to the rich and powerful, to big business and the media. We hope that the people whom we represent will have access to it.
  In one of my contributions to the Select Committee, I reflected on the problems of my constituents. I considered five different areas. One was the nuclear test veterans—many of whom were national service men in the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy—who went to the Pacific 30 or 40 years ago and took part in the tests, which affected their lives. Sadly, many of them are now dead, but there are still unanswered questions relating to the activities of some 40 years ago. Those involved have been stonewalled decade after decade and there is widespread frustration that the Ministry of Defence is still cloaking in secrecy what happened and the position of those men.
  Many Gulf war veterans live in the Portsmouth area. Once again, they are frustrated by their inability to get answers to questions. Service personnel in general are frustrated by what they come up against, particularly when they have recently left the service and want to query issues relating to their activities.
  Immigrants are often frustrated by the fact that they cannot get answers when relatives are refused entry or they are denied citizenship. Portsmouth prides itself on being a cosmopolitan city, and we have a large immigrant population. The most notorious citizenship case outstanding is that of Mr. Fayed. Under the legislation, he would still not be able to find out who said what about him to frustrate his application. That cannot be right.
  Only this morning, I had a conversation with a constituent who was a party to the arrest of two people who had robbed and assaulted him. He identified them to the police on not one but three occasions, including at an identification parade. When the case went to court, he was not even informed of the court date, and he subsequently received a letter saying that the police had dropped the case. There was no explanation from the Crown Prosecution Service or the police. He could get no answers and came to me in frustration. Under the current proposals, we shall never be told why that blatant crime went unpunished. The frustration will continue, and that cannot be right. Even at this late hour in the consultation on the legislation, we should consider those points carefully.

  813
  On 14 September 1996, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister said:
  "The case for a freedom of information act and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law is now generally agreed outside the Conservative Party and even by some within it. The onus must always be on public authorities to explain why citizens should not have access to information and not vice versa."
  In the Tribune of 29 September 1995, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary wrote:
  "Labour wants to see far greater openness in government. That is why we will introduce a Freedom of Information Act to give people clear rights of access to information collected by public authorities. The balance of the presumption must be reversed so that in most cases information will be made available to the public unless there is a good case for secrecy."
  I hope that both right hon. Gentlemen, who now hold high office, will remember their words and act accordingly. I was somewhat frustrated when the Home Secretary expressed to the Select Committee the view that we should still close the door on information from the police.
  The conflict between civil servants and the ballot box should be won by the ballot box every time. The House and the will of the people should not be subverted by powerful Whitehall mandarins who might feel that their past life style and the ease—the deft touch of the unaccountable—with which they have governed the nation are being interfered with. We cannot allow this opportunity to slip away, because the nation would not forgive us.
  The main purpose of the legislation is to allow people access to information that is pertinent to their personal lives. The balance has to be drawn carefully between the right to know and the privacy of the individual, but I believe that we can find the right blend when the Bill is drafted.
  Some of the most intimidating agencies have been wholly excluded. At present, the police, the security services, social security and immigration are all excluded, except for administrative records. We want that to change. It cannot be too late for that.
  Hon. Members have asked about the role of the commissioner, which is limited to a judicial review, concerning procedure rather than substance, so a Department has only to act "properly or reasonably", and if the statutes are drafted to give wide scope for what is proper and reasonable, the commissioner will have almost no opportunity to intervene. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made the same point when he said that the use of words could provide an easy route to stop information being made available. We should not allow ourselves to be frustrated by words. We must explore the situation positively.
  Committee members were frustrated when we could not further examine the position of the public utilities. The monopoly companies appear to have lobbied successfully to escape the provisions, except where their activities are directly accountable to the public. Southern Water, which serves my area, is an offshoot of a much bigger company, and the larger implications of that multinational company's activities have a bearing on what happens with water in the area that I represent.
  We need the right to question the parent company about its activities, and not only about its responsibility to provide clean water and decent sewerage. We need to
  814
  explore the motivation that leads to investment being contracted or expanded and the pressures that exist on the board. Companies working in the public interest must be open to public scrutiny. Anything short of that would be a travesty of what most reasonable people would expect from the legislation.
  We need time to scrutinise the legislation. I hope that the Select Committee will have that opportunity and that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will give us a timetable that will allow us to invite back previous witnesses and question new ones. Many groups would welcome that, and we would relish the opportunity of developing the draft legislation into the reality of a Bill to be introduced in Parliament.
  We must ensure that the legislation on data protection and that on freedom of information interface correctly and do not become a means of foiling one another. They should work in tandem to develop freedom, transparency and openness. We must insist that those points are taken on board. Anything short of that will leave people sadly frustrated.
  We must take careful note of the points made by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, whose submission to the Select Committee spoke of the harm test and how it is to be applied. In its report of March this year, it listed the factors that needed to be demonstrated to give real authority to that test. Those factors included which parts of the requested information would cause harm; the nature of the harm; the mechanism by which it was believed that the harm could be caused; why it was believed that it would be substantial; and the measures that had been considered for excluding part of the data or seeking the consent of a third party to make information disclosable.
  All those factors need to be a fundamental part of the legislation. The harm test—the protection test—should be there. It should go both ways. It cannot be good enough for a Department simply to say that information would be harmful. The Department should need to demonstrate publicly what the harm would be.
  Liberals have campaigned for the best part of five decades for freedom of information legislation. The White Paper goes a long way to delivering on our expectations of the incoming Labour Government. I am particularly grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his leadership and commitment in getting us this far. It would be a great disservice to the House to suggest anything other than that he is the right person to take freedom of information through its next stages, and I wish him well in his endeavours to do so. I congratulate him on what he has done so far, but ask him to take note of what hon. Members on both sides have said. Not one of us here—few though we are—wants anything but good from the White Paper, and 55 million people see it as a stepping stone to greater freedom to live better lives and to understand a little more about our country's government.
  8.40 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I apologise for any unintentional discourtesy to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration or to other hon. Members arising from my absence at the start of the debate. I received a late invitation to meet a Minister, whom I had asked to see, and I felt it best to accept. Unfortunately, that made me a little late.

  815
  From what I have heard, I realise how united is the House's welcome for the White Paper and the Government's clear-sighted commitment to freedom of information. I join the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) in commending the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on his drive to ensure that the proposals are wide-ranging enough to create a climate in which open information is normal. I hope that the legacy of the legislation to arise from the White Paper will be that people will ask in future what all the fuss was about. People should find it normal to have access to information about what Governments, public bodies and elected representatives do, and there should be no question that it could be otherwise.
  We should not underestimate the revolution in public affairs that that will require. It is good to hear the official Opposition being generally supportive of proposed legislation. That is a revolution in itself. It has not always been that way, although some on the Opposition Benches have always been conspicuously courageous in their tireless advocacy of freedom of information. Indeed, a full 33 per cent. of those now sitting on the Conservative Benches fall into that category. It took a careful mathematical calculation to reach that figure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said that the Opposition's new attitude towards legislation might create a climate in which we may receive, from someone, an apology for what happened in Westminster. No apology has been forthcoming from the Opposition leadership, but that case exemplified what can happen when there is a climate of secrecy in local government and when councillors and officers make sure that people do not have the information on which to make proper judgments. Things go dreadfully awry when that happens, and we do not want those circumstances to recur in local government.
  Nor do we want to see again in national Government the disgraceful circumstances of the arms-to-Iraq scandal. There was clear evidence in the Scott report of dissimulation by Ministers and civil servants, and that was engendered by the assumption that information was the property of those who had initial access to it, and was a privilege to be handed out in teaspoonfuls to anyone else.
  Some people dismiss freedom of information as a problem merely for the chattering classes. However, the problem for freedom of information—or, in our case, lack of it—is that change must come about in public perceptions of what politicians and public administrators are up to. We must demonstrate our good will, our good intentions, our probity and our willingness to engage in proper debate about the issues on which we legislate. Public trust has been lost because of what the public have seen of many people engaged in public administration in recent years. It will take a lot of hard work to restore trust. We cannot do it overnight, or by a single stroke of policy. It will require consistent application over many years. That is why freedom of information is so important.
  As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South said, an Act such as the one that I believe that the Government will introduce will rank as one of the Labour Government's seminal achievements. It will create a climate in which the contract between the politicians and civil servants and the public can perhaps be built anew. Partnership and participation are essential to democratic government in any country, and especially so in ours.
  816
  I am pleased that the Select Committee's report broadly supports the Government's initiative. However, a thread—best described as fear of the implementation of legislation—runs through the report's examination of the White Paper and the evidence of witnesses. There were suggestions in the press and among those who gave evidence to the Select Committee that Ministers might seek to restrict the flow of information. It was suggested that Ministers might push for tight definitions of harm, or might argue for an extensive definition of commercial confidentiality.
  It also appears from the White Paper that such bodies as the police and the security services might be given a blanket exclusion, perhaps because of fears of the effects that freedom of information would have on them. I can well understand that substantial parts of the operations of the police and the security services must remain operationally confidential. The reports coming out about the history of the troubles in Northern Ireland tell us that there are matters of which the public cannot be made aware for national security reasons.
  However, we need not necessarily jump from those facts to the introduction of a class exclusion. The tremendous difficulty in making a distinction between policy and operations has systematically bedevilled implementation of freedom of information in local government. It also came to the fore in recent discussions between the Prison Service and the previous Home Secretary. A host of other examples exists. To put administration within freedom of information legislation, while other activities fall outside, could cause difficulties. The matter should be clarified, because the public must have confidence that the Government are conducting their business in an open, fair and even-handed manner. When it comes to the police, public confidence is vital at all times.
  I shall tell the House about the fears that many people justifiably—in some cases, less justifiably—have about implementing the legislation by relating my experience of attempting to introduce a freedom of information platform when I was leader of Southampton city council. When my party took control of the council in 1984, there was a very tight regime in place. It was generally presumed that information was the property of officers, and sometimes of councillors, and items that came before the council for discussion were coded on paper of different colours—hon. Members who have served on local authorities will be familiar with the colour-coding obsession in which those authorities have historically indulged.
  In the case of Southampton, an item coded on white paper could be talked about to anyone. If business came before the local authority on yellow paper, it meant, curiously, that one could not talk about it until the afternoon of the council meeting and subsequent to that. If it came before the council on pink paper, one could not talk to anyone about the matter before or after the council meeting—although most of the business on pink paper was systematically leaked to the press by persons unknown. Most importantly, that regime was put in place by officers who effectively had carte blanche in deciding what coloured papers went before the council for discussion. A catch-all definition allowed officers to grade the confidentiality concerns of the local authority.
  As soon as my party came to power and I became council leader, I decided that the system should be reversed and that papers would be regarded as

  817
  confidential only if the reasons for their confidentiality were written upon them. There were seven such reasons—including commercial confidentiality and the personal disclosure of details about a council employee—but no general catch-all clause that allowed someone to declare that a paper should be confidential. Every paper had to bear the reason for its confidentiality. That order completely turned around the atmosphere in the council. I am delighted that the White Paper says that Ministers or any other public servant who wishes to persuade the public that a matter should be confidential must make a case as to why that is so. The onus must be upon them to make that case, which is the right and proper way to proceed.
  At the time, I received advice both nationally, and particularly locally, from several local authority officers that I was a foolish council leader—many others have told me that since then, but, on this occasion, it related to the confidentiality issue.
  Mr. Hancock: You never heeded it.
  Dr. Whitehead: I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman was particularly complimentary some years ago about the wonderful way in which Southampton city council was run. I am grateful for that historical compliment.
  It was suggested that my order would lead to a rash of inquiries and that the council would come to a standstill. The phrase "nutters' charter" was used—not an expression that I would choose—and I was accused of stirring up trouble. People said that, within a few months, I would regret my foolish actions and we would have to put the genie back into the bottle. However, there were no such complaints. The method of operation was not unmanageable and the system worked well. I believe that the public had much greater confidence in the city council as a result of the changes. The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, in which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) had a substantial hand, installed the regime across local government—although in a slightly different form from Southampton.
  There has been considerable resentment subsequently in local government circles about the difference between what local government is required to disclose, and how the House requires it to conduct its business, and the way in which central Government operate. There are startling differences in the level of disclosure required in the civil service and in local government service. Among other things, it is vital that freedom of information legislation rights that wrong: the same rules must apply across all public service. The public service generally must be required to give an account of what it does and the public should have access to that account in order to judge whether the public service is doing a good job on their behalf.
  In that context, it is also important to consider carefully the disclosure of parliamentary information. The Select Committee's background paper refers to
  "an implied repeal of the Bill of Rights, which declares that the freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."
  818
  I do not see how what we do in Parliament fits that description. I think that Parliament should take a lead in this area. We must restore our good name through our deliberations with the general public. In my short time as a Member of Parliament, I have observed that hon. Members overwhelmingly deliberate in good faith: they examine the details and think carefully about their actions. The Government take great pains to get their consultation right so that everything is in order and the public are protected properly by the legislation that we pass in the House. The more the public know about the process in this place, the more they will understand that, despite occasional press comments about us, the House is an effective guardian of probity in public life. If that is made apparent, public confidence in public life will be restored.
  My small contribution in this area was to publish in my annual report a full financial breakdown of my income and expenditure as a Member of Parliament. The lucky citizens of Southampton will receive about 20,000 copies of that document in the near future—whether they like it or not. That financial information may come as a surprise to people in the first year. However, if I publish that information every year, it will be assumed that that is a natural occurrence. As soon as it becomes the norm, no one will worry about the new regime and the new climate. If the legislation can bring about that new climate and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can ensure that it permeates the conduct of public life in this country, he will have done our country a great service.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) spoke about the difficulties of this process. Twenty years ago, the then Home Secretary, now Lord Merlyn-Rees, used to sit in a little room behind the Speaker's Chair with the representatives of the Liberal party to thrash out the details of freedom of information legislation. The splendid Lord Merlyn-Rees told us during various debates on official secrets legislation that he often used to nod off in those long dark nights as the Liberal party made a vigorous case.
  Lord Merlyn-Rees nodded off because he recognised three features. First, there was no will among his colleagues for freedom of information legislation. Secondly, he could not necessarily command a majority on it. Thirdly, the life of the then Labour Government was coming to an end and it was unlikely that the legislative programme would have allowed the legislation. Those were the conditions of 20 years ago and it has been a long haul since.
  There was Clement Freud's Official Information Bill. I notice that two great men are within the precincts of this building: a former chairman of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, who is now an adviser to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the director of that organisation, Maurice Frankel, who is sitting under the Gallery. It is due to the efforts of extraordinary private citizens for little or no return that a society—a great society, I would argue—advances. It is undoubtedly the assiduity of such people in pushing, cajoling and helping Members of Parliament introduce a raft of important legislation that has given citizens rights of access to personal information and a range of other details.
  We are debating the Government's White Paper and the observations and comments of the Select Committee on Public Administration, on which I have the honour to

  819
  serve under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I hope that I can look forward to a positive Government response to some of our comments. The White Paper has introductions by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. They are the most positive advertisements and arguments for freedom of information. They forced to me to think of the arguments that I had adduced over the years in the House. Why do I believe that freedom of information is important? I do not have the eloquence of the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or of the Cabinet Committees that brought this together.
  First, I had always argued that we want freedom of information because of who we are as a people. It is our sense of ourselves and our responsibilities, the nature of a public society, the relationship of the citizen to the Government. We are the elected representatives of the people, ours is a democratically elected Government. Freedom of information affects the relationship between the two. It is in our language. In his "Areopagitica", Milton says:
  "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely".
  Those are the essences of our society and who we are as a people.
  Secondly, I have always argued that freedom of information is central to accountable government. Again, we can invoke our literature, poetry, language and constitutional development. Remember Pope's "Essay on Man":
  "What can we reason, but from what we know."
  It is the knowledge of what Government are doing, the knowledge and arguments that form public policy, for which Governments are responsible to us in this House as elected representatives, that gives equality of argument. Governments in Britain have never feared the expression of public opinion. They fear the ability to argue on an equal basis about facts.
  That gives me my third reason for arguing for freedom of information. If we have open government with free access to the information that is available to Government, public policy is more likely to be better. We are likely to make better decisions and judgments. What the Government have done is not only important and purposeful but important in a very specific respect.
  In the first edition of his "Freedom of Information" Professor Birkinshaw notes:
  "Information is inherently a feature of power. So too is its control, use and regulation. Take away a government's preserve on information, and its preserve of when and what to release, then you take away a fundamental bulwark of its power".
  What the Government are going to do is remarkable, which is why we watch with anxiety the translation of a White Paper into a draft Bill. I would draw attention to certain causes of that anxiety: for example, the dark clouds that have gathered in the past week, whereby journalists were so much better informed than Back Benchers, seem to show some resiling as Ministers come to reflect on the burden of what the measure may mean. British government has always been deemed to be traditionally a secretive thing and I have tried to argue that that is a product of war, the Defence of the Realm Acts and "Careless talk costs lives".
  I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), in his excellent speech from the Dispatch Box, referred to the distinction between
  820
  types. I think that I must be a Whig Liberal—whatever that means—in terms of constitutional development, so I give a cheer to what the Government have put down in the White Paper. That is not just my view, that of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, or that of Members of Parliament; it is the view expressed in an extraordinary report from the information commissioner in Canada, Mr. John Grace—a man for whom many of us have great affection and regard for his advancing of freedom of information in Canada. In his last report, a section reads, "Left in Britain's dust". He praises the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Minister responsible and observes of the Chancellor of the Duchy:
  "What he has drafted, represents nothing other than a breathtaking transformation in the relationship between the government and the governed."
  He quotes the Chancellor's words, that the legislation
  "would transform this country from one of the most closed democracies to one of the most open."
  That is a profound compliment, paid across the waters, for we should never forget that Canada is also a parliamentary democracy.
  All the arguments that have been adduced in the past—ministerial accountability, responsibility to the House of Commons—have been used to shore up secrecy, not to open up government, but, as I have argued, how can we have accountable government if we, as Members of Parliament, and informed public opinion cannot participate in understanding the balance of the argument? When I look back on the only period from which I can draw examples, I see that most of the major difficulties that previous Governments got into were a consequence of the extraordinary holding on to secrecy—the when and why and where to release information.
  Some of the most shaming and difficult episodes for our Government have lain in that culture of secrecy. We had a distinguished former Foreign Secretary defend the secrecy surrounding the change to the arms guidelines on the ground that, had the British public and the House of Commons known that they had been changed, they would have been outraged because they had been influenced by Saddam Hussein's bombing of the Kurds. He was defending the culture of secrecy on the highest grounds of grand bureaucracy, in the belief that only experts can know best. Ours is a public society: that is what the White Paper recognises and that is what my party now profoundly believes.
  I cannot give such an open-handed compliment to the major players in all this without also saying a few words about the exclusions, in respect of which hon. Members on both sides have made valid points. We are concerned about the role of the commissioner: I do not want to see any rowing back from the extraordinarily strong position identified by the Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Cabinet Committee that issued the White Paper, but newspaper reports give one cause for pause. Another important issue is the nature of the damage test—"where it is necessary". Both the Select Committee and the Campaign for Freedom of Information have expressed concern about the proposal to exclude a number of bodies and functions from the scope of the legislation. The most serious of the proposed exclusions relate to the law enforcement functions of the police, police authorities and Government Departments such as the immigration service. Others include security services, prosecution functions of the Crown Prosecution Service, personnel records and legal advice.

  821
  I am particularly concerned about the police. There is, as far as I know, no other freedom of information Act, in the advanced democracies and parliamentary democracies that follow our model, that excludes the police wholesale. I must express some disappointment with the Home Secretary's evidence. The right hon. Gentleman was rather like the Queen in "Alice in Wonderland"—"Off with their heads." There was no reasoned argument. Instead, we had the assertions that we have heard under previous Governments—for example, that it is quite improper, that somehow by aggregation, by putting together little pieces of information, the entire law enforcement edifice of the United Kingdom would crumble.
  I do not think that anyone could take the argument at that level very seriously. It was so totalitarian and absolutist. No one has suggested that the operations of our police forces should be under the scrutiny of freedom of information legislation. However, every other society has enabled certain questions to be asked.
  The Home Secretary instigated—it was by his fiat, no one else's—the Lawrence inquiry, an inquiry into the murder of a fellow citizen. None of that information was available. As the evidence has come out in front of the Lawrence inquiry, we understand why some of the police want to be so secretive. It is the most appalling outlaying of information. It must be deeply damaging to many people's perception of the most important service for the protection and well-being of us all as a civic society. It is extremely important, so of course they say, "Keep it closed." In fact, it is only by opening it up that we can see where faults lie, that we can insist on improvements, that we can encourage and we can get it right.
  I represent, as does the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), a constituency in the west midlands. The serious crime squad there had to be disbanded. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has told us that a high proportion of police officers are inadequate, dishonest and not suitable. These are drips of information which do not enable us to give a balanced view of what matters. That is a real argument for including certain aspects of the police in the legislation.
  I shall push that point to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as has the Select Committee on Public Administration and other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I know that these battles are not easy and I know that, instinctively, the Home Office is anxious about anything that could undermine the police and the integrity of law enforcement. I am suggesting that, on the periphery, inclusion can reinforce and elevate the esteem in which the police are held by their fellow citizens.
  The difficulty about exclusion is that no information about a body or its function would be available, even if disclosure would cause no harm. As I have said, no overseas freedom of information law adopts such an approach. Information should be available unless disclosure is shown to be potentially harmful. That is the test set out in the White Paper. I hope very much that, in managing the Committee with the continuing help of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Lord Chancellor will ensure that the Bill features in the Queen's Speech for the next legislative programme; that is all-important. I am disappointed to note that it will not
  822
  be published until the summer recess, although the Committee on which I serve can meet in September to review it. I am concerned, as I said, when the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis talks of his minority of officers who are corrupt, dishonest and unethical. However grave the misconduct, it should not be excluded.
  There was an important development in the years before the White Paper—the code of practice introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). That seems so small a step now only because we are offered such a great prize, but it is still the governing principle of freedom of information. We should not forget that the code is more liberal than the White Paper in one important respect: access to information on immigration matters. That that should be a matter of difficulty in the White Paper disappoints me, but I commend my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister on his action. Each time we take a step, it is forward, and the White Paper is also a step forward.
  9.15 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I want to reflect on why the right of freedom of information is so important and to focus not only on the big issues, as many hon. Members have done, but on some of the smaller issues. Freedom of information legislation is crucial, first, because the Government make mistakes. Unless we know what action they have taken, what they think and what information they have, we are unable to correct them. For many people, and in much decision making, that is one of the crucial reasons why we need a legislative guarantee of freedom of information.
  Secrets can have devastating effects on people's lives. It was, after all, only when a Minister went to court and admitted that he had lied that people who risked going to gaol because of arms exports were freed from that risk. It is essential that we have a robust mechanism that ensures that information about the truth is available.
  That is why I share the disappointment that many hon. Members have expressed about some of the exclusions in the White Paper. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose record on freedom of information is second to none, referred to the information about policing that has come out as a result of the Lawrence inquiry. I cannot believe that the basic inadequacy of police officers' knowledge of the law and appropriate procedures has expressed itself only in that single case. Yet we know about that case only because of the inquiry. There should be a general presumption of the right to know about policing, and it should be subject to a harm test only on the grounds of prevention of crime, public order and so on.
  As many hon. Members know, I am particularly concerned about immigration issues. I praise the Government for showing greater openness than any of their predecessors on one important point: for the first time, the instructions to immigration officers and entry clearance officers overseas on how to interpret the immigration rules have been made publicly available. They are available in the House of Commons Library and will one day, I hope, be available on the Home Office website.
  Many of us who have been worried about the rights of people subject to immigration control have campaigned for that step for many years. It is a huge step forward on

  823
  openness. I am really depressed that a Government who have the courage to do that—unlike their predecessors, who consistently refused to do so—do not have the courage to say that the operation of the immigration service should be subject to freedom of information measures, provided that it does not harm the proper administration of immigration control.
  The effects on people's lives of what is done by the immigration service are devastating. It determines whether they can live with their families or whether they can ever see their grannies again. Such matters are the day-to-day concern of my constituents, and are not sufficiently subject to public scrutiny because of the inadequacies of parts of the appeal system.
  The other crucial issue is that, unless we have freedom of information, the relationship between the Government and the governed is one of feudalism—those who hold the information are the masters and the people are the servants. That is upside down. We are in government to serve the people of Britain. We cannot do that adequately unless they know, and can use that knowledge to hold us to account.
  In an information age, when information is power, when people are used to greater openness and trust in their dealings with others, the lack of that information, openness and trust between Government and the people is a key factor in creating disaffection and alienation from the political process. That can be overcome by stripping away secrecy and being open.
  I believe that many hon. Members share my horror at the behaviour of some young oiks who have been selling information, and have been ticked off by our newspapers for doing so. That reminds us all how valuable this information is, and reminds us that sometimes it is available only to people who can pay for it. There is a very simple way of changing that: give it to the many, not the few. The Government can give it away or, at least, allow such information to be made available without excessive charge. When the Bill is introduced, we must ensure that, as far as possible, information is given away, so that it can be the people's information. I urge the Minister to ensure that.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I point out, for the record, that the type of information that The Observer managed to get, as it were, ahead of time, is not really that with which the Bill is concerned. The hon. Lady plays it down rather, but did not The Observer find that people from new Labour who were in the know, in the right pressure groups and lobbies, could get information of commercial value out to clients, perhaps 24 or 48 hours before it would have been released anyway?
  Fiona Mactaggart: I believe that the hon. Gentleman suffers from an excess of credulity. My reading of the piece in The Observer is that the charge was that these people claimed that they could provide such information. I did not see that any of them had actually done so. I called them oiks earlier; it is not very wise for anyone to trust oiks' claims.
  In the historical debate, since I have been a Member of the House, I have pooh-poohed those cynics who said that the strategy that the Government chose to use—to start with a White Paper, to have a debate and then to introduce legislation—would lead to the failure of the possibility of
  824
  legislation because, once we had tasted power, we would fall into the nasty habits that every other Government had shown, and would want to keep our secrets to ourselves and under our jumpers. I have always said that that is not true. I hope that I shall be proved right by what happens next.
  I believe that the evidence shows that I am right. The Government's record of giving away power and opening up the process of government shows that they have done that more dynamically than have any other Government this century. They have given power to the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament. They have given the people rights through a "Bill of Rights"—the Human Rights Bill—and, let us make no mistake about it, that is how the incorporation of the European convention on human rights will work. That is one of the tools for fundamentally changing the constitutional relationship between the Government and the people. I believe that we will do that, but it is easy to be frightened, and there is ample evidence that the civil service is frit. Successive reports from ombudsmen show Departments scuttling around trying to find reasons why they do not need to provide information under the code—in the words of one of the ombudsmen, "haggling about issuing information". My message is that Departments should not be scared and Ministers should not listen to them.
  We have a chance to end the popular vision of government in this country as a bunch of Sir Humphreys pushing Ministers around intellectually. The Sir Humphreys must be put back into the cupboard and the secrets taken out of the cupboard. If we do that, we have a great opportunity to change Britain's democracy radically. We should ignore the fearful, be bold and implement the words that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) quoted, predicting that they might prove to be our downfall. Those words were not only in the introduction to the White Paper, but in Labour's manifesto.
  We know what the truth is. Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and ineffective policy decisions. We have a chance to show definitively that this Government will end the arrogance of government and improve the quality of policy. We will do that by introducing an effective freedom of information Bill. The White Paper is a step on the road. Let us take the next leap.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: It is wonderful to be in the Chamber to speak on the subject of freedom of information and the Government's radical proposals. One of the reasons why I entered politics was my commitment to the freedom of information. It is a building block on which so much else rests, and if it is not right, so much else suffers.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in his analysis. Bad government follows from secrecy; better government follows from freedom of information. For that reason alone, every Member of Parliament should embrace proposals to open up government. Moreover, it is people's right to know what is going on. When Government get it wrong, people at large gain the information and pull Government back on track. For those two reasons, freedom of information is essential.

  825
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and his Committee for keeping their eye on the ball and not being deflected; to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills who have campaigned so hard on the issue; and especially to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has been unswerving in his commitment since the election in May last year and, no doubt, before that as well. It is disgraceful that attempts are continually made through the national media to disparage the Minister, probably by people who are after his job, and I hope that, under the freedom of information proposals, we will find out who is responsible.
  Mr. Hancock: We should be so lucky.
  Mr. Baker: I hope so.
  The White Paper was very good indeed. I have only two main comments. The first relates to the total exclusion from the proposals of the security services and the police. Why is not the test of substantial harm applied to the security services, as it is in the rest of the paper? I accept that that means that a great amount of material relating to the security services would not be released, but if the substantial harm test were applied, some information would come out.
  Why are we not even allowed to know, for example, how the money allocated to the security services is split among MI5, MI6 and GCHQ? Why do we not know how many telephone lines are tapped, as opposed to warrants issued? There is much information that could be given out without in any way endangering national security. That will not be taken forward by the proposals in the White Paper.
  Secondly, I am disappointed that the 30-year rule is not to be reduced to 20 years. I note for the record that, last Friday, the Government Whip blocked my Bill to achieve that. I would be grateful if the Chancellor would explain whether the objection is on principle, or is on the basis of the cost or the practicality of reducing the limit.
  I do not wish to strike a note of discord, but there seem to be two sorts of Labour Member, at least in the Cabinet and possibly outside. That is one way of looking at it, anyway. Let me simplify what I am saying: some members of the Cabinet are good guys, and some are not. At present, a battle seems to be in progress for the soul of where the Government are going in regard to freedom of information. Members of the Cabinet have woken up to the fact that the issue may embarrass them, that it will produce difficulties for them and that it will mean matters they would prefer to remain secret becoming public. As hon. Members have said, a rearguard action is in progress in an attempt to stop the Bill—not overtly, because that would be too unpopular; to delay it for a Session, and then another Session. Then it will be a question of "It is too near the election, Minister. You cannot do it now."
  We have had that sort of thing before. In 1979 the Conservatives came to power having promised such an Act, no doubt in good will; that was put off and put off, and never materialised. I do not underestimate the forces of darkness, if I may call them that, which will conspire to stop such legislation.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Prince of Darkness.
  Mr. Baker: Perhaps.
  826
  I ask for a clear commitment from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Queen's Speech will include legislation, and that legislation will not be delayed for a further 12 months—and possibly 12 months after that, when everyone else has lost interest.
  I have spoken of the dichotomy between members of the Cabinet who wish to pursue matters openly and those who wish to keep them secret. Let me now say something about the other report, which has not been dealt with at much length. I refer to parliamentary questions—a subject that the Chancellor might be disappointed if I did not mention tonight. Contrary to what was said earlier, tabling written questions costs nothing; it merely means that civil service time is redirected towards answering questions from Back Benchers rather than matters raised by Ministers.
  It is clear from answers given that not everyone in the Government shares the commitment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to freedom of information. The report from the Public Administration Committee recognises that written questions are crucial: that is the wording that it uses, and I am grateful for that endorsement. The Chancellor himself has said:
  "Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".—[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 78.]
  I asked the minister Without Portfolio, in a parliamentary question, whether he would list
  "persons within his office who have complained to the media about the reporting of the Government's activities."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 452.]
  The answer was
  "No."
  I asked him whether he would
  "estimate the percentage of his working time spent on…Ministerial duties",
  and was told:
  "I devote whatever time I judge necessary for the fulfilment of my ministerial and other duties."—[Official Report, 28 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 25.]
  That is not a blocked answer—I refer to a point made in the report—but an answer that, although not blocked, tells us nothing.
  I asked the Prime Minister to
  "list the meetings and events since 2 May at which the Minister Without Portfolio has represented the Government."
  The answer was
  "Since 2 May my hon. Friend has had a wide range of meetings with ministerial colleagues and others."—[Official Report, 29 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 114.]
  I knew that before I asked the question, but I was not told much more than I knew before I asked it. Such answers are designed to give no information. They are designed to cock a snook at Members of Parliament who want a freedom of information Act.
  Only recently, I asked the Prime Minister—I think this was very germane—whether he would list
  "Labour party events which have taken place since 14 May…at…10 Downing Street…11 Downing Street…Carlton House Terrace and…Chequers."

  827
  We know that such events are taking place, because they are in the papers. The Prime Minister said:
  "Any private receptions have been held in accordance with the Ministerial Code."—[Official Report, 25 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 597.]
  In other words, he will not tell the House something that we ought to know.
  There are good guys and bad guys. My money is on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is doing a splendid job. I hope that every hon. Member will support him in his attempt to bring about a freedom of information Act.
  9.34 pm
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) for curtailing his remarks so that I can contribute, although I wonder how many written questions he could have tabled in the time that he was on his feet. Perhaps we should have detained him a little longer.
  I was a little bemused by some contributions from Opposition Members. Do they see the vessel as largely full, half empty, or more than half empty? There is no doubt in my mind that a massive step forward is being made with the White Paper and the draft Bill, which I hope will be published later this year—that is the thrust of the report of the Select Committee, of which I am a member.
  We are on the brink of a revolution in information. That is being brought about not only by the White Paper and legislation, but by the advent of greater access to information via the internet and all the implications that that has for our society, for neighbouring societies and for the whole globe. That revolution will have a great impact on how much progress we make with the legislation and how we make that progress—although it is interesting that few hon. Members felt the need to refer to that.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P.Cormack) commented on the code of practice and complained that we have not given it sufficient credit in the debate, but much larger steps forward will be taken through the White Paper. The Select Committee report refers to crucial differences between the code and the White Paper. For example, the scope of the code is much more limited in general; documents can be withheld under the code, whereas people will not be able to do that under the proposals in the White Paper; the test under the code has been one of harm, but we propose a test of substantial harm in many cases; and there is no means of enforcement under the code—the ombudsman only has powers of persuasion to bring to bear. All that makes a marked difference, which is one reason why the code, which was introduced four years ago, has not been given the place that it could have occupied.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, there is no doubt that freedom of information will change things for the vast majority of people: we have to introduce it for the many, and it will be a meaningful step forward for the general public. It is easy to forget that, although some hon. Members may be exercised by the burning issue of how many receptions have been held at No. 10 Downing street, for many members of the public freedom of information will mean that they can get from the Intervention Board, the Inland Revenue, the Milton Keynes development corporation, the Commission for the
  828
  New Towns, the Child Support Agency, the Benefits Agency or the Marine Safety Agency answers to the various questions and problems that they have had as individuals.
  Such matters—information on the fees paid to lawyers, for example—sometimes go beyond the individual, but are often confined to an individual's difficulties with gaining access or recourse to something to which, under the current system, he cannot gain access. Although hon. Members worry about access to information in the corridors of power, those other issues matter to many people—they affect their lives.
  As a society, we have developed many anxieties about the presumption that information should be accessible, and we have a secretive culture. It is interesting to look through the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on what has happened with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of contracts for the disposal of cattle infected with BSE. We have already commented in the report and again this evening on the fact that the course of the BSE saga might have been different, and the cost to the public purse and to farming might have been much less, if a freedom of information regime had been in place. It is clear from the commissioner's report that, in response to a question, the MAFF people would not release details about the contracts because they did not refer to the code of practice at all. The report shows that MAFF and many other Government Departments are only just—there is a list of the improvements that are being made by Government Departments in that document—beginning to take steps, with the civil service, to become much more open and that the anxieties to which I have referred are still to the fore.
  We need to have legal backing to the right to information, as the Government propose. That is crucial. When we went to Sweden and Ireland, we found that the improvements that need to be made in the civil service are important. Much time has been spent, particularly in Ireland, where this is a new issue, looking at the changes that need to to be made in the civil service, in civil service training and in codifying practice and manuals.
  We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) about the improvements that have been made in the openness of immigration procedures and manuals, although she made other comments about that as well. However, there are other areas where we need to codify practice and make it more readily available to people. We need to explain what information is kept, how it is kept and why. Those are not the sexy parts of freedom of information, but they may make a big difference to people's lives.
  The confidence and competence of a Government are to be tested against the extent to which they will open information and against the belief that they represent the interests of many people, so that their interests will not differ from those of many people. A Government who are confident about their competence will be prepared to share with people, and to take the step towards freedom of information. Once that step is taken, I believe that we will not go back on it; we will only make progress. The prospective legislation is part of a major constitutional change towards more open and accountable government. It brings about the presumption of openness. For that reason, it is a major improvement.

  829
  We have heard much about striking the right balance on privacy. That will be difficult. When we went to Sweden, we heard how, if an under-age pregnant girl wrote a letter to Sweden's Prime Minister, that letter could, because of that country's freedom of information regime, become public property, which would be highly undesirable. If, however, the same girl wrote to Sweden's Ministry of Health about those matters, the letter would be protected and the privacy of the individual would be rightly preserved. We need to strike the right balance. It will be difficult, but we need to include safeguards to ensure that people in this country do not run into such problems.
  I endorse what we say in the Select Committee report: this is a
  "radical advance in open and accountable government",
  of which this Government should be justly proud.
  9.44 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): This has been an excellent debate. The House is indebted to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee for examining the White Paper and for persuading the Liaison Committee to recommend to the House that this item should be debated. I welcome the debate and I have listened carefully to the almost unanimous views of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  It is interesting that the House appreciates how critical freedom of information is to our democracy. We have been through a difficult time and, because we are all aware of the breakdown of trust between Governments and citizens, we are beginning to realise, as we move into the next millennium, that democracy is more than casting a vote every five years, important though that may be. I am enthused by the mood of the House, which showed that hon. Members recognise that freedom of information and the right of our citizens to know information that affects them is a critical part of our democratic institutions. They also appreciate the fact that open government is good government. I have believed in that thesis for many years and I am delighted that others now share that view.
  I shall try, in the time at my disposal, to deal with as many as possible of the points that have been raised. I apologise to the Select Committee for not giving it a formal reply, but work on the Government's response is well advanced and I hope that we will meet the two-month deadline. We shall give the Committee a detailed and considered response.
  This is a well-produced and well-thought-out report. It has raised a number of issues that we are considering. We take the Select Committee's point that this is a particularly difficult concept to understand and get right. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) made the point forcefully that there is a fine balance between openness and privacy and that we should learn from the experience of other countries. In preparing the White Paper, we spent a long time studying the experience, often over many years, of other countries.
  830
  The Government take on board the Select Committee's 44 detailed recommendations. We may not agree with all of them, but we shall examine and test them. The Select Committee recognises how fine the balance is, and accepts that this is
  "an ambitious and highly complex piece of legislation".
  It is conscious of the fact that it has taken us a long time—rightly, in my view—to ensure that we attained the correct solution. It says:
  "we have some serious doubts…about whether the Government has been able to give sufficient attention to the relationship between the Freedom of Information Bill and the Data Protection Bill."
  As we have followed the debate and weighed up the results of the consultation, we have shifted our position slightly on the relationship between freedom of information and data protection and have looked anew at some of the concepts.
  No one should doubt our commitment to freedom of information. It is clear in our manifesto. My hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches have acknowledged that the Government intend to push ahead with a radical programme of constitutional change. Freedom of information is a key part—I would argue, a central part—of the programme to modernise British politics. As the Prime Minister said, freedom of information is not some isolated constitutional reform, but a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country. He is absolutely right and the overwhelming majority of hon. Members share that view.
  In our 1997 manifesto, we said that we would introduce
  "a Freedom of Information Act. leading to more open government"
  and we will. Both parts of that statement are correct. They are related, but not dependent on each other. Governments can, should and will be open in providing information to citizens and to Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I shortened my speech to allow everyone to get in and I do not want to exclude anyone, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not give way. I want to try to answer points raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
  We have to be more open. That is why we published the background papers leading to the White Paper and why we have published much more information on the internet.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) criticised me for not acknowledging the code of practice, but we do acknowledge it in the White Paper. We have not laid great emphasis on the code because we intend to surpass it, but it has had a part to play. It has been the yardstick against which we have tried to measure our progress but, by and large, all hon. Members—including the hon. Gentleman—believe that the time has come to move on.
  I should point out that the annual monitoring report for the code—which I announced only last month—states that the Government recognise the continuing value of the code. In planning the transition to a statutory regime, the Government will therefore seek to build on the experience gained and the lessons learnt from operating the code. We acknowledge the importance of the code in taking forward the White Paper.

  831
  We have made progress in the White Paper. As has been pointed out this evening, we are extending the coverage to almost the whole of the public sector. We are widening and deepening the information available. It is no longer just information that people will have access to, but the original document. We are reducing the exemptions from 14 to seven. We are creating an information commissioner. Some hon. Members may not have quite understood the full powers of the information commissioner.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was a little critical—I put it no higher than that—because he felt that all the commissioner could judge was the reasonableness of the decision of the civil servant. That is not the case. Under our proposals, the commissioner will examine and rule on the merits of the refusal to disclose information. The point of reasonableness comes in when we have a final appeal—if there is one—under the judicial review. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured by that point.
  We have, for the most part, imposed harm tests that are much more stringent than any of the existing mechanisms. I think that the House will accept that we are moving forward from the code and that we are making a quantum leap.
  I am encouraged by the response of hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly by that of the official Opposition, who are now prepared to change their stance and to support a statutory freedom of information regime. That is welcomed by Labour Members and by Liberal Democrats, who spent many years trying to persuade the previous Government that they were wrong on this matter.
  Hon. Members have also raised the issue of process, which is a difficult matter to get right. I assure the House that the process remains on course and that progress is good. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and other members of the Select Committee who have expressed concern that the Government have an agreed timetable to publish a draft Bill by the end of September for pre-legislative consideration. Indeed, nothing whatever has happened to affect the Bill's candidature for inclusion in the Queen's Speech later this year; I cannot be more open or definitive than that.
  The Government's declared intention is that there will be further consultation. That is why we are publishing the draft Bill and why the Select Committee will have the opportunity to consider it before the legislation is finalised and brought before the House after, I hope, the next Queen's Speech. The Opposition will have the opportunity to feed in their views on the draft Bill, but the issues are so difficult that, unless the Government give a lead after consultation—as is their duty—we shall have no framework within which to work. The White Paper "Your Right to Know" is a declaration of the Government's intent. It contains the principles on which the Government will build and from which they will derive their draft Bill.
  As has been acknowledged, we are going much further than other countries. That is right and proper, given that we have been so far behind. However, I want to correct one or two of the points that were raised today. It is
  832
  important that hon. Members understand that we intend to exclude only the security services; we shall not exclude the police or the immigration service per se. Paragraph 2.21 of the White Paper states that
  "the Act will exclude information relating to the investigation and prosecution functions of the police, prosecutors and other bodies carrying out law enforcement work such as the Department of Social Security or the Immigration Service."
  We do not intend to exclude administrative functions of the immigration service or the police.
  Deciding what constitutes administration and what constitutes investigation has taken up much of our time and attention; finding the right definition is a difficult task, but we are trying to do it. Once we decide that a matter is not excluded, we shall have to determine whether it belongs to one of the seven specified interests and, finally, whether disclosure is against the public interest.
  We are trying to bring forward a Bill that strikes the right balance between privacy and freedom of information.
  We have taken on board the fact that the Select Committee pointed out that we should integrate data protection and freedom of information. When the Lord Chancellor appeared before the Select Committee, he pointed out that the two pieces of legislation must be dovetailed. We are very much persuaded by the Select Committee's argument that we need to get that absolutely right. Probably, most of the applications on subject matter will be under the data protection legislation, but we are also aware that it does not go as far as we would like and does not cover as much as the freedom of information legislation.
  Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates).
  It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions which she was directed by paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) to put at that hour.

ESTIMATES 1998–99

  Class IX, Vote 1
  Resolved,
  That a further, revised sum not exceeding £6,019,940,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1999 for expenditure by the Department for Education and Employment on voluntary and special schools; the Assisted Places Scheme; the provision of education for under-fives; city colleges and other specialist schools; grant-maintained schools and schools conducted by education associations; music and ballet schools; the school curriculum and its assessment; the youth service and other educational services and initiatives; careers guidance and services; payments for or in connection with teacher training; higher and further education provision and initiatives; loans to students, student awards and other student grants and their administration; the payment of access funds; reimbursement of fees for qualifying European Union students; compensation payments to teachers and staff of certain institutions; expenditure on other central government grants to local authorities; the provision of training and assessment programmes for young people and adults; initiatives to improve training and qualifications arrangements and access to these; the promotion of enterprise and the encouragement of self employment; payments for education, training and employment projects assisted by the European Community and refunds to the European Community; events

  833
  associated with the UK presidency of the EU; the UK subscription to the ILO; help for unemployed people; the promotion of equal opportunities, disability rights, childcare provision and co-ordination of certain issues of particular importance to women; the payment of certain fees to the Home Office; the Department's own administration and research and that of Capita; the information and publicity services; expenditure via training and enterprise councils and amounts retained by them as surpluses and spent by them on training and other initiatives within their articles and memoranda of association; expenditure in connection with the sale of the student loans debt; and on expenditure in connection with Welfare to Work Programme and Millennium Volunteers.

ESTIMATES 1998–99

  Class XVII, Vote 1
  Resolved,
  That a further sum not exceeding £55,642,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1999 for expenditure by the Office of the Minister for Public Service on the central management of, and delivery of services to, the civil service including the delivery of cross-departmental IT systems; expenditure resulting from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's chairmanship of the Ministerial Committee on Food and Safety; and certain other services.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115(3) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (Delegated Legislation)),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  EDUCATION (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  EXPORT AND INVESTMENT GUARANTEES
  That the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Foreign Currency Commitments) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115(3) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (Delegated Legislation)),

  APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Overbuilding (West Sussex)
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I present a petition on behalf of the citizens of my constituency in the county of West Sussex, which is further to three petitions presented to the Prime Minister in 10 Downing street. The petition expresses the concerns of the citizens at overbuilding in rural areas, in particular in West Sussex, and the requirement to build 12,800 new dwellings additional to the county's structure plan, all of which will be built on green-field sites.
  The petition has 507 signatures and, in addition to the previous petitions presented to the Prime Minister, makes a total of 45,000 signatures on the subject. It reads:
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to ensure that more homes are built in city areas instead of in the countryside or in the Green Belt, both to breathe new life into our cities, and to protect the valuable countryside, and in particular, that of West Sussex, for future generations.
  To lie upon the Table.

Education (East Sussex)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
10.2 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: The Prime Minister used to describe his three priorities as "education, education, education". We have heard rather less of that recently. Reducing class sizes was one of the Government's so-called "early pledges" when in opposition. The spin doctors now tell us that we got it wrong, and that, when we thought an early pledge was one that would be delivered early, it was in fact one that was made early. That minor embarrassment does not, of course, stop Ministers announcing all sorts of wonderful developments in education. However, after 14 months in office, I thought it was time to examine whether, in East Sussex at least, the reality on the ground matched the rhetoric.
Of course, education funding in East Sussex must be seen against the Government's general policy to switch funding from counties to urban areas. I pointed that out in the House during the debate on the revenue support grant on 5 February.
Since February, there has been a change in control in East Sussex. We now have a Lib-Lab pact, faithfully mirroring the one we have at national level. Voters in East Sussex will have noted that the net result of the pact was the installation of a Labour chairman of education. So far, he has not exactly bombarded me with protests at the effects of Labour Government policy on education in East Sussex.
Be that as it may, the effect of Government policy this year has been cuts in primary education of 1.53 per cent. or £886,000, and in secondary education of 1.85 per cent. or £1.178 million. I am sure that the Minister will say that an extra £9.2 million was given for education in East Sussex, and that it was passported through.
How does that convert into real cuts in education? The overall revenue budget allowed for East Sussex in 1998–99 was £324.8 million, but forecast committed necessary revenue was £329.7 million. Education needed £13.17 million extra, compared with the extra £9.2 million offered by the Government. In other words, there was an initial shortfall of nearly £4 million. Moreover, the previous Liberal Democrat administration ran the reserves down to almost nothing, making it impossible to cushion the blow by drawing on reserves.
At the same time, the Government changed the way in which capital debt was treated, at a cost to East Sussex of £1.67 million. To add insult to injury, the Government's raid on pension schemes cost the county council £800,000, and changes to what is now called the standards fund are costing a further £900,000. That is to say nothing of the extra cost to the local education authority of new Government initiatives; yet the cost of our central administration is only about half the national average.
How are those across-the-board cuts affecting individual schools in my constituency? Mr. Arthur Cornell, the head teacher of Cavendish school, says:
"we received £39,000 less than expected…There have been no redundancies because of retirements…There has been a 5% cut in spending on books and equipment".
836
Mr. Salmon, the acting head teacher of Ratton school, says:
"We have lost the equivalent of one and a half teachers".
The headmaster of Bishop Bell school, Mr. Terry Boatwright, says:
"Our annual growth in pupil numbers averages an impressive 13% per annum with an increase in number on roll from 520 to 660 pupils."
That is impressive in anyone's language, but he goes on to say:
"Our budget in the last financial year was £1,348,000 and, with a 13% increase in pupil numbers"
he would have expected
"a budget of £1,455,000 assuming that the teachers' pay award was fully funded…Our actual budget is…£60,000 less…This leaves us in real terms £38,000 short…When basic running costs and salaries are taken out…I have only around £150,000 per annum to spend on educational resources. You can imagine the effect of a cut of £38,000, or 25%, on that budget!"
One of my local infant schools is in a similar predicament, having lost £27,500 from its budget. The chairperson of the governors says:
"in September we will have to lose a teacher in order to balance the books…our S.E.N. teacher must take a class instead of being peripatetic…This makes a mockery of this claim of increased funding and apart from being very depressing for the school staff it means that the recruitment of caring governors will be even more difficult in the future."
I fear that those horror stories are replicated throughout my constituency and the whole of East Sussex. I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) for passing me letters in a similar vein from his local schools.
The head teacher of Hellingly county primary school, in a letter to the Prime Minister, says:
"For the very first time ever in 39 years of my adulthood, I voted for your party at the last election, because as a Headteacher I was very disheartened with the Conservative Government's devastation of education. However, since your party took office"—
I am being very fair, and reading the whole of this—
"I have become more and more alarmed about your proposals for education and about the impact that your new legislation is having on my children in my school."
She says that her budget share is more than…25,000 short, despite a rising roll. She concludes:
"I have never been so disheartened and disappointed. If I could afford to retire after giving my life to the profession,…I would most certainly do so as the burden is intolerable. Many of my dedicated colleagues will be feeling the same."
That is not a ringing endorsement of the Government's education policy. History does not relate whether she received a reply from the Prime Minister, or, if so, to what effect.
A letter to my right hon. Friend from one of the governors of St. Philip's Roman Catholic primary school in Uckfield states:
"In 1997 we had 197 pupils with a budget of £297,000. This year we have 198 pupils…we now have £294,000, a 2.5 per cent. overall cut…We now have another staff vacancy—a loss of a very experienced employee—and here we are thinking this is a good opportunity to save money by employing another newly qualified teacher."
I have had representations from Conservative county councillors about the massive contradiction between the Government's policy on class sizes and their professed

837
support for parental choice. Ministers may insist on a maximum of 30 in a class, but in rural areas there is often no room to build extra classrooms, and in most areas there is no money to do so. Last weekend, a worried mother phoned to tell me that she wanted her son to go to St. Andrew's Church of England school, a choice that I can certainly understand, as it is an excellent school with a dedicated headmistress. The child is apparently unable to go to the school of his parents' choice, because admission numbers were reduced across the board this year. The boy is one of three children left out in the cold. My constituent and her father went to that school, and, she said, she received an excellent education in a class of 36.
Another assault on local education is the Government's intention to take away the right of parish and town councils to appoint a governor to their local schools. The Opposition fought that tooth and nail in Standing Committee, and I welcomed the Government's defeat on the matter in the other place last week. The Government's proposal caused concern in rural communities up and down the country, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that ill-considered proposal will be abandoned.
The situation is not much happier in the pre-school sector. The nursery vouchers scheme was popular with private nurseries and playgroups in my constituency. I know that, because I took the trouble to visit them. I also met on several occasions members of the Independent Preschool Nursery Association, an excellent organisation based in Eastbourne. For purely dogmatic reasons, the former Liberal Democrat administration in East Sussex refused to participate in the pilot scheme. Then the new Labour Government abolished the scheme, again for reasons of dogma.
Nursery operators are supposed to be working in partnership with local education authorities through the early years development plan. It is some partnership. Nurseries must wait upwards of six weeks for payment, a serious burden for small businesses. Whether through incompetence or design, our LEA seems to be sitting on funds received from the Department. Barbara Davies of IPNA, who runs the Tots and Time Out nursery, contacted the Department to establish that the money was sent out on 29 May. Yet she received her money only in the past few days, and after threatening legal action. How many others are still waiting? The situation is wholly unacceptable, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to investigate it.
Let me turn finally to students' tuition fees. I do not recall the Labour candidate in my constituency saying that a Labour Government would impose fees. I know that many parents in Eastbourne feel betrayed on that issue, among others. For poor families, it could make the difference between a son or a daughter going or not going to higher or further education.
For once, I agree with the Prime Minister that education should be an important priority for any Government. That is why the Conservatives placed such emphasis on driving up standards in education and on parental choice. Children and young people are the future of any nation, and a Government who betrayed that future would deserve condemnation.
838
I call on the Minister tonight to accept that his policies are simply not delivering improved education to my constituents and to promise that he will put things right. Empty rhetoric may have been all right in opposition, but he and his colleagues are now in charge. I hope that we can expect the political equivalent of the Minister's staying behind after school and writing out 100 times, "I must try harder."
10.14 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I welcome the opportunity to put some facts before the House this evening regarding the Government's policies on education in East Sussex and across the country. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) failed to acknowledge the good work that is being done in many schools in his constituency and in East Sussex generally. As Minister for School Standards, I put on record my thanks and congratulations to those schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and throughout East Sussex that are doing a very good job. One needs only to look at the standards being achieved to realise that real improvements are taking place in schools in East Sussex.
In 1997, at key stage 2, tests for level 4—the level that we expect 11-year-olds to achieve—revealed an average of 63 per cent. for English and 61 per cent. for mathematics. Those figures are broadly in line with the national average. What is particularly impressive is that they show a dramatic increase on the 1996 figures, when, in the key stage 2 tests, the figure was 55 per cent. for English and 52 per cent. for mathematics. Schools in East Sussex are making real improvements. Although the hon. Gentleman failed to do so, I congratulate those schools, the teachers and the parents on the improvements that have been made this year. I hope that standards will continue to rise.
I began my speech by referring to standards, because that is the Government's No. 1 priority. That is why, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's comments, we have provided a substantial increase in funding for schools in East Sussex and across the country. In light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, it is worth reminding the House of the facts—we shall rely not on the prejudice that we have heard from the hon. Gentleman, but on what is happening and the actions that the Government have taken.
On capital spending, which is used to repair the fabric of school buildings, the new deal for schools means that we expect to spend some £2 billion repairing, renewing and improving school buildings, security and information technology by the end of this Parliament. In the March Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated a further £100 million to support education capital spending in England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced details of that funding last Friday. On day-to-day spending, we have allocated an extra £835 million this year in England alone over and above the spending plans of the previous Administration—whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The Minister will be aware that Sussex has received more than £7 million extra funding this year. When I served on Sussex county council, there was a £12.6 million cut in central Government spending in 1995–96; an £11.5 million cut in 1996–97; and an £11.3 million cut

839
in 1997–98. The county council coped with those spending cuts by drawing on reserves, and it had to spend £22 million in order to maintain standards in East Sussex.
Mr. Byers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that illustration of what went before. His experience of the county council is informative about the cuts that were made year on year by the Conservative Administration. That contrasts starkly with the steps taken already by this Government to remedy the wrongs imposed on our schools system by the actions over not three but 18 years of the Conservatives.
In the general election, we pledged to raise the proportion of national income invested in education as we cut the misuse of Government money elsewhere. We are delivering on that, and next week the outcome of the comprehensive spending review will be announced. I am confident that we will bring good news for schools in East Sussex and the rest of the country, and it will not only be about extra funding for priority areas such as education.
The review provides an opportunity to develop a new approach to public services, with targets for improvements set and outcomes publicly identified. All too often in the past, simply spending more was good enough. No thought was given to raising standards or improving the quality of education on offer. Those days have gone. Increased spending must be linked to specific, clearly stated outcomes. Funding to support reform and modernisation must be the key.
We have not simply awaited the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. We have taken action already and provided increased funding—real money—for East Sussex. The education standard spending assessment for East Sussex for 1998–99 represents an increase of 5.9 per cent., or some £9.2 million. That is well above the rate of inflation, and should be sufficient to meet the needs of schools in East Sussex, even after allowing for inflation, pay awards, rising pupil numbers and any other spending pressures that they might face.
It is informative to consider the per pupil increase. Total figures often do not clearly illustrate the amount of extra money that is being provided. This year's per pupil increases bring home the extra funding that the Government are providing. East Sussex is getting an extra £132 for every primary pupil and an extra £156 for every secondary pupil. In percentage terms, that represents an increase of 6.3 per cent. for primary pupils and 5.7 per cent. for secondary pupils. That is a real-terms increase of around 3 per cent., which we expect the county council to use for raising standards in schools.
It is worth contrasting those real-terms increases with the funding provided by the previous Conservative Government. It is only by considering those figures that we can find out whether they were committed to education. The figures reveal clearly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster).
Under the previous Government, it was cuts not in one year, but year on year, for the schools and the pupils of East Sussex. Over the final five years of the Conservative Government, education standard spending assessment in East Sussex was cut in real terms for secondary pupils by £218 per pupil, or 7 per cent. It says something about the different priority that this Government give education
840
that, in stark contrast to that reduction of £218, for secondary pupils there has been an increase in spending of £156 in one year. Those are real figures, affecting real children, in the schools of East Sussex.
While the Government have allocated an extra £9.2 million to East Sussex county council, we are disappointed that the full £9.2 million has not been passed on to its schools: £3.6 million has been held back. Schools are receiving only £5.6 million of the money allocated by the Government. That is bound to have an adverse impact on schools in East Sussex.
However, East Sussex gets a fair deal from the Government. It receives 4 per cent. more in the education standard spending assessment per pupil than the average for shire counties. The formula that the Government use to allocate resources through the education SSA is currently being reviewed, because we are not happy with the formula that we inherited from the previous Administration. We want to, and we shall, make it fairer, and many authorities and schools throughout this country want us to do so.
Decisions will not be taken until the autumn, and nothing has been ruled in or out, so it is too early to say how the review might affect funding in East Sussex or in any other authority. However, I can say that there will be a new system of allocating finance to local authorities that is both fair and transparent, which is not the case at present.
In addition to putting the extra £835 million into day-to-day spending through education SSAs, we have secured a substantial increase in specific grants for local education authorities, the most important of which is the standards fund—money that is specifically earmarked for raising standards and improving the quality of education. I shall mention just three of the 23 programmes that are helping to raise standards in East Sussex.
The first relates to class sizes. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Eastbourne said about St. Andrew's Church of England primary school and the difficulties there, but I have to tell him that that has nothing to do with the measures being introduced by the Labour Government. The legal powers that we are seeking for ourselves in the School Standards and Framework Bill are not yet on the statute book, so any action taken in respect of that school have nothing to do with the Government's proposals as they affect class sizes.
We have pledged to reduce class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or fewer by September 2001 at the latest, and we shall do that. Positive steps are already being taken to achieve that goal, with £116,000 being made available to East Sussex that it must use to reduce infant class sizes. That is money redirected from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, and is a good example of redirecting resources from a privileged few to benefit the majority.
By ring-fencing those funds, we shall ensure that every school in Eastbourne, in East Sussex and throughout the country will have classes of 30 or fewer by September 2001. That pledge will be delivered in a way that enhances parental preference. That is our commitment, and it is one that we shall deliver. We have also allocated an extra £1.3 million to schools in East Sussex for school improvement and raising standards, and £783,000 specifically for the national grid for learning.

841
We have been able to go beyond improvements in day-to-day revenue spending by providing additional funding for the maintenance and repair of the fabric of school buildings. The new deal for schools means that we were able to allocate East Sussex £2.1 million to improve school buildings. In addition to the new deal for schools, we have allocated more credit approvals in the form of annual capital guidelines.
For the financial year 1998–99, more than £10 million of credit approval has been allocated to East Sussex. In addition to the main allocation, £860,000 has been made available for capital expenditure on special educational needs. On top of that, a specific grant of £700,000 is being made available to Church schools, in recognition of the fact that such schools are often popular with parents, and offer a high standard of education.
Taken together, all that means that, through the actions of the Labour Government, East Sussex is receiving £225 capital funding for every pupil in the county. That is almost 90 per cent. more than the national average allocation of £120 per pupil. When people can see the facts, they will be in no doubt that the Government are investing in the children of East Sussex.
Eleven schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will benefit because of successful applications to improve and repair buildings, and to make them more efficient. Teachers and pupils will all benefit from a better environment in which to teach and learn. Investing in education in this way also means that, over time, more resources will be able to be spent in the classroom, rather than on premises costs. We are sure that that will help to raise standards.
842
In the end, it is for East Sussex county council to determine the level of budgets of the schools it maintains from within the resources made available by Government. The hon. Gentleman has talked about cuts for some schools in his constituency. It is certainly true that some schools have suffered budget cuts, but what is hard to explain are the differences in funding per pupil. Looking at primary and secondary schools in Eastbourne, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, changes in per pupil funding range from about minus 8 per cent. to plus 8 per cent. I have to say that I find that difficult to accept. I would urge schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to ask the local education authority to explain precisely why that is happening.
It is not my job to set the budgets of individual schools, but the Government have allocated an extra £9.2 million. We are disappointed that not all that money has been passed on to benefit schools in East Sussex. The county council has to explain why it has withheld £3.6 million of that sum from the raising of standards in schools within the area covered by the county council. We believe that the Government have acted properly in relation to the schools and the pupils of East Sussex. It is for the county council to discharge its responsibilities.
There can be no doubt, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, that education, education, education is the Government's priority. We have acted to demonstrate that that is the case. We have acted in a way that will benefit pupils in Eastbourne, in East Sussex and in the country generally. We look forward to working in partnership to deliver those improved standards.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Classic Cars and Motor Bikes
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals are planned and what measures have recently been implemented regarding the use of historic and classic cars and motor bikes. [47692]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No measures specifically relating to the use of historic and classic cars and motor cycles are planned or have been recently introduced. However, the recent Budget announced the freezing of the vehicle excise duty (VED) exemption for all vehicles over 25 years old, and the introduction of a fixed date VED exemption for vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973. This measure clearly affects certain classic and historic cars and motor cycles, as will the implementation of the EU proposal to ban leaded petrol. A lead replacement petrol will however be available for use by vehicles which currently use leaded petrol. This has been widely used in EU and other countries where leaded petrol has already been withdrawn.

  M25
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what percentage of the additional traffic flow generated by M25 widening in 2005 and 2010 will be accounted for by Heathrow Terminal 5 traffic in the Government's projections; [47884]

  (2) what is the current projection of traffic volumes and speeds in the western sector of the M25 in 2005 if, (a) neither Terminal 5 nor the M25 enlargement takes place, (b) Terminal 5 is built and the M25 remains at its present width, (c) Terminal 5 is not built and the M25 in widened and (d) Terminal 5 is built and the M25 is widened. [47883]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David York to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 6 July 1998:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, has asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about traffic flows on the M25. In his absence, I am writing on his behalf.
  The information you ask for is not available for the year 2005. However, figures were made available at the T5 inquiry, for the target year 2003 and, with factoring where necessary, lead to the following:

  (a) No M25 widening or T5: 8,500 vph and 63 kph.

  (b) T5 built, no M25 widening: not assessed.

  (c) M25 widened, No T5: 10,100 vph and 77 kph.

  334

  (d)M25 widened and T5 constructed: 10,300 vph and 74 kph.

  These figures relate to M25 J13–14 northbound in the a.m. peak hour.
  In answer to your second question, if T5 is connected to the widened motorway, we estimate that it will increase traffic on M25 J13–14 by 2% in 2003. This is taken into account as appropriate in answer to your first question. No figures exist for 2010, but those for 2016 estimate that by then the volume of traffic on the M25 J13–14 will be the same whether or not T5 is built because of the motorway's capacity.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the increase in air traffic flying in and out of London airports annually over the next five years. [48164]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has provided the following forecast of aircraft movements for the next five years to be handled in the London Terminal Control Area, covering arrivals and departures at all London's airports.

  Number of aircraft movements (thousand)

  1998–99

  989

  1999–00

  1,019

  2000–01

  1,057

  2001–02

  1,094

  2002–03

  1,132

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is his Department's current estimate of the percentage of children aged(a) 0 to 4, (b) 5 to 13 and (c) 14 years and over who wear seat belts in (i) the front passenger seat and (ii) the rear seats of cars; and if he will make a statement on trends; [48310]

  (2) what is his Department's current estimate of the percentage of (a) drivers, (b) front seat passengers and (c) rear seat passengers who wear seat belts in cars. [48309]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest, as yet unpublished, biannual survey, carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) on the Department's behalf in April 1998, showed that 91 per cent. of drivers, 92 per cent. of front seat passengers and 67 per cent. of all rear seat passengers in all cars were wearing seat belts.

  The wearing rates for the front passenger seat cannot be broken down by the age groups requested. The surveys showed that of those travelling in the front passenger seat, 95 per cent. of 0 to 13 year olds and 88 per cent. of 14 to 29 year olds were wearing seat belts.

  The survey also showed that of those travelling in the rear seats of cars, 87 per cent. of 0 to 4 year olds, 73 per cent. of 5 to 13 year olds and 48 per cent of 14 year olds and over were wearing seat belts.

  The Government are not satisfied with the numbers of people who do not wear their seat belts. The percentage rates of seat belt wearing have remained fairly constant in recent years—in particular, the rate for adults in the rear

  335
  seats of cars has remained stubbornly at 50 per cent. or below. That is why a publicity campaign to further promote rear seat belt wearing will be launched on 8 July.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the timescale for completion of the Thameslink 2000 project. [48909]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The new Thameslink 2000 station is an integral part of the work at St. Pancras which is included in Section II of the CTRL project, due to commence in 2001 for completion in 2007. We are discussing the full implications for Thameslink 2000 with the CTRL promoter LCR and Railtrack.

  Employees (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions have been brought against employers under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 in each of the last 10 years for failing to carry out an assessment of the risk their employees are exposed to whilst using public roads for work-related activities. [48746]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, following his recent announcement regarding the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the widening of the M2 is to be proceeded with. [48819]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As announced last Summer, the Government will use all reasonable endeavours to see that the M2 widening works are completed within the period of construction of the Rail Link, and that the construction arrangements of the two projects are co-ordinated to minimise disruption to the public.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's role in discussions relating to the European structural funds for the period 2000 to 2006. [48773]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on 2 July 1998,Official Report, column 240.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will publish new guidance on market testing and contracting out; and if he will make a statement. [49326]
  336
  Dr. David Clark
  Better Quality Services is published today.

  It represents a major step towards fulfilling our promise of better public services for all our citizens, customers and taxpayers alike.

  The guidance is in two documents—Better Quality Services: a Handbook on creating public/private partnerships through Market Testing and Contracting Out and Better Quality Services: Guidance for Senior Managers.

  This is the guidance for central Government Departments, including their agencies and NDPBs, that I promised when I published the Government's 12 Guiding Principles in Using Market Testing and Contracting Out, 4 November 1997, Official Report, column 94.

  Better Quality Services gives guidance on applying the 12 Guiding Principles. We aim to achieve better quality services for the customer at optimal cost to the taxpayer. Our pragmatic approach will apply competition as best suits the circumstances of each case. Departments should review all their services and activities over a five year period. All options should be considered on a case by case basis and Departments should use what works best.

  In our consultations we were told that when market testing—an in-house team competing with external bidders—was used it was often used inappropriately, when a straight choice between internal restructuring and contracting out would have been better for customers, better for staff and better for taxpayers. Better Quality Services encourages Departments to make clear-cut decisions that take account of the degree of uncertainty for staff and the effect on morale of each option. In doing so, Departments should consult their staff and their representatives, and other stakeholders.

  People are our key asset. When using contracting out, Departments should consider whether to specify that staff are to transfer to any new contractor—for example, to maintain expertise or on other grounds related to the service required. This will invoke the protection of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE). Otherwise, on the basis of legal advice, Departments should say whether, in the circumstances, TUPE is considered likely to apply.

  The Government are committed to competition. Better Quality Services covers procurement, contract management, retendering and insourcing, which must always have a very robust justification. The guidance stresses probity, communication and openness. Departments must always be able to justify their decisions.

  Partnership is stressed in the guidance: between the public and the private sectors, with staff and their recognised representatives, and between different parts of the public sector.

  Producing this guidance has involved all Government Departments, the Council of Civil Service Unions, the Confederation of British Industry, the Business Services Association, those involved in developing Best Value in local government, and those concerned with the NHS. I am very grateful for all their help. This has been an exciting partnership, which will continue so that, together, we can bring about better quality services.
  337
  Better Quality Services has been placed in the libraries of the House. Copies have been sent to all who helped in producing the guidance, including the Council of Civil Service Unions, the Confederation of British Industry and the Business Services Association. The guidance will be on sale in bookshops and can be accessed on the Internet under "Key Policy Areas for Cabinet Office (OPS)" on the Cabinet Office web site: http://www.open.gov.uk/co/cohome.htm.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when Lord Neill took up his duties as Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; what is the rate of his daily remuneration in that capacity; how many full days and part days he has contributed to the work of the Committee; and how much he has earned for doing so. [48047]

  Dr. David Clark
  Lord Neill of Bladen QC was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on 10 November 1997. He is paid a daily rate of £500. Up to the end of April 1998, Lord Neill had spent the equivalent of 44 full days working on Committee business, for which he has paid a total of £22,000.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for the People's Panel(a) the total value and duration of its contract with MORI, (b) the number of times it is expected to be convened in 1998, (c) the selection criteria and procedures used to pick its members, (d) which Ministers determined the terms of selection, (e) which Ministers will have access to the results of the Panel and (f) if the information made available to Ministers will be (i) placed in the Library and (ii) made publicly available. [48692]

  Mr. Kilfoyle [holding answer 3 July 1998]: (a) The People's Panel contract with MORI is for three years, subject to a review after one year. As it is a Framework Agreement rather than a standard contract, its value will depend on the amount of research that is commissioned. The actual value of the Framework Agreement is a nominal £5. The cost of setting up the Panel is around £80,000 and first wave research will be about a further £300,000.

  (b) The Panel will not be "convened" in that sense. It is not designed to meet as a single group—this would not be cost effective or useful. Groups of Panel members will be brought together for focus groups and other deliberative research, but research will generally be conducted on an individual survey basis.

  (c) Potential panel members are selected from a random sample of Postal Addresses from across the UK. Individuals are randomly selected from within each household using a Kish grid. They are recruited by face-to-face interviews in their own homes.

  (d) Cabinet Office Ministers decided that Panel members should be randomly selected, in order that the Panel is a representative cross-section of society.

  (e) The results will be published and so all Ministers will have access to them.
  338
  (f) The results will (i) be placed in the House of Commons library, and (ii) be made publicly available, on the Cabinet Office website.

  Service First Programme
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list(a) the estimated cost of changing the Citizens Charter programme into the Service First programme, indicating separately the costs of (i) the design of a new logo, (ii) the relabelling of buildings and stationery and (iii) promotion and publicity, and (b) the companies used and at what cost in connection with the project. [48693]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: All costs associated with launching the new programme have been met from within existing budgets. The final cost is not yet available, but it is expected to be in the region of £65,000. The new logo was developed by COI as part of a wider project to develop a user-friendly style for Service First publications. The total cost of this work was £6,800. No money has been spent on relabelling buildings or on advertising, £4,000 has been spent primarily on display stands and a pamphlet to inform public servants about the new programme. Service First stationery has been produced in-house using desk-top publishing equipment.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the focus group research which was commissioned in relation to proposals to change the Citizens Charter programme into the Service First programme, indicating(a) the total cost of the focus groups, (b) the names of the companies used and (c) the costs and composition of the new non-departmental public bodies to be established to help implement the Service First programme. [48694]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: Two focus groups to inform the development of the new programme were run on behalf of the Cabinet Office by MORI at a cost of £4,000. No non-departmental public bodies are being established to help implement the Service First programme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Action Zones
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the initiatives undertaken by her Department since 1 May 1997 which have involved the establishment of(a) action zones and (b) pilot schemes limited to particular geographical areas, indicating the name of the programme and the action zone or pilot scheme areas covered in each instance. [47056]

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

  Initiative

  undertaken since

  Geographical area

  (a) The Londonderry initiative

  1998

  The Greater Urban Area of Londonderry

  (b) 'Mentally Disordered Offenders Pilot' Scheme

  15 June 1998

  Greater Belfast

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the recommendations by Professor Donaldson's Medical Review Panel on(a) the development of a Province-wide comprehensive strategic plan for maternity services and (b) the problem of smaller obstetric units without 24-hour on-site paediatric cover. [47870]

  Mr. Worthington
  When I announced my response, on 13 November 1997, to the Independent Medical Review Panel's report on maternity services in Central Belfast, I commented specifically on the Panel's recommendation for a comprehensive strategic plan for maternity services in Northern Ireland. In doing so I made it clear that I would not be taking any specific action in this regard pending the final outcome of the reviews of acute services including obstetric care provision, in the Northern, Southern and Western Board areas. Such a review has already taken place, in 1993, in the Eastern Board area and since then obstetric services have ceased at Ards Hospital and, on present plans, will cease in the Downe also in the near future.

  I am aware that there are a number of smaller obstetric units in Northern Ireland without 24 hour on-site paediatric cover and some of these are under scrutiny in the review process. Meantime mothers-to-be are advised of the facilities, or lack of facilities, including paediatric cover at a particular unit by, among others, their GP, Obstetrician, Midwife or the HSS Trust concerned. Moreover, during the course of their ante-natal care, expectant mothers at risk of complications are identified and assessed and, if appropriate, advised to have their baby delivered in an obstetric unit with the necessary back-up facilities.

  Finally, it is important to remember that mothers-to-be have the right to choose where they wish to have their baby born and some, albeit a small number at present, opt for home delivery.

  Ulsterbus
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the public subsidies Ulsterbus has received for the purchase of vehicles, indicating the amounts and dates of the subsidies paid. [47872]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The public subsidies paid to Ulsterbus for the purchase of new buses from 1993–94 to 1997–98 are:

  1993–94: £2.216m;

  1994–95: £1.722m;

  1995–96: £2.137m;

  1996–97: £0.225m and

  1997–98: nil.

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many girls(a)under 14 years, (b) aged 14 to 16 years and (c) aged 16 years and over were placed in Maghaberry prison in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995, (iv) 1996, (v) 1997 and (vi) 1998. [48355]
  340
  Mr. Ingram
  There were no girls under 14 years placed in Maghaberry Prison (female) in any of the years specified. The figures for the other age categories, held in the Young Offenders Unit at the Prison, are as follows:

  14–16 Years

  16–21 Years

  1993

  1

  2

  1994

  1

  15

  1995

  4

  9

  1996

  2

  17

  1997

  1

  18

  1998 (to date)

  1

  10

TREASURY

  Excise Revenue
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the factors taken into account when reducing the forecast revenue figures from excise between July 1997 and March 1998. [45401]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The forecast of hydrocarbon oil, alcohol and tobacco excise revenue for 1998–99 was revised up by £0.7 billion between July 1997 and March 1998.

  Hydrocarbon oil duty receipts were revised up by £0.9 billion, reflecting the increases in duty rates announced in the 1998 Budget on 17 March 1998, Official Report, column 1110.

  Alcohol and tobacco duty receipts were each revised down by £0.1 billion, reflecting the slightly lower than anticipated level of clearances in the second half of 1997–98. A number of factors are likely to have affected the 1997–98 outturn. An example of a factor that arose subsequent to the July 1997 forecast was the sharp decline in popularity of alcopops following their adverse publicity last year, which led to a decline in receipts in their duty category. Against this, GDP rose by more than was expected and the summer weather was warm, both of which are likely to have led to an increase in receipts. It is, however, difficult to be absolutely certain about the precise reasons for the small differences between forecast and actual receipts 1997–98 as a number of other largely counter-balancing factors are likely to have been involved.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increase in excise revenue due to warm weather in the summer of 1997. [45408]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No estimate has been made.

  Alcopops
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the reduction in excise revenue caused by the decline in popularity of alcopops in the period to March 1998. [43402]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Clearances of coolers (the duty category in which alcopops fall) fell by 29 per cent. between 1996–97 and 1997–98. If one assumes duty rates as of 1 January 1997 (for both years), then this fall is equivalent to some £27m in excise revenues.
  341
  The revenue loss to the Exchequer is less than this because it is likely that some consumption of alcopops has switched to other alcoholic drinks.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the General Government Expenditure, as defined prior to the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report 1998,(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of GDP, in a (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01, (iii) 2001–02, (iv) 2002–03 and (v) 2003–04. [47118]

  Mr. Darling
  Projections of GGE from 1999/2000 onwards depend on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the real annual percentage growth in(a) total managed expenditure and (b) general Government expenditure as defined prior to the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report 1998 for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01, (iii) 2001–02, (iv) 2002–03 and (v) averaged over the period 1999–2000 to 2002–03.[47119]

  Mr. Darling
  Total Managed Expenditure (TME) is the sum of public sector current expenditure and public sector net investment. Series for both of these in cash terms from 1997–98 to 2003–04 can be found in table 4.4 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 (EFSR). They can be converted into real terms using the working assumptions for the GDP deflator in table 4.1 of the EFSR.

  A forecast of General Government Expenditure (GGE) in 1998–99 is given as a memo item in table 4A.1 of the EFSR. Projections of GGE beyond that date depend on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Correspondence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the volume of correspondence sent to and received from hon. Members by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the periods(a) 1 January to 26 March 1994 and (b) 1 January to 26 March 1998. [47687]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I receive large volumes of correspondence from hon. Members at my offices in the Treasury, in the House, and in my constituency, and at addresses in Downing Street, London and Fife. The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria will be used to establish which publicly owned corporations will be considered for privatisation. [48062]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Government apply a range of criteria when making decisions of this type. Each case is decided on its own merits.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those publicly owned assets which the Government propose to(a) privatise and (b) reconstitute as publicly owned corporations run on commercial lines during the next four years. [48064]
  342
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the Chancellor's statement of 11 June 1998,Official Report, columns 1195–1215, and section 4.2.3 on "Asset Disposals" of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (EFSR) published on 11 June.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the workings of the income tax self-assessment scheme. [48582]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Inland Revenue announced a review of Self-assessment in a Press Release on 23 February 1998 and asked for views on what aspects of self-assessment went well and what aspects needed improvement. The closing date for comment was 29 May 1998 and responses are now being reviewed. The Inland Revenue expect to issue a report in due course.

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 53, if he will make a statement on the reviews his Department has undertaken of the potential impact on United Kingdom public funds of British Nuclear Fuels' proposed joint purchase with Morris Knudsen Engineering Company of the nuclear operations of Westinghouse; and if he will place in the Library papers relating to this agreement. [48922]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury together looked very closely at the potential impact on public funds, and at the risks facing the business, before deciding that BNFL, in conjunction with the Morris Knudsen Engineering Company, should acquire substantial parts of Westinghouse Inc. The Government took account of reports by the company and its advisers as well as independent analysis of risks. These reports contain commercially sensitive information.

  Windfall Levy
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated revenue from the windfall levy on privatised utilities for the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [48460]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The revenue was £2.6 billion in 1997–98. It is expected to be the same in 1998–99 when the final instalment is due.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department had made of the likely impact of the current strength of the pound on inbound tourism to the United Kingdom. [47771]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The level of inbound tourism is influenced by a variety of factors, including changes in overseas economies, as well as currency exchanges rates. It is not possible to isolate the impact of exchange rate fluctuations from other factors.

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the costs would be of introducing a concession of(a) 25 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 75 per cent. and (d) 100 per cent. on the television licence fee for (i) all pensioners, (ii) pensioners on income support, (iii) people in receipt of income support,(iv) people in receipt of disability living allowance, (v) people in receipt of attendance allowance, (vi) registered blind and (vii) registered deaf; [48021]

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of the annual cost to the Treasury of the concessionary television licence scheme; [48023]

  (3) what revenues he estimates would be generated from charging (a) hotels, (b) Government offices and parliamentary buildings and (c) other organisations a licence fee for each television set within their premises of

  Cost of licence fee reductions (£ million)

  Category of beneficiary

  25%

  50%

  75%

  100%

  i)

  All 'pensioner only' households

  122

  244

  367

  489

  ii)

  Households including at least one pensioner receiving income support

  28

  56

  84

  112

  iii)

  Households including at least one individual in receipt of income support

  98

  196

  293

  391

  iv)

  Households including at least one individual in receipt of disability living allowance

  29

  58

  86

  115

  v)

  Households including at least one individual in receipt of attendance allowance

  19

  39

  58

  77

  vi)

  Individuals who are registered blind

  4

  8

  12

  16

  vii)

  Individuals who are registered deaf

  1

  2

  4

  5

  Tourism (Accommodation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of UK accommodation and hotel rates on decisions by foreign tourists visiting the EU to include the UK in their itinerary. [47977]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The level of inbound tourism is influenced by a variety of factors, including changes in overseas economies and currency exchange rates. It is not possible to isolate precisely the impact of accommodation costs from other factors.

  The British Tourist Authority is, however, able to monitor changes to incoming tourism traffic through market intelligence and surveys of tourists and of the accommodation stock. It has seen a significant fall in traffic from some Asian markets, but in markets with strong economies and whose currencies have not depreciated significantly against sterling there has been continued growth. This would suggest that accommodation costs have not been a significant factor in influencing foreign tourists to travel elsewhere. Indeed, in a recent independent survey conducted in the USA, more previous visitors to Europe said they would like to return to Britain than to any other country.

  Millennium Tourism
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the preparations which his Department is making to help the tourism industry draw people from abroad to the Millennium celebrations. [48790]344
  (i)50 per cent. licence fee for organisations with less than 50 television sets and (ii) a full licence fee for organisations with over 50 television sets. [48022]

  Mr. Fisher
  The concessionary television licence scheme is not funded by the Treasury but from within the television licensing system. The estimated cost of the scheme at current licence fee levels is £60 million a year.

  Records of hotel licences are not held in such a way as to permit an accurate estimate of the additional revenue that would be raised by charging half price licence fees for hotels with fewer that fifty television sets and a full licence fee for those with more than fifty sets. No information is held centrally on the number of television sets installed at other premises.

  The estimated cost of providing concessionary television licences at the level and to the groups indicated is as follows:

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: The Government fund the British Tourist Authority to promote Britain overseas and we are now developing plans specifically to promote the millennium celebrations. There are four main elements to these plans:

  (1) a PR and promotional campaign, with launches this autumn in Europe, the USA and the Far East, which are being developed in partnership with Embassies and the British Council;

  (2) the launch in January 1999 of "The New Map of Britain", covering all new millennium attractions;

  (3) provision of a comprehensive millennium information service to consumers; and

  (4) advice and support to members of the travel trade and tourist attractions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Chief Inspector of Prisons about the Chief Inspector's right to comment on Government policy; what advice he has given; and if he will make a statement. [47981]

  Mr. Straw
  Both I and the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), who has responsibility for prisons and probation, meet Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on a regular basis. Discussions are wide-ranging and will, from time to time, extend to the nature of the Chief Inspector's role. These responsibilities are set out in the Prison Act 1952 and require that he
  345
  inspect all prison establishments and report to the Home Secretary on the condition in which prisoners are being held. The Chief Inspector is also able to raise any other issue of concern with Ministers.

  Prisons (Illegal Drugs)
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to prevent illegal drugs getting into prison; and if he will make a statement. [48199]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service has in place as part of its drug strategy robust measures aimed at preventing the entry of drugs into prisons. Measures include: searching of visitors and of prisoners following visits; use of closed circuit television in visits areas; and perimeter searching. Many establishments use drug dogs, which are an effective means of deterring visitors who may attempt to smuggle drugs. Prisoners found guilty of drug smuggling are liable to be placed on closed visits, while visitors may be arrested and denied future visits if found in possession of drugs.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of prisoners who are using illegal drugs; and if he will make a statement. [48202]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Our best estimate of the numbers of prisoners using illegal drugs derives from the results of random mandatory drug testing (MDT). However, random testing involves the testing of only a proportion of a prison's population each month. For this and a number of other reasons, MDT results cannot be a complete measure of the prevalence of drug misuse in prisons. In 1997/98, 20.8 per cent. of random MDT samples were positive for drugs.

  Magistrates Courts (Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional grant he will make to Essex Police following the closure of magistrates' courts in the county. [48538]

  Mr. Michael
  No additional grant will be paid. Police grant is allocated by means of a needs-based formula in which the location of court buildings does not feature. The Essex Police will have a spending power in 1998/99 of £166.2 million. This is an increase of 3.7 per cent. or £6 million over 1997/98. It is for the Chief Constable to determine the allocation of resources to meet the force's obligations, including any necessary adjustments to deployment as a result of changes in requirements for the attendance of officers at court.

  Immigration Reviews
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the results of(a) the comprehensive spending review of asylum, (b) the review of immigration detention, (c) the review of immigration appeals and (d) the review of the regulation of unscrupulous immigration advisers. [48581]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We will make announcements on the way ahead soon.

  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much damage was caused during disturbances at the Medway Secure Training Centre on 25 and 26 June; and what steps are being taken to prevent a repetition of such disturbances. [48547]

  Mr. Michael
  There was a disturbance at Medway Secure Training Centre on the evening of 25 June. The estimated cost of the damage was about £5,300, mainly the cost of replacing broken windows. These costs are met by the contractor. The contractor has commissioned an inquiry into the events of 25 June and a report is expected shortly.

  Ballot Papers
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research on the form of the ballot paper he has commissioned; and when he expects to publish the results. [48598]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office, together with the Scottish Office, Welsh Office and the Government Office for London, is contributing to research by the Constitution Unit and Social and Community Planning Research. This is looking at what would be the most suitable design of the ballot paper for list-based electoral systems, such as those being introduced for elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Greater London Assembly and European Parliament. A report is expected in the autumn.

  Fingerprints
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the terms of reference for the 1988 Home Office review of fingerprint identification methods conducted by Mr. I. W. Evett and Mr. R. L. Williams; what progress has been made in implementing the conclusions of the review regarding(a) training, (b) certification testing, (c) performance testing, (d) file audits and (e) blind trials of fingerprint examiners and bureaux; if he will place the report in the Library; and what further studies have been commissioned by his Department. [48317]

  Mr. Michael
  The terms of reference were to conduct a review of the requirement for a fingerprint identification to be based on at least 16 points of comparison before evidence may be given in court. The report was published in its entirety in Fingerprint Whorld and the Journal for Fingerprint Identification, and I am placing a copy of the latter in the Library. The Home Office has not commissioned any further studies on this matter.

  With regard to the conclusions reached by the review, in 1994 the Association of Chief Police Officers undertook a broad examination of the standards of fingerprint evidence, and decided that such evidence should in future derive from the expertise of fingerprint officers, rather than the traditional numerical point standard for which there appears to be no legal basis. The changes will be underpinned by Quality Assurance, standards, inspection and a regime of competency testing—a move very much in line with the recommendations of the Evett and Williams report. The date set for implementation of the change in fingerprint evidence is 3 April 2000.

  Blasphemy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to remove the offence of blasphemy from the statute book. [48550]

  Mr. Michael
  This is a sensitive area which involves fundamental issues of belief, with strong and sincere views on all sides. In the absence of any consensus on the best way forward, we have no current plans to change the law.

  Notifiable offences committed by persons under 16 and cleared up by Lancashire Constabulary in 1997

  Five most common offences in each division—ranking order

  Offence

  A—Western

  B—Northern

  C—Southern

  D—Central

  E—Eastern

  F—Pennine

  Stealing from shops or stalls

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Other criminal damage over £20

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Theft from vehicles

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on a male

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary other than in a dwelling

  5

  4

  —

  5

  4

  5

  Other wounding

  —

  3

  3

  3=

  5

  4

  Other theft or unauthorised taking

  —

  5

  4=

  —

  —

  3

  Unauthorised taking of a conveyance

  —

  —

  4=

  3=

  —

  —

  Burglary in a dwelling

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Note:

  Criminal damage of value £20 and under is not included

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives were proposed by Her Majesty's Government for tackling(a) illegal drugs and (b) other criminal activity during the UK presidency of the European Union. [48546]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Fighting organised international crime, including tackling illicit drug trafficking, was a priority for this Government during the United Kingdom Presidency, with a focus on practical action.

  (a) Tackling illicit drugs

  One of our main objectives was to begin consideration of the post-1999 European Union drugs strategy. The Cardiff European Council endorsed a report on the key elements of a new five year strategy, which strikes the necessary balance between demand and supply reduction activity. The strategy will be further developed under succeeding Presidencies, to take effect from the year 2000. We continued to promote Customs joint surveillance exercises to improve operational co-operation and exchange of intelligence.

  Three practical exercises took place during the United Kingdom Presidency, including an exercise involving all 15 member states and the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe successfully targeting drug trafficking along the Balkan route. This resulted in seizures with a United Kingdom total street value of around £10 million. The United Kingdom was active as Presidency in ensuring effective European Union co-ordination in preparations for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on drugs, which adopted a Political Declaration, guiding principles on demand reduction, and an action plan covering precursor chemicals, amphetamine-type stimulants, money laundering, judicial co-operation and

  Young Offenders (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the most common crimes committed by persons under 16 in each of Lancashire Constabulary's divisions for the latest year for which figures are available. [48502]

  Mr. Michael
  The available information shows the number of notifiable offences cleared up by Lancashire Constabulary that were committed by persons under 16. On this basis, the five most common offences cleared up in 1997 are shown in the table in rank order for each division within the force.

  alternative development. The United Kingdom Presidency also took forward important work on European Union regional drugs initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean.

  (b) Other criminal activity

  Under the United Kingdom Presidency, work against other criminal activity, particularly serious organised crime, has been largely geared to implementing the European Union's Action Plan against organised crime, agreed in 1997 by the Amsterdam European Council. A progress report prepared for the Cardiff European Council in June this year described substantial progress with the implementation of the Action Plan's recommendations.

  Work on all of the recommendations with deadlines for completion up to the middle of 1998 either has been completed or is well underway. Work has also begun on many of the recommendations with longer deadlines.

  Specific achievements in the field of organised crime during our Presidency included:
  the establishment of a funding programme to combat organised crime (FALCONE programme);
  political agreement on a joint action on participation in a criminal organisation;
  the establishment of a mutual evaluation mechanism and setting in motion of the first round of national evaluations which will concentrate initially on reasons for delays in providing mutual legal assistance and urgent requests for restraint of assets;
  creation of a European Judicial Network to improve practical co-operation and communication;
  adoption, ahead of schedule, of the Pre-Accession Pact on organised crime with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States and Cyprus;
  introduction and completion of a joint action on good practice in mutual legal assistance:

  349
  introduction of a joint action on the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of assets, on which discussion is continuing.

  In addition to these achievements, the Naples II Convention on customs co-operation has been agreed, as has the Convention on Driving Disqualification which has been in negotiation for seven years.

  A further priority for our Presidency was to secure full ratification of the Europol Convention. National ratification procedures have now been completed and the Europol Convention will enter into force on 1 October 1998. A fully functioning Europol will represent a step-change in the level of the European Union's response to organised crime.

  On a more technical level, the United Kingdom Presidency promoted and concluded initiatives on the subjects of crime prevention, where national contact points were identified for exchange of information and dissemination of best practice, and on fingerprints, where agreement was reached on a common European Union standard for the exchange of fingerprint information.

  Air Raid Siren, Ashley Heath
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will make arrangements with Dorset police to remove the air raid siren at Ashley Heath roundabout; and if he will make a statement. [48499]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I understand that Dorset Police have made arrangements to remove the siren in question by Wednesday 8 July.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to his Department of the erection of an air raid siren at Ashley Heath roundabout in 1991. [48498]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The cost of erecting this particular siren could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Vulnerable Witnesses
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the proposed timescale for implementing the recommendations relating to vulnerable witnesses in the report "Speaking up for Justice", June 1998. [48686]

  Mr. Michael
  On 10 June we announced a period of consultation on all the recommendations in "Speaking up for Justice", the report of the Working Group on Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses. We will take action as quickly as possible to improve the way vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated in the criminal justice system in the light of comments received during the consultation period.

  Chief Police Officers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the invoices which he has paid, with dates, to the(a) Association of Chief Police Officers, (b) Association of Chief Police Officers Ltd. and (c) Chief Police Officers Staff Association in each of the last two years. [49218]
  350
  Mr. Michael
  No. This expenditure is subject to parliamentary approval and audit, as is all Government expenditure.

  It would be neither appropriate nor practical to place in the Library copies of invoices for administrative expenses incurred by the Association of Chief Police Officers and processed through the Home Office's Business and Accounting Strategic Systems.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the annual accounts for each of the last five years of the Association of Chief Police Officers, for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. [49221]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 18 June 1998,Official Report, columns 296–97.

  North Yorkshire Constabulary
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police constables were employed by the North Yorkshire Constabulary between 1978 and 1998; and what was the total police strength in each of those years. [49080]

  Mr. Michael
  The information available is set out in the table. It is not possible to provide details of the number of constables prior to July 1990.

  North Yorkshire constabulary

  Year1

  Total constable strength

  Total officer strength

  1978

  n/a

  1,192

  1979

  n/a

  1,342

  1980

  n/a

  1,352

  1981

  n/a

  1,355

  1982

  n/a

  1,354

  1983

  n/a

  1,366

  1984

  n/a

  1,359

  1985

  n/a

  1,332

  1986

  n/a

  1,361

  1987

  n/a

  1,353

  1988

  n/a

  1,372

  1989

  n/a

  1,370

  1990

  21,039

  1,379

  1991

  1,044

  1,387

  1992

  1,055

  1,398

  1993

  1,054

  1,393

  1994

  1,007

  1,318

  1995

  976

  1,300

  1996

  1,004

  1,324

  1997

  1,018

  1,338

  19983

  1,053

  1,367

  1Figures provided are as at 31 March for each year

  2Constable figures for 1990 are those at 30 June. The nearest available to March 1990

  3Police numbers for March 1998 are provisional

  Ministerial Visits (Prisons)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), plans to visit in July and August. [48924]
  351
  Ms Quin
  I expect to make five visits to prisons, including one unannounced. However, final arrangements have not yet been made and alterations or additions to the programme are possible.

  Dependent Territories
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what basis British citizenship is being considered for citizens of British dependent territories as part of the Dependent Territories Review; [49200]

  (2) if British citizenship will be offered to citizens of dependent territories on a non-reciprocal basis. [49201]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We still have these matters under consideration. Final conclusions have not yet been reached.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for the future of the Thames Division of the Metropolitan Police. [48467]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that a review of Thames Division is being conducted currently. This review will ensure that the demands of the changing river environment can be met. A restructuring of Thames Division may follow with best value being a key component of the review.

  Civil Prisoners (Parole)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce parole for prisoners sentenced for civil matters; and if he will make a statement. [48999]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have no plans to change the arrangements for the release of prisoners sentenced for civil matters. Civil prisoners, who are invariably short term prisoners (i.e. those serving less than four years), are not eligible for "parole" in its true sense. That is because all short term prisoners are subject to automatic early release at the half way point of their sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The only prisoners who are now eligible for release at the discretion of the Parole Board are long term prisoners serving sentences of four years or more and life sentence prisoners.

  Fire Services (Essex)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reached a decision on the application under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 of the Essex Fire Authority. [49464]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have today advised the Essex Fire Authority that my right hon. Friend has agreed to its application to redeploy an aerial appliance and two foam carrying vehicles, with a consequent reduction of 16 firefighting posts and the regrading of a further post.

  The advice we have received from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services is unequivocal—that the proposals to redeploy the appliances are soundly based
  352
  and that, if implemented by the Authority, the Essex Fire Brigade will still be able to meet fully the national standards of fire cover.

  Statutory responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire service rests with the local fire authority. In considering applications by fire authorities for reductions in firefighting resources, my right hon. Friend must be satisfied that there has been adequate consultation and that, following any reductions, national standards of fire cover can continue to be maintained. In fulfilling this function, my right hon. Friend relies on advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire Services.

  Both my right hon. Friend and I are satisfied that the Essex Fire Authority has consulted properly over its proposals. There has also been opportunity for representations to be made direct to the Home Secretary and those seven which have been received have all been thoroughly considered.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how staff numbers in her Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48883]

  Clare Short
  On 1 May 1997 the Department for International Development employed 1,001 permanent staff and 38 casual staff. On 31 March 1998 the number of permanent staff increased by 53 to 1,054. Casual staff remained the same.

  Arms Sales (EU Code of Conduct)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on discussions her Department has had with(a) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) the Department of Trade and Industry, regarding the implementation of the EU code of conduct on arms sales. [48870]

  Clare Short
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office leads in Whitehall on the EU Code of Conduct. My Department participates in the ongoing discussions on implementation of the Code with all relevant government departments, including the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contingency plans her Department is making in the event of the failure of computer systems to recognise the year 2000; when she expects them to be in place, and tested; and if she will make a statement. [48839]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) is working on making its business critical computer systems year 2000 compliant. The testing of the systems will start in September and is due to be completed by end-March 1999. The testing will be subject to Internal Audit certification. The outcome of the testing will provide DF1D business managers the opportunity to decide on the degree and extent of
  353
  contingency arrangements that need to be made for their own systems. An earlier start to contingency planning would be premature and possibly nugatory.

  Rwanda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 21 May 1998,Official Report, column 460, what decision was made regarding Rwanda's debt relief package on 2 and 3 June; and if she will make a statement. [48912]

  Clare Short
  The donors meeting held in Stockholm on 2–3 June established a "Multilateral Debt Trust Fund" designed to help meet Rwanda's debt service to multilateral creditors in the pre-HIPC period. An amount of US$53 million is needed for this for the period 1998–2000. The UK pledged £30 million. We are discussing with the Government of Rwanda what proportion of this should go to the Trust Fund.

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what targets are set for the proportion of Commonwealth Development Corporation investment that is used for small and medium businesses. [48868]

  Clare Short
  No formal targets are set. Finance is provided for small and medium business through financial intermediaries such as venture capital funds, leasing companies, development banks, finance companies and commercial banks. At the end of 1997 the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) had £341 million invested in such sectors and would expect to maintain a substantial commitment.

  Lomé Convention
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress made on the EU negotiating mandate for Lomé V. [48867]

  Clare Short
  The General Affairs Council adopted the EU mandate for negotiation of a new Partnership with those African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) party to the Lomé Convention on 29 June. The mandate focuses on the elimination of poverty, the integration of the ACP into the world economy, and promoting peace, security and stability. On development assistance, the UK succeeded in strengthening the mandate to secure stronger backing for the international poverty eradication strategy and targets. On trade, we secured agreement to duty free access for essentially all products from least developed countries by 2005. We also secured a commitment that the non-least developed countries in the ACP who do not join Free Trade Areas with the EU should retain access equivalent to that provided under Lomé IV after 2005. This provides a good basis for negotiations with the ACP which are due to open at the end of September.

DEFENCE

  Defence Exhibitions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution(a) financially, and (b) in terms of UK armed forces personnel his Department will be making to the 1999 Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition. [48497]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department will support the new Defence Systems and Equipment International exhibition both financially and through the participation of UK Service personnel. The extent of our involvement in both areas is still under discussion with the exhibition organisers and the Defence Trade Associations. However, on the financial side, it is intended that our contribution will be limited to aspects of the exhibition which are directly related to MOD interests. These will include the costs of a Ministry of Defence presence and the funding of a reception for official visitors invited by Her Majesty's Government. In terms of Service personnel, a number of officers will be employed to assist, principally in managing the Government to Government invited delegations. We also hope that the Army will be able to provide equipment and personnel to take part in a mobility demonstration.

  Trident Submarines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of nuclear warheads carried in each Trident submarine; and if he will make a statement. [47198]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We will make clear our decisions on this issue when we announce the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that missile performance characteristics will be the primary criteria for the selection of a missile for the Eurofighter 2000 aircraft to meet Air Staff Target 1239. [47805]

  Mr. Spellar
  We will be seeking the best value for money in selecting a Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile for Eurofighter. All relevant factors will be taken into account, including missile capability, technical risk, cost, and industrial factors.

  Territorial Army (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the cadet forces in Shropshire associated with Territorial Army battalions. [47680]

  Dr. Reid
  Final decisions on the Strategic Defence Review will be announced this week but we have already made it plain that we plan no reduction in numbers or resources of the Cadet Forces. Every effort will be made to minimise the impact on the cadets of other measures arising from the Review.

  Naval Surface Vessels
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what type and how many naval surface vessels will require to be decommissioned in 1998. [48180]

  Dr. Reid
  The following Royal Navy vessels have been or will be, decommissioned in 1998:

  Vessel

  Month

  HMS Itchen

  February 1998

  HMS Spey

  May 1998

  HMS Blackwater

  May 1998

  HMS Arun

  July 1998

  These are all River Class patrol vessels.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A) fuel types and (B) engine cubic capacities; and how many vehicles are expected to fall due for replacement in each of the years (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01. [49229]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally by the Department. This is a complex question as the fleet is large and responsibilities are delegated to individual budget holders, and would involve disproportionate cost.

  South Atlantic Frigate
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the future role of the South Atlantic frigate. [49144]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In the course of the Strategic Defence Review, I have discussed the Falkland Islands Guardship with fellow members of the Government. I have not received any other representations on this issue.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 7, when it was decided to assign the 1 Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the 1 Battalion The Black Watch to public duties in Scotland during the summer of 1999; if this represents a change from previous plans; and what were the defence considerations involved in the decision. [48804]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The decision to assign the 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the 1st Battalion The Black Watch to public duties in Scotland during the summer of 1999 was made at a routine planning conference which took place in Scotland about a year ago. This did not represent a change from previous plans. Such planning decisions take into account the Army's operational commitments, the need for units to perform essential military tasks such as training, and the need to provide each unit with the opportunity to fulfil a variety of different defence roles.

  Salisbury Plain and Otterburn Training Areas
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size of(a) Salisbury Plain training area and (b) Otterburn training area; and what proportion of each is available for military training. [48676]

  Dr. Reid
  Salisbury Plain Training Area contains some 38,000 hectares of land, of which up to 80 per cent. can be available for military training. Otterburn Training Area contains some 23,000 hectares, of which 95 per cent. is available for military training.

  Missile Training
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the contribution to the UK national interest of training the army in the use of the AS90 mobile gun and the multiple-launch rocket system on new infrastructure at Otterburn army field training centre. [48675]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department's requirement for Army training in the use of the artillery systems, AS90 and Multiple-Launch Rocket System (MLRS), and its proposals for development of the Otterburn Training Area to that end, were fully set out in evidence to the non-statutory public inquiry into the proposed development which concluded last September. I am satisfied that there remains a strong defence need for the development at Otterburn in order to permit units equipped with these systems to be properly trained.

PRIME MINISTER

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the focus group work he has commissioned in the course of his official duties, indicating the cost in each case. [45460]

  The Prime Minister
  Neither I nor my staff in 10 Downing Street have commissioned any research by focus groups. The position on research by the Cabinet Office (which included my office) was set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 5 March 1998,Official Report, columns 763–65.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will direct Ministers to place in the Library a copy of focus group work undertaken on behalf of their departments or the executive agencies for which they are responsible, indicating the cost in each case. [45461]

  The Prime Minister
  It is for individual Ministers to decide whether to publish the results of research.

  Mr. Lance Price
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister when he first received the application from Mr. Lance Price for the position of his deputy press spokesman; on what dates interviews were conducted with Mr. Price; and on what date the decision was taken to employ Mr. Price. [46445]
  357
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: As has been the case with all Special Adviser appointments, Mr. Price's appointment was made fully in accordance with paragraph 48 of the Ministerial Code.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings have taken place between Government Ministers and their Pakistani counterparts since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [48183]

  The Prime Minister
  We have had a number of discussions with the Pakistan High Commission in London and with other representatives of the Pakistan Government. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) met the Prime Minister of Pakistan in London on 16 June.

  Constitutional Reform
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of a wholly elected second chamber; and if he will make a statement. [48031]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will publish their proposals for fulfilling their Manifesto commitments on the reform of the House of Lords in due course.

  EU Presidency (Costs)
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total cost to the Government of hosting the presidency of the EU, including the cost of publicity for each Government department, broken down by department and item. [48082]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Final bills for FCO-led Presidency events (including the European Council) are not in. On current projections, the outturn will be within the figure given in a reply by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on 27 February 1998, Official Report, column 386.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 1998,Official Report, column 313, if the telegrams from Sierra Leone relating to Sandline were copied to No. 10 Downing Street. [48017]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: I refer to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the House during the debate on 18 May 1998, Official Report, columns 604–11, in which he announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. He intends to publish the report of the investigation.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the precise number of letters he has received from National Health Service physiotherapists against the staging of the current year's pay award. [48177]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: Since the publication of the Report of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine in January, my office has received 147,849 items of correspondence from members of the public. Of these 1,100 were copies of a standard campaign letter on the subject of staging the pay award for physiotherapists and other professions allied to medicine. 46 other letters on this subject were also received.

  Rural Affairs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to create a Ministry of Rural Affairs. [48796]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 25 February 1998, Official Report, column 252.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contingency plans his Department is making in the event of the failure of computer systems to recognise the year 2000; when he expects them to be in place, and tested; and if he will make a statement. [48849]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The FCO is replacing its core office automation system with millennium compliant systems. Other non-compliant systems are being corrected or replaced. All FCO business-critical computer systems will be year 2000 compliant by September 1999.

  All FCO operational units, both at home and overseas, are being asked to prepare contingency plans for the continuation of business in the event of any internal or external computer system failure. It is intended that these will be in place by 30 June 1999.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how staff numbers in his Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48871]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 1 April 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employed 5,595 UK-based staff (including 56 casuals) counted as full-time equivalents. Its agency, Wilton Park, employed 35 staff (no casuals) on the same basis. At 1 April 1998 the equivalent figures were 5,493 (including 81 casuals) and 38 (including 1 casual) respectively. So the number of staff employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office decreased by 102 between 1 April 1997 and 1 April 1998 and the number of staff employed by the Wilton Park agency increased by 3 during the same period.

  Mr. Roderick Henderson
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress of the French authorities in their investigation of the death in Paris of Mr. Roderick Henderson. [48887]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Examining Magistrate in charge of the investigation has confirmed that police officers are working full-time on the case. Progress in the investigation is slow as witnesses to the attack have not come forward and the French police have few leads to follow. One witness who did come forward subsequently moved address and has not yet been traced.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many meetings with the French authorities officials of the British Embassy have raised the investigation into the death in Paris of Mr. Roderick Henderson; at what levels the matter has been raised; and if he will list the meetings concerned. [48888]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Two formal meetings have been held. The Deputy Head of our Embassy in Paris raised the matter with the Diplomatic Adviser to the Interior Minister on 21 April. The Consul-General met the Examining Magistrate in charge of the case on 29 April. Our consular staff in Paris speak regularly on the telephone to French officials and to Mrs. Henderson's French lawyers about the investigation into the death of Mr. Henderson. We will continue to press the French authorities to do all they can to bring Mr. Henderson's murderer to justice.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he or his Ministers have had with(a) Ministers and (b) officials of the French Government at which the investigation into the death in Paris of Mr. Roderick Henderson has been raised. [48865]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The matter has not been raised at Ministerial level, but we are active in pressing the French authorities to do all they can to bring Mr. Henderson's murderer to justice.

  Falkland Islands
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of oil revenue taxation from oil fields off the Falkland Islands will accrue to(a) the Falkland Islands authority and (b) the Treasury; and what the statutory or other basis is for this arrangement. [48343]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Any oil revenues will accrue to the Falkland Islands Government. I discussed revenue sharing, should oil be found, with the Falkland Islands Councillors during a visit to the Islands in April. I welcomed their generous offer made in 1994 to share revenues from oil production with HMG and we agreed that we should now discuss arrangements for this in a spirit of cooperation and partnership.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what degree of autonomy the authorities in the Falkland Islands have in fiscal matters. [48342]
  360
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Under Section 61 of the Constitution of the Falkland Islands, fiscal matters fall under the responsibility of the Governor as advised by the Islands Executive Council.

  Dependent Territories
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if British citizenship will be offered to citizens of dependent territories on a non-reciprocal basis. [49148]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The question of whether and on what basis British citizenship might be offered to the Overseas Territories which do not currently have it is still under consideration. No final decisions have been taken yet.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the results of the Dependent Territories Review will be published. [49146]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Some key issues relevant to the Review and White Paper are still being discussed. Until these are resolved, it is not possible to give a date for publication.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many residents of dependent territories are holders of British Dependent Territory passports. [49149]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Approximately 99,950 residents of the Overseas Territories either hold or are eligible for British Dependent Territories passports.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which dependent territories requested British citizenship for their populations, as part of the Dependent Territories Review. [49147]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  All the populated Overseas Territories, with the exception of the Falklands and Gibraltar, which already have access to British citizenship, have expressed an interest in this proposal.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many residents of dependent territories are holders of(a) passports other than British Dependent Territory passports and (b) British passports. [49150]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Approximately 55,700 residents of the Overseas Territories are holders of passports other than British Dependent Territory passports or British passports. Approximately 35,380 residents of the Overseas Territories are holders of British passports.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Blackwall Tunnel Emissions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) by what means the Blackwall Tunnel ventilation system will emit air into the roof of the Millennium Dome; [48134]

  (2) how visitors to the Millennium Dome will be notified of emissions from the Blackwall Tunnel ventilation system; [48142]
  361
  (3) how the atmosphere within the Millennium Dome will be monitored for pollution levels; [48139]

  (4) at what level of emission from the Blackwall Tunnel ventilation system the warning system would be activated within the Millennium Dome; [48137]

  (5) how emissions from the Blackwall Tunnel ventilation system are released into the atmosphere; [48141]

  (6) under what circumstances the Blackwall Tunnel ventilation system will be activated; [48143]

  (7) what plans there are for the evacuation of the Millennium Dome in the case of high levels of emission from the Blackwall Tunnel ventilation system; [48140]

  (8) by what means the Blackwall Tunnel ventilation system will be activated. [48133]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Dome is entirely separate from the ventilation shaft and there is no prospect of pollutants transferring from one to the other. The ventilation fans draw air through the tunnel to ensure appropriate air quality levels in the tunnel. The fans increase in speed as pollutant levels in the tunnel reach pre-determined thresholds. During the Dome's construction, the increase in fan speeds is accompanied by a warning sound. This is simply to inform construction workers, who may be overhead, that the noise generated by the fans is about to change. Contingency plans and procedures are in place for emergency incidents arising in either the tunnel or the Dome.

  Millennium Experience (Logo)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) if he will make a statement on the process by which the logo for the New Millennium Experience was chosen; what consideration was given to the use of a male figure; and if the figure chosen was designed specifically for the project; [45390]

  (2) what is the cost of the logo for the New Millennium Experience; and who was responsible for choosing it; [45389]

  Board/Trust

  Number of Time reviews

  Time

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  2

  4 months

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  Royal Alexandra NHS Trust

  5

  97 days/ 111 days/ 108 days/ 98 days/ 118 days

  Inverclyde Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  2

  119 days/ 46 days

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2

  25 days/ 65 days

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  8 40

  40days/ 32 days/ 42 days/ 41 days/ 44 days/ 49 days/ 54 days/ 29 days

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  2

  24 weeks/ 24 weeks

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2

  56.5 days

  Borders Health Board

  4

  8–27 weeks

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity

  1

  4 months

  Hospitals NHS Trust

  Fife Health Board

  10

  7–46 weeks (1 yet to report)

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  3

  3 weeks

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1

  yet to report

  362
  (3) which projects Mr. Martin Lambie-Nairn is currently working on for the New Millennium Experience. [45423]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The logo, which is part of a wider brand identity reflecting the central role of the Millennium Experience in the UK's millennium celebrations and supporting the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) sponsorship and commercial income strategies, was selected by the Company following a competitive process. During that process, Mr. Martin Lambie-Nairn presented proposals for branding and identity which incorporated designs for a logo by the artist Mark Reddy. The logo was designed specifically for the Millennium Experience.

  NMEC's Board considered that Mr. Lambie-Nairn's proposals best met their criteria for a brand identity for the Millennium Experience and awarded Mr. Lambie-Nairn's company a contract worth up to £250,000. This contract covers the development and application of the identity across the project (both the Dome and the associated National Programme of events and activities); corporate style (for example printed material and merchandise branding); and advising on the design language used on the Dome site (for example, signing and visitor information). Within this contract, Mr. Reddy's design work cost £50,000.

SCOTLAND

  Health Service (Review Panels)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many independent review panels have investigated matters relating to the NHS in Scotland in the last five years; and what was the average length of time each took to produce its report. [46788]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: Information on the numbers of reports from independent review panels convened under the current NHS complaints procedure (introduced on 1 April 1996) to date and the length of time of production of reports is given in the table.
  363

  Board/Trust

  Number of reviews

  Time

  Forth Valley Health Board

  5

  31–62 weeks (2 yet to report)

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  14 weeks

  Grampian Health Board

  2

  15 months/ 6 months

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  3

  1 month/ 11 months/ 8 months

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  4

  3 months/ 5 months/ 1 month/ unfinished

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  4

  48 weeks/ 25 weeks/ 22 weeks/ 38 weeks

  Glasgow Community and Mental Health

  1

  4 months

  Service NHS Trust

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  1

  15 months

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  2

  153 days/ began March 97 not completed

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  3

  average for the 3 is 118 days

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  1

  12 weeks

  Highland Health Board

  2

  7 week/3 months

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  2

  69 days/ 86 days

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  3

  9 months/ unfinished/ unfinished

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  —

  —

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  1

  62 days

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  108 days

  Lothian Health Board

  11

  8–16 weeks (4 yet to report)

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  1

  30 weeks

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  3

  12–36 weeks

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  1

  ongoing

  Orkney Health Board

  —

  —

  Shetland Health Board

  1

  9 weeks

  Tayside Health Board

  14

  21–56 weeks (4 ongoing)

  Angus NHS Trust

  1

  ongoing

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  8

  15 weeks (2 ongoing)

  Perth and Kinross NHS Trust

  1

  29 weeks

  Western Isles Health Board

  —

  —

  Respiratory System Disease
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) consultations there were between doctors and GPs in 1997, (b) how many of those consultations were for asthma and (c) how many were for other respiratory system diseases, excluding influenza. [47973]

  Mr. Galbraith
  In 1997 GPs referred 1,034,767 patients to other doctors for outpatient consultations. Of these, 15,284 were referrals to respiratory medicine consultants. The number of cases of asthma is not available.

  78,853 patients were admitted to hospital with respiratory diseases as the main diagnosis (excluding influenza). Of these 8,563 had asthma.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each month in 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98(a) capital expenditure and (b) revenue expenditure on the NHS in Scotland. [47972]

  Mr. Galbraith
  As required by the rules of Government Accounting, payments to health bodies are made by way of advances from suspence accounts. Expenditure is therefore debited to the vote account only 364
  once the exact amount is reported to the Scottish Office, which can be up to 2 months after the date of the actual expenditure. The information held by the Scottish Office is not therefore a reliable indicator of the monthly expenditure by the NHS in Scotland. The net annual audited expenditure for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 is set out in the table. Estimated outturn information is provided for 1997–98 as audited expenditure is not yet available.

  £million

  Year

  Revenue expenditure

  Capital expenditure

  Total

  1994–95

  3,922

  38

  3,960

  1995–96

  4,090

  -7

  4,083

  1996–97

  4,226

  16

  4,242

  1997–98

  4,421

  -5

  4,416

  The capital expenditure provided in the table relates to direct capital expenditure by Health Boards net of capital receipts. In 1995–96 and 1997–98 income from the sale of land and buildings was greater than expenditure on capital. Capital expenditure by NHS Trusts is funded from the revenue income they receive from Health Boards and by loans from the Scottish Office.

  Hypothermia
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each month in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 the number of admissions to hospital from people suffering from hypothermia. [47971]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The number of inpatient and day case discharges from acute NHS hospitals in Scotland where a diagnosis of hypothermia was recorded in each month in 1994, 1995 and 1996 is given in the table.

  Number of inpatient and day case discharges where a diagnosis of hypothermia1 was recorded

  Year/month admitted

  Number of discharges

  1994

  January

  53

  February

  49

  March

  45

  April

  25

  May

  17

  June

  16

  July

  6

  August

  11

  September

  20

  October

  20

  November

  28

  December

  45

  Total 1994

  335

  1995

  January

  40

  February

  51

  March

  36

  April

  23

  May

  21

  June

  9

  July

  17

  August

  11

  September

  16

  October

  20

  November

  26

  December

  87

  Total 1995

  357

  1996

  January

  53

  February

  23

  March

  46

  April

  21

  May

  20

  June

  20

  July

  24

  August

  9

  September

  25

  October

  28

  November

  42

  December

  58

  Total 1996

  369

  1Accidental hypothermia—cases selected from relevant codes based on the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revisions (ICD9 and ICD10 respectively): the codes used were ICD9 991.6; ICD10 T68

  Source:

  ISD Scotland, SMR1/SMR01

  Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the minutes of meetings of the Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group since its incorporation in September 1995. [47991]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group was set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1974. The Group provides a forum for representatives of the offshore oil and fishing industries to exchange information on matters concerning both industries so that each may carry out its operations with minimum interference to the other.

  Copies of all minutes of Group meetings held since September 1995 will be placed in the Library.

  Government Policies
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the projects undertaken by his Department since 1 May 1997 to research public reaction to(a) Government policies and (b) potential new policies; and if he will place the results of the research in the Library. [46689]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: In line with the practice of successive Administrations, the Department routinely consults the public, interested parties and client groups by way of White Papers and consultation papers on a wide range of policies and proposed legislation. I have therefore confined my reply to major exercises. It is our normal practice to place the results of the consultations in the Library where appropriate.
  Scotland's Parliament White Paper Cm3658 The Scottish Compact: a consultation document setting out the underlying principles of the relationship between government and the voluntary sector in Scotland Your views on how the Scottish Parliament should work Special Educational Needs in Scotland: a discussion paper Scottish Water Industry Review Crime and Disorder Bill: Scottish consultation paper on Community Protection Orders Health, social work and related services for mentally disordered offenders in Scotland Independent Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament Apparent insolvency: a consultation paper on amending the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.

  City Status
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria are used in Scotland to award city status to towns; and when the last applications for such an award were made. [48490]

  Mr. McLeish
  There are no settled criteria for the award of city status to towns in Scotland. There has been no such award since Dundee was given city status in 1889. Any further award would be a matter for Her Majesty The Queen acting under the Royal Prerogative on the advice of the Government of the day. I am not aware of any application for such an award in recent times, although inquiries were made on behalf of Paisley in 1991 and Inverness in 1996.

  Registered Schools
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set a timescale within which schools which fall to be registered under section 61 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, as amended by section 34 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, must submit applications to the registration authority after being notified by that authority of the need to register.[48448]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The amendment to the 1968 Act by the 1995 Act brought a number of additional schools within the registration provisions. Registration of these schools was not required until 1 April 1997 and schools had adequate opportunity to submit applications. As it is unlawful to run a registrable residential establishment which is not registered, setting a time-scale would not be appropriate. It is for local authorities to take action if applications are not submitted.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contingency plans his Department is making in the event of the failure of computer systems to recognise the year 2000; when he expects them to be in place, and tested; and if he will make a statement. [48842]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Office is currently producing quarterly Year 2000 compliance activity reports which include information on contingency planning. These reports are published on the Internet and place in the Library of the House of Commons. The Scottish Office is currently working towards achieving tested Year 2000 compliance on all critical systems by the end of December 1998, with contingency arrangements which are appropriate to the perceived risks remaining being put into place in the course of 1999.

  Charges
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the powers local government, Scottish Office agencies and quangos have to impose charges, together with the acts conferring those powers. [48340]

  Mr. Dewar
  Local authorities and other public bodies make a wide range of charges for various services, under different statutory powers. A full list of the charges and their statutory basis could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average percentage pay increase in further and higher education colleges for(a) teaching staff, (b) administrative staff and (c) the board of directors in the years (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [48347]

  Mr. Wilson
  Pay settlements are the responsibility of individual colleges' Boards of Management. Information on individual annual pay settlements is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase local representation on the boards of further and higher education colleges. [48345]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 already requires that the Board of Management of a368
  further education college should be fully representative of local interests. Its membership must include the Principal of the college, two staff and one student representatives, a person nominated by the local enterprise company and others with an interest in the work of the college.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to return further and higher education colleges to local control. [48358]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to return further education colleges to local authority control. Each college is now managed by a Board of Management whose members represent various local interests.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent advice he has given to the boards of further and higher education colleges on pay settlements for(a) teaching staff, (b) administrative staff and (c) the board of directors. [48346]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 1993 the further education colleges became autonomous bodies and each college's Board of Management assumed full responsibility for pay settlements in respect of college staff. Board Members themselves are unpaid. My right hon. Friend has not issued advice on pay settlements.

  Litter Acts
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 271, on the Litter Act, how many persons were arrested and charged under the Litter Act 1958, the Litter Act 1983 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in each year since 1983; and if he will indicate what the total amount of fines levied each year since 1983 would be at 1998–99 prices. [48508]

  Mr. McLeish
  The available information is given in the table. Separate information is not readily available on the amount of fiscal fines imposed or on the number of persons arrested and charged by the police.

  Offences recorded by the police and the total amount of fine levied where the main offence is an offence under the Litter Act 1983 or related legislation1 by the courts in Scotland 1983–1997

  Year

  Number of offences recorded by the police

  Total amount of fines levied by Scottish courts at 19972 prices (£)

  1983

  559

  7,682

  1984

  512

  8,537

  1985

  610

  9,848

  1986

  554

  11,337

  1987

  627

  9,436

  1988

  539

  12,758

  1989

  656

  10,828

  1990

  644

  8,325

  1991

  521

  5,863

  1992

  445

  3,730

  1993

  364

  2,703

  1994

  357

  2,984

  1995

  283

  1,569

  1996

  409

  1,300

  1997

  589

  n/a

  1The figures shown include offences under any of the following acts: Litter Act 1958, Litter Act 1983 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (sections 87(1), 88(1), 91(9), 92(6) and 94(9) only)

  2Indexed to 1997 prices using the general index of the retail prices index

  Health Service Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the estimated costs of the Government's plans to reduce Scottish NHS waiting lists in the years(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [48458]

  Mr. Galbraith
  £44.5 million of extra funding has been made available to the NHS in Scotland in 1998–99 specifically to drive down waiting lists and waiting times. The additional funding has been made available on a recurrent basis to achieve sustained reductions in waiting lists. No decisions have been made on funding for the year 1999–2000.

  Fines
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the powers local government, Scottish Office agencies and quangos have to impose fines, together with the acts conferring those powers. [48341]

  Mr. Dewar
  Fines are imposed on those convicted of criminal offences by the courts, and a full list of the statutory offences which are punishable by fines could be completed only at disproportionate cost.

  Class Sizes
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the estimated costs of reducing class sizes to under 30 for all pupils in primaries 1,2 and 3 in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [48349]

  Mr. Wilson
  Detailed cost estimates are not available. The Government are committed to reducing class sizes to a maximum of 30 pupils in the first three years of primary education by August 2001. I recently announced the allocation to local authorities of £4 million this year to enable them to take early action towards meeting this target. The need for further resources for 1999/2000 and beyond is being considered in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review and in the light of advice received from joint working with COSLA and a number of local authorities. Further detailed guidance about cost estimates and plans will be made available to authorities as soon as possible.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on the New Deal programme to get 18 to 25 year olds back to work in the year 1997–98; and what are the estimated costs for(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [48510]

  Mr. Wilson
  The provisional amount spent on the New Deal for young people (18–24 year olds) in Scotland for 1997–98 is £1.5 million. A final figure will be available by the end of August. The New Deal is financed from the receipts of the Windfall Tax on the privatised utilities. Expenditure is planned over the duration of the Parliament and unspent resources in any single year are available for spending on the New Deal in future years.

  The estimated cost for 1998–99 is £59 million and for 1999–2000 is £67 million. The New Deal is demand led and actual provision for any particular year will be decided in the light of the level of unemployment and experience gained in running the New Deal.

  Health Service
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the estimated savings from reducing management and administrative costs in the Scottish NHS in the years(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [48462]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The estimated savings from reducing management and administrative costs for 1998–99 are £8 million and in 1999–2000 will be £22 million.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when officials were first notified that the consignment of nuclear material from Georgia included(a) weapons-grade and (b) low-grade nuclear material; who provided the details of the low-grade nuclear material in the consignment; on which dates each minister in each department was informed by her officials that the Georgian consignment contained low-grade nuclear material; which public bodies were informed of the presence of the low-grade material; and on what dates. [46245]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported in his answer of 18 June 1998, Official Report, column 314, officials were notified in July 1997 that the Georgian Government would agree to the removal of all the remaining nuclear material in Georgia. The particular focus at the time was on the unirradiated and irradiated highly enriched uranium. The technical information relating to the probable nature of the consignment was among detailed documents received from US officials in February 1998 in the course of a meeting on security and transport issues. These details were passed promptly to technical specialists at Dounreay so that they could make all necessary preparations for the receipt and safekeeping of the Georgian material.

  Due to a breakdown of communications between technical specialists and DTI policy officials, Ministers were first informed that the consignment contained low-enriched uranium on 5 June and the information was notified to the House on 10 June 1998, Official Report, columns 594–95.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the report, the Social and Economic Effects of Dounreay's Projected Programme of Work, 1995–2005, prepared by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, in September 1995, prior to the decision on Dounreay announced on 5 June 1998,Official Report, columns 385–86. [45773]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]: Nothing is more important than safety in the operation of nuclear licensed sites. Within this overriding requirement, the decision to accept no new commercial reprocessing at Dounreay was taken on economic grounds after receiving advice from UKAEA. Before making its recommendations to my Department, UKAEA has taken into account all relevant information they have produced, including any the report referred to may contain. UKAEA have also assured me that there will be no sudden major job losses resulting from the Government announcement on 5 June. As the

  371
  reprocessing plants at Dounreay complete their work, most of the staff attached to them will be required for their decommissioning, which will continue for many years. Taken together with other important investments at Dounreay, including the remediation of the waste shaft there, it is unlikely that employment at Dounreay will decline significantly over the next few decades.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how far into the decommissioning timetable the United Kingdom will be able to fulfil its treaty obligations in relation to the reprocessing of nuclear material at Dounreay. [47718]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty requires Member States to provide to the European Commission certain data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste. The Commission then has six months in which to deliver its opinion on the plan. In relation to the decommissioning of the Dounreay reprocessing plants, we shall take the necessary steps to comply with our Treaty obligation when the UKAEA have a firm and detailed plan for the disposal of the radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the existing commercial reprocessing contracts which remain to be carried out at Dounreay. [47758]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The fuel cycle area at Dounreay has signed commercial contracts outstanding for fuel fabrication, fissile material recovery, and reprocessing. I have written to the Chairman of the UKAEA requesting him to prepare the information that can be made public and to seek the agreement of their commercial customers. His reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the Prime Minister's reply of 25 June 1998,Official Report, column 598, if, during the meeting in Washington on 24 February, her Department's officials and their security advisers were informed of the US Government's wish to transport to Dounreay the additional quantity of 9kg of low-enriched uranium; and if she will make a statement. [48929]

  Mr. Battle
  At the meeting in Washington on 24 February, technical information on the probable nature of the consignment was among the documents received from US officials. The exact amount and type of material in the Georgian consignment could be confirmed only once it had all been unloaded and checked at Dounreay. The precise quantities were given in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 10 June 1998,Official Report, column 598.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the(a) country and (b) establishment of origin of the nine kilograms of low-enriched uranium included in the shipment of nuclear material from Georgia to Dounreay; if it was contained in the same flight as the highly enriched uranium and spent fuel rods from Tbilisi; from which airfield it left the former USSR for its destination at Kinloss; at what exact time and date it arrived at Kinloss; and if she will make a statement. [48928]
  372
  Mr. Battle
  The low-enriched uranium included in the consignment of nuclear material from Georgia to Dounreay came from the same research institute at Tbilisi in Georgia as the high-enriched uranium. All the nuclear material arrived in one American transport aircraft which departed from the airport at Tbilisi in Georgia on 23 April, flew directly to the UK, and landed at Kinloss at 0206 GMT on 24 April.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many flights were required to transport the recent consignment of nuclear material from Georgia to Kinloss; how many cargo aeroplanes flew from Georgia to Kinloss during April; what were the contents of each of these aeroplanes; at what exact times and dates the aeroplanes landed at Kinloss; and if she will make a statement. [48927]

  Mr. Battle
  One American military transport aircraft, a Galaxy C5, was used to fly all the nuclear material in the Georgian consignment to Kinloss. It arrived at Kinloss at 0206 GMT on 24 April. A second American Galaxy C5, containing specialised handling equipment to assist with unloading the containers at the Dounreay site, arrived at Kinloss at 1547 GMT on 25 April.

  Export Control Orders
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if exports of equipment relating to satellite or satellite-related technology and communications or civil space technology and communications are covered by the export control orders. [46482]

  Mrs. Roche
  The export of a range of goods and technology related to satellites and space-launch vehicles is controlled under many of the entries in Categories 7 and 9 of Annexe 1 to European Union Council Decision 94/942/CFSP. The export of communications-related goods and technology is controlled under entries in Category 5 of Annexe 1. Other entries in the export control legislation may also be relevant, for instance in export of military satellites may be controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended (the so-called `Military List').

  Other exports may be controlled under the End-Use Control in Article 4 of EC Council regulation 3381/94 on the export of dual-use goods.

  Copies of the relevant legislation are available in the Library of the House.

  Post Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sums the Post Office has indicated to her it wishes to invest in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02.[47519]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The Post Office has indicated provisionally that it wishes to undertake capital investment of between £450 million and £550 million in each of the three years.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when her Department plans to review the number of post offices able to issue(a) vehicle excise licences, (b) passports and (c) game licences. [49103]
  373
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Decisions on the number of post offices able to issue motor vehicle licences and passport application forms are the responsibility respectively of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the United Kingdom Passport Agency. I understand from the Post Office that game licences issued on behalf of the Home Office and the Scottish Office are available at those post offices at which there is a demand for them.

  Power Generation (South-east England)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 18 June 1998,Official Report, column 321, (1) if he will publish the National Grid Company's advice to him detailing the benefits of black start capacity in relation to the security of supply for London and the South East; [48190]

  (2) on power generation, if she will place in the Library a copy of the National Grid Company letter to her on the benefits of black start capacity in relation to the security of supply for London and the South-East. [48673]

  Mr. Battle
  It would plainly be impractical for the Secretary of State to publish every piece of advice or representation she receives, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the correspondent wishes the document to be made public. In this case, I understand the National Grid Company is only too happy to provide a copy direct to the hon. Member.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made as part of the energy review of the potential for offshore windpower generation. [47783]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 2 July 1998, Official Report,column 237.

  Power Generation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the environmental criteria applied to the recent energy review. [47775]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to Chapter 4 (paragraphs 15–19) and Chapter 5 (paragraphs 19–23) of the consultation document on the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation, published on 25 June 1998.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she intends to adopt to promote increased competition in the electricity generation market. [48313]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: I refer my hon. Friend to Chapter 4 of the consultation document on the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation, published on 25 June 1998

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the public registers which her Department has responsibility for. [47346]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: The following are the public registers for which my Department is responsible, including its Executive Agencies and other bodies:

  Register of Companies (Companies House)

  Register of Designs, Patents, Trade Marks, Patent Agents, and Trade Mark Agents (Patent Office)

  Register of applications, appeals, and decisions (Office of Employment Tribunals)

  Register of Agreements (Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements)

  Register of Coal Licences (Coal Authority)

  Registers kept by the Director General OFTEL

  The Consumer Credit Public Register (Director General of Fair Trading)

  The Estate Agents Public Register (Director General of Fair Trading).

  Defence and Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps her Department has taken to ensure that UK companies compete on equal terms for contracts in European national defence and aerospace markets; [48192]

  (2) what steps her Department has taken to assist UK firms in the restructuring of the UK and European defence and aerospace industry; [48194]

  (3) if she will ensure that all Government contracts affecting UK defence and aerospace companies are awarded within Europe solely on criteria of price, performance, quality and time scale. [48193]

  Mr. Battle
  Following the trilateral statement by the Heads of Government of the UK, Germany, and France on 9 December, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I, and my officials, have held many discussions with the aerospace and defence industry, and with Ministers from other countries in support of the European industry's efforts to restructure.

  I shall be meeting my industry Minister counterparts from five other European countries again in Paris on 9 July.

  I also liaise closely on these issues with the other departments which are involved in restructuring.

  We see the restructuring of the industry as vital to ensure that UK companies remain globally competitive, and we will seek to assist wherever possible. In carrying forward this work on restructuring, we shall certainly seek to promote fairness and transparency in procurement practices.

  Specific issues relating to Government procurement contracts for aerospace and defence equipment services are largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Export Control Organisation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the staff by grade in the Export Control Organisation on(a) 3 May 1997, (b) 1 January 1998 and (c) 3 May 1998. [48229]

  3 May 1997

  3 May 1997

  1 January 1998

  3 May 1998

  Senior Civil Service

  SCS=1

  SCS=1

  SCS=1

  Grade 6

  Range 11=1

  Range 11=1

  Range 11=2

  Grade 7

  Range 10=3

  Range 10=3

  Range 10=2

  Senior Executive Officer/Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  Range 9=12

  Range 9=14

  Range 9=14

  Higher Executive Officer/Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  Range 8=17

  Range 8=18

  Range 8=23

  Higher Executive Officer

  Range 7=4

  Range 7=5

  Range 7=5

  Executive Officer

  Range 6=15

  Range 6=13

  Range 6=14

  Executive Officer

  Range 5=2

  Range 5=4

  Range 5=4

  Administrative Officer

  Range 4=24

  Range 4=25

  Range 4=28

  Administrative Assistant

  Range 2=27

  Range 2=40

  Range 2=32

  Administrative Assistant

  Range 2/

  Range 2/

  Range 2/

  Data Processor=3

  Data Processor=4

  Data Processor=3

  Administrative Assistant

  Range 1=1

  Range 1=2

  Range 1=1

  Public Sector Contracts
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information her Department makes available to private companies regarding public sector contract opportunities; how this information is accessed by private companies; and if she will make a statement. [47855]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: Information on public sector contract opportunities is available on the internet on the 'Key Contacts' website, through the 'Government Opportunities' bulletin (published monthly) and 'Tendering for Government Contracts'. Certain contracts for goods and services above an EC £104,435 threshold are also advertised in the European Journal (OEJC).

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, column 499, for what reasons information relating to (a) reactor discharges and dispatches by site and (b) exports and imports of plutonium is no longer to be published; and where the details of amounts of plutonium held in the United Kingdom on behalf of foreign customers will now be published. [48919]

  Mr. Battle
  The publication of the figures which I announced on 2 June 1998,Official Report, column 162, are in the format agreed by the informal group of nine countries, as part of the international guidelines on the management of national holdings of civil plutonium. This is in a format which facilitates international comparisons on a consistent basis. Details of the amount of plutonium held in the United Kingdom belonging to foreign organisations are included amongst the figures published on 2 June 1998, Official Report, column 162.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department made of the impact on competition in the electricity generation market of proposed restrictions on the construction of gas-fired power stations. [48312]
  376
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: On 1 August 1997 my Department changed its staff grading structure, for ease of comparison the list of staff by grade at 3 May 1997 shows the old and new structure.

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: The proposed stricter consents policy would prevent existing distortions from prejudicing diversity and security of supply while the programme of competitive reforms is undertaken. To have continued to give the current distortions free rein would have damaged fair competition.

  Arms Trade
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals her Department has relating to the licensing of arms brokers' activities in the United Kingdom. [48860]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the White Paper on "Strategic Export Controls" (Cm 3989), the publication of which was announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 1 July 1998, Official Report, columns 211–13. Section 3.3 of the White Paper contains specific proposals to control the involvement of persons in the UK, or UK persons abroad in certain trafficking and brokering activities.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to encourage long-term planning within small and medium size enterprises. [48527]

  Mrs. Roche
  The network of Business Links now covers the whole country, providing local access to information and advice for all firms regardless of size. Personal business advisers in Business Links aim to build and maintain long-term relationships with small firms with growth potential, and help them develop and implement long-term plans.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new businesses were formed in(a) Coventry, (b) the West Midlands and (c) the United

  377
  Kingdom by people aged 18 to 24 years in the five years up to 1997; and how many of those failed in their first 12 months. [48526]

  Mrs. Roche
  The table shows the number of businesses registering for VAT each year 1992 to 1996, and the per cent. still trading 12 months later each year 1992 to 1995, the latest estimates available.

  Many of the smallest new businesses do not register for VAT. The percentage still trading 12 months later is not available for Coventry and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The age of business owners is not recorded on the VAT Register.

  Number of VAT registrations and per cent. still trading after 12 months, 1992–96

  Coventry

  West Midlands

  UK

  Businesses registering for VAT

  1992

  690

  15,839

  187,000

  1993

  668

  15,583

  191,000

  19941

  570

  13,665

  168,240

  1995

  575

  13,290

  163,960

  1996

  555

  13,295

  168,200

  Per cent. still trading after 12 months

  1992

  2—

  82.8

  83.4

  1993

  2—

  82.6

  83.6

  1994

  2—

  83.4

  84.6

  1995

  2—

  85.0

  87.3

  1996

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1A large increase in the VAT registration threshold in 1993 reduced the level of registrations from 1994 onwards

  2not available

  Source:

  DTI SME Statistics Unit

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Derbyshire Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place a copy in the Library of the business case of the Derbyshire Magistrates Courts Committee for reorganising the county's magistrates courts. [48130]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Outline Business Case, which has been prepared as a basis for inviting bids, contains information which is commercially confidential and is not being made public at this stage. Disclosure of specific details to bidders may affect the pricing of bids and the value for money which may be obtained. A full business case will be prepared, once negotiations with a preferred bidder have been concluded, as the basis for entering into a contract.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assumptions have been made on the disposal value of Swadlincote Magistrates Court and on the period it may be vacant and unsold. [48080]

  Mr. Hoon
  A value based on alternative use has been included in the Outline Business Case for the PFI project for Derbyshire magistrates courts. Financial details have not been published as this information is commercially confidential and disclosure may affect the pricing of the bids received and the value for money which may be 378
  obtained. Bidders are to be invited to make proposals for disposal of surplus courts where this improves value for money, in which case the risks of disposal would be transferred.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many licence applications and of what type were dealt with in Swadlincote Magistrates Court in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [48128]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not collect or hold information on the number and type of licence applications heard at magistrates courthouse level. The Justices' Chief Executive for the Derbyshire Magistrates Courts Committee has informed me that the number of licence applications for the Derby and South Derbyshire petty sessional division area, which includes the Swadlincote Court, were 2,319 in 1995–96 and 2,365 in 1996–97. These figures cannot be broken down by type.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the estimated cost of the investigation and preparation of the Private Finance Initiative for projects connected with Derbyshire magistrates courts. [48076]

  Mr. Hoon
  The estimated cost of advisers in the investigation and preparation of the Private Finance Initiative project involving Derbyshire magistrates courts is £490,000.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the estimated additional revenue cost of providing and resourcing 11 as against nine courts in Derby in the proposed reorganisation of the county's magistrates courts. [48078]

  Mr. Hoon
  The outline business case, which has been prepared by the Derbyshire Magistrates Courts Committee as a basis for inviting bids, includes costed options for providing either eleven or nine courtrooms in Derby. This information is commercially confidential and is not being made public at this stage. Disclosure of this detail to bidders may affect the pricing of bids and the value for money which may be obtained.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the operating cost of Swadlincote Magistrates Court in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [48079]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not collect or hold financial information at magistrates courthouse level. The Justices' Chief Executive for the Derbyshire Magistrates Courts Committee has informed me that it is not possible to identify separately the operating costs of the Swadlincote courthouse from the overall cost of the Derby and South Derbyshire petty sessional division of which it is a part.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements would be made to accommodate the local Probation Service and to provide its services in South Derbyshire, and at what cost should the proposed closure of Swadlincote Magistrates Court proceed. [48129]
  379
  Mr. Hoon
  The Home Office has responsibility for the Probation Service. Each individual Probation Committee is responsible for providing suitable accommodation to perform its functions and for decisions on their location.

  Derbyshire Magistrates Courts Committee has a statutory responsibility to provide an efficient and effective service for court users. It is for that Committee to decide the number and location of the courthouses it needs. On 18 May 1998, Derbyshire Magistrates Courts Committee determined that its future needs should be met with courthouses centred at four locations. To effect this, the Committee intends to retain one courthouse but provide three new premises as replacements for eleven of the existing magistrates courts, through the Private Finance Initiative scheme. Final timings for both the closures and the opening of new courts will be determined once the Private Finance Initiative project plan has been agreed. Current expectations are for the year 2000.

  Derbyshire County Council has exercised its right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor in accordance with section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. The closure of Swadlincote Magistrates Court is one aspect of the County Council's appeal, which is being heard now by consent of the two parties to aid the overall project.

  It is, therefore, inappropriate for me to comment at this stage on the closure of Swadlincote Magistrates Court.

  Courts (Access)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish his strategy for the distribution of and provision of access to magistrates, crown, county and high court centres; and if he will make a statement. [49129]

  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates courts in their area are for the relevant MCC to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

  The Court Service Agency is responsible for all civil and the higher criminal courts. It keeps court accommodation under constant review. In relation to the civil courts the Lord Chancellor is considering how and when the current changes in the working methods and procedures might create opportunities for better use of resources whilst maintaining similar or improved levels of facilities and services. No major changes to the current number or distribution of criminal centres are planned.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria in respect of the public's travelling time, distance and cost he takes into account when considering the closure of any court. [49126]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no specific cost or time thresholds which need to be breached before a closure proposal would be refused. Whilst distance and cost are important considerations, public facilities at the courts,380
  waiting times, workload levels, and the overall standard of service which can be made available over the area as a whole also need to be taken into account.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A) fuel types and (B) engine cubic capacities; and how many vehicles are expected to fall due for replacement in each of the years (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01. [49224]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Leased vehicles

  The Court Service

  Fuel

  Petrol

  36

  Diesel

  570

  Engine cc

  1200

  1

  1300

  1

  1400

  4

  1600

  16

  1700

  39

  1800

  366

  1900

  152

  2000

  22

  2100

  1

  2200

  3

  2500

  1

  Replacement date

  1998–1999

  403

  1999–2000

  153

  2000–2001

  50

  Owned vehicles

  Lord Chancellor's Department HQ

  The Court Service

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  HM Land Registry

  Fuel

  Petrol

  15

  3

  —

  1

  Diesel

  1

  1

  1

  41

  Engine cc

  1500

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1600

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1800

  —

  —

  —

  33

  1900

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2000

  10

  2

  —

  9

  2300

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5681

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Replacement date

  1998–1999

  4

  4

  —

  10

  1999–2000

  5

  —

  —

  4

  2000–2001

  7

  —

  1

  8

  County Courts
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those county courts which have been closed in each of the last four years for which figures are available. [49121]

  Mr. Hoon
  A list of the county courts closed in the last four years is shown.
  381

  Court closures 1994–98

  Court

  Date of closure

  Post closure jurisdiction

  Devizes1

  1 April 1994

  Trowbridge

  Frome1

  1 April 1994

  Trowbridge

  Clacton1

  5 April 1994

  Colchester

  Sevenoaks1

  5 April 1994

  Tunbridge Wells

  Sheerness1

  5 April 1994

  Sittingbourne

  Sudbury

  5 April 1994

  Bury St. Edmunds, Braintree, Colchester and Ipswich

  Bangor

  4 July 1994

  Caernarfon

  Portmadog2

  4 July 1994

  Caernarfon

  Stroud

  4 July 1994

  Gloucester

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2 November 1994

  Resited to form the Teesside Combined Court Centre

  Lampeter

  5 December 1994

  Aberystwyth and Carmarthen

  Launceston1,2

  5 December 1994

  Bodmin

  Liskeard1,2

  5 December 1994

  Bodmin

  Ellesmere Port2

  5 December 1994

  Chester

  Axminster and Chard1,2

  5 December 1994

  Yeovil

  Shaftesbury1,2

  5 December 1994

  Yeovil

  Amersham

  9 January 1995

  Aylesbury, Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Slough, Uxbridge and Watford

  Wisbech

  29 September 1995

  King's Lynn

  Market Drayton

  27 October 1995

  Shrewsbury and Stoke on Trent

  Brentwood

  29 December 1995

  Subsumed by the creation of the Basildon Combined Court Centre

  Bargoed

  29 December 1995

  Blackwood

  Barry

  29 December 1995

  Cardiff

  Cardigan1,2

  29 December 1995

  Carmarthen

  Llandrindod Wells1,2

  29 December 1995

  Brecknock

  Otley2

  2 January 1996

  Bradford, Harrogate, Leeds and Skipton

  Alfreton

  16 February 1996

  Chesterfield, Derby, Mansfield and Nottingham

  Ilkeston

  16 February 1996

  Derby and Nottingham

  Matlock

  16 February 1996

  Buxton, Chesterfield and Derby

  Sleaford

  16 February 1996

  Boston, Grantham, Lincoln and Newark

  Spalding

  16 February 1996

  Boston, Grantham and Peterborough

  Dover2

  29 March 1996

  Canterbury

  Folkestone2

  29 March 1996

  Ashford

  Newton Abbot2

  29 March 1996

  Amalgamated with Torquay

  Sittingbourne2

  29 March 1996

  Maidstone and Medway

  St. Austell

  29 March 1996

  Bodmin and Truro

  Chippenham2

  30 April 1996

  Swindon and Trowbridge

  Goole1

  4 November 1996

  Doncaster

  Ammanford2

  27 March 1997

  Swansea, Carmarthen and Llanelli

  Andover2

  30 June 1997

  Basingstoke, Salisbury, Winchester

  Braintree2

  1 December 1997

  Chelmsford, Harlow and Colchester

  Bishop's Stortford

  1 December 1997

  Cambridge, Harlow and Hitchin

  Alnwick2

  15 December 1997

  Morpeth

  Blyth

  15 December 1997

  Morpeth

  Berwick upon Tweed1

  15 December 1997

  Amalgamated with Morpeth

  Bridlington2

  24 December 1997

  Scarborough

  1 Courts with caller office status

  2 Courts where Circuit Administrators have undertaken to continue local District Judge sittings in suitable accommodation subject to demand

  Note:

  Two county court closures have been announced recently: Rochdale County Court and Holywell County Court will close on 7 September 1998

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to implement the Middleton report's recommendation on county courts closures alongside the Woolf report's recommendation that the report's civil justice reforms should be introduced by April 1999. [49128]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor does not consider the Middleton Report's recommendations for widespread county court closures, without providing services in other ways, as the right way forward and has no plans to implement them.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many county courts there are currently in England and Wales; which have facilities for hearings in open court; which have family, bankruptcy and district registry jurisdictions; and if he will list those which his Department or the Court Service 382
  are currently considering for or consulting on closure (a) in the current financial year and (b) in each of the next four years. [49120]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently 233 county courts in England and Wales. With the closure of Rochdale County Court and Holywell County Court in September 1998 the number will be 231. All the county courts have facilities for hearings in open court. 177 county courts have family jurisdiction. the closure of Rochdale County Court, there will be 112 county courts have bankruptcy jurisdiction. With of Rochdale County Court there will be 111. courts have a district registry. When Rochdale Court closes there will be 134.

  In the last financial year the Lord permission to go to public consultation on the county courts: Hemel Hempstead, Holywell, Roch

  383
  Camborne & Redruth, Poole, Shrewsbury, West Bromwich and Evesham.

  The only other permission given by the Lord Chancellor to go to public consultation relates to the current financial year and is in respect of Corby and Loughborough County Courts.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the reduction in(a) revenue and (b) capital budgets of the Court Service as a consequence of the closures of county courts in each of the last four years for which figures are available. [49122]

  Mr. Hoon
  There has been no reduction in either revenue or capital budgets as a direct result of court closures.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Court Service or Lord Chancellor's Department jobs were abolished as a result of county court closures in the last four years. [49124]

  Mr. Hoon
  The business case in support of a proposal for closure of a county court must give information on the numbers and grades of staff together with details of their redeployment. Any reduction in staff numbers is a result of a fall in civil business generally and not of court closures.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the Middleton report's recommendation that on financial grounds large numbers of county courts should be closed; and if he will make a statement in that regard about his policy of increasing access to justice. [49127]

  Mr. Hoon
  The civil justice reforms on which Sir Peter Middleton reported form only part of major current changes in the working methods and procedures of the civil courts. The Lord Chancellor is considering how, and when, those changes might create opportunities for better use of resources while maintaining similar or improved levels of facilities and services. This is a better way forward than the wholesale closures recommended in the Middleton report. Court accommodation is kept under continuous review and proposals for the closure of courts are considered on an individual basis.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the financial implications of county court closures for(a) the Legal Aid Board and (b) non-legally aided litigants. [49123]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no specific financial thresholds that need to be breached before a closure proposal would be refused. Whilst financial implications are important considerations, the costs and practical implications of running a court, the public facilities, waiting times, workload levels and the overall standard of service that can be made available over the area as a whole also need to be taken into account.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in the last four years for which figures are available his Department or the Court Service has consulted the public 384
  about a proposed county court closure in England and Wales and, as a consequence, not closed the court, identifying in each case the court in question. [49125]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the last four years two county courts have remained open following public consultation. Closure of Gravesend County Court was not taken forward after consultation in 1994. Kettering County Court, proposed for closure in 1993 was later relocated within Kettering in more satisfactory accommodation.

HEALTH

  Hospital Trusts (North West)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each acute hospital trust in the North West Region in each of the last 13 financial years(a) the sums allocated by specialty, (b) the sums spent by specialty and (c) the numbers of patients treated by specialty. [47539]

  Mr. Milburn
  This information cannot be provided in its entirety because records are kept centrally for a five year period only. It is not possible to provide the sums allocated by specialty as the contracting system between health authorities and trusts is not done on an individual specialty basis. However, it is possible to provide the sums spent by the main specialty groups and the number of patients treated by specialty in the main specialty groups, for the five year period from 1992–93 to 1996–97. This is shown in the tables, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Kingston Hospital
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Kingston Hospital will receive the capital funding necessary for the new permanent ward block. [47552]

  Mr. Milburn
  Approval to build a new permanent ward block will follow the normal route for such schemes. The first stage is the submission by the trust of a strategic outline case. This is expected to be submitted to the National Health Service Executive by the autumn of this year. If it is felt that the scheme is not likely to attract private sector interest it will then be considered for inclusion in a future annual regional capital programme. Alternatively the trust will seek a private sector partner to develop the scheme under the Private Finance Initiative. In this case, public capital will not be required.

  Dental Services
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the introduction of new classes of dental auxiliaries; [48013]

  (2) what plans the Government have to amend the Dentists Act 1984 to allow pilot trials to test the effectiveness of new classes of dental auxiliaries. [48014]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have let the General Dental Council know that we strongly support their proposals for trials of new classes of professionals complementary to dentistry to see if there are duties which could be delegated by registered dentists. We are looking for a legislative opportunity to make the amendments to the Dentists Act 1984 which are necessary to permit these trials.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will strengthen the powers of(a) nursing home inspectors, (b) the Secretary of State and (c) the courts to prevent the precipitate closure of nursing homes by the owner's liquidator or receiver; [48172]

  (2) what powers are available to (a) him, (b) nursing home inspectors and (c) the courts to prevent the precipitate closure of nursing homes by the owner's liquidator or receiver; [48171]

  (3) if he will intervene in the proposed closure of Abbey Nursing Home, Great Haywood, Stafford. [48173]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: There are no legal powers to prevent the closure of a nursing home by a liquidator or receiver appointed by a home owner. Independent care homes are private businesses and neither we, nor registration authorities nor the courts have any powers to intervene in a decision by the owner of that business to cease trading.

  Care homes can close for a variety of reasons, including emergency closures by a registration authority to protect the health and welfare of residents.

  Health and local authorities should have contingency plans, drawn up in consultation with service providers, for dealing with the sudden closure of homes to ensure residents are transferred to suitable accommodation. Health and local authorities have a direct responsibility for making alternative arrangements for anyone they place in a nursing home which subsequently closes.

  While the closure of the Abbey Nursing Home in Great Haywood is regrettable, we understand that the health authority and social services staff have moved quickly to find alternative accommodation for all the nursing residents. We understand that 12 of the 13 residents have been found suitable accommodation, and one is in hospital.

  We appreciate how traumatic it can be for people in residential care and nursing homes when they have to move out at short notice. We will consider whether arrangements can be strengthened to minimise the anxiety to residents when a home closes, as part of our commitment to reforming the current regulatory arrangements for social services and nursing homes.

  Health Care Assistants
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the Government have made of the benefits of including health care assistants in the frameworks governing(a) the registration and (b) the career development of nurses. [48436]

  Mr. Boateng
  The current independent review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 is expected to raise a number of issues in relation to health care assistants. We will carefully consider all the recommendations upon receipt of the report during the summer. Funding is available to enable National Health Service employers to support staff who wish to train as nurses.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the proportion of people who feel ill who make the local pharmacy their first point of contact with a professional health carer. [48238]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: We have made no such estimate. We understand that research has shown that from whom people seek help and advice depends on the nature of their symptoms and a range of other factors.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many closures of independent pharmacies there have been in the last five years. [48240]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: In the five years to 30 September 1997, 264 National Health Service community pharmacies in England closed. In the same period 284 opened. The Department does not hold separate information for independent pharmacies.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has evaluated into the(a) actual and (b) potential savings to the NHS of healthcare advice provision by community pharmacists; and if he will make a statement. [48242]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have made no such assessment. We propose to publish a policy document in the autumn setting out proposals for the future role of community pharmacy within the National Health Service.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the numbers of people without access to public transport who use community pharmacies. [48243]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Health Authorities (Legal Directions)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions in the last 30 years when the Secretary of State for Health has issued a legal direction to a health authority requiring it to withdraw a public consultation. [49118]

  Mr. Dobson
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A) fuel types and (B) engine cubic capacities; and how many vehicles are expected to fall due for replacement in each of the years (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01. [49227]

  Ms Jowell
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential benefits of the use of complementary and alternative medicine. [48530]
  387
  Ms Jowell
  As part of its policy research programme, the Department has commissioned a two-part study from the Medical Care Research Unit at Sheffield University. The first part was published by Sheffield University in August 1995 and concerned the scale and scope of access to complementary medicine practitioners via general practice. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  A report on the second part of the study is expected later this year. This part involves ten detailed case studies of different complementary medicine schemes within primary care and aims to assess the benefits and problems of each, and to make practical recommendations about the way forward for the potential integration of complementary medicine in primary care. Particular attention is being paid to the range of National Health Service complementary medicine provision that is currently available free at the point of access.

  The NHS research and development programme is currently funding the following research projects:
  complementary therapies in the management of back pain;
  acupuncture for the management of pain in primary care;
  the effectiveness of different psychosocial interventions for patients and their families following cancer diagnoses and treatment;
  evaluating the effectiveness of acupuncture in defined aspects of stroke recovery;
  multi-centre study of acupuncture for episodic tension headaches;
  a double blind, randomised, parallel group, study evaluating the efficacy of a homoeopathic remedy in asthma;
  the use of complementary therapies by women with breast cancer in South Thames region;
  art therapy as an adjunctive treatment in severe mental illness;
  non-pharmacological approaches to the management of irritable bowel syndrome;
  the efficacy of acupuncture versus local anaesthetic injection in the treatment of myofascial pain in the jaw muscles;
  assessing the effectiveness of hypnotherapy for pain relief in patients with chronic low back pain;
  the effect of abdominal massage on the bowel habit of adults with cerebral palsy;
  tea tree oil as an aid to fighting infection;
  reflexology in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome in a primary care setting.

  Health Care (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the NHS has introduced to improve the provision of healthcare services in Coventry since 1 May 1997. [48512]

  Mr. Milburn
  Healthcare services in Coventry have benefited from significant extra resources since May 1997, including £1 million towards the cost of winter pressures and a further £1.8 million to fund waiting list initiatives in Coventry, which will facilitate a reduction of 24 per cent. in the total inpatient waiting list by the end of March 1999.

  The newly approved £174 million Walsgrave Private Finance Initiative scheme will lead to the reprovision of general hospital services and acute mental health services within Coventry which will allow for a sound foundation for the further development of excellent health services in Coventry well into the next millennium.

  Smoking
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to reduce the number of women who smoke during pregnancy. [48511]

  Ms Jowell
  We currently fund the Health Education Authority to run an adult smoking education campaign costing £5.5 million. The campaign identifies five key target groups, and two of these groups are adults in the 16–24 age group and women, particularly pregnant women.

  Our future plans to reduce smoking will be set out in our White Paper on Tobacco Control, later this year.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the estimated costs of the Government's plans to reduce NHS waiting lists in the years(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [48461]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have provided an extra £417 million to tackle waiting lists in England in 1998–99. By next April we will deliver a record reduction to bring them below the 1.16 million level inherited from the previous administration. This will be the first step in delivering the pledge to bring them down by 100,000 from the inherited figure. Resources for 1999–2000 and beyond are being considered as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Health Service Administrative Costs
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the estimated savings from reducing management and administrative costs in the NHS in the years(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [48464]

  Mr. Milburn
  On 23 December 1997, I announced a programme of measures to reduce National Health Service management costs by £73 million in England in 1998–99, together with a £7 million reduction in Departmental running costs. Target reductions for 1999–2000 and beyond will be announced in due course.

  The White Paper, "The New NHS", sets out a programme of action to release £1 billion from bureaucracy over five years. Reductions planned to date will ensure that by the end of this year £240 million, which would otherwise have been spent on bureaucracy, will have been released for patient care.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received on the sale of vitamin B6. [49191]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have received over 12,000 representations from a variety of sources including consumers, organisations representing consumers, Members of Parliament, practitioners and retailers. Many of these are standard letters.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I met representatives of certain organisations representing consumers,

  389
  manufacturers and retailers of dietary supplements, and representatives of complementary medicine interests, to discuss proposed controls.

  Foreign Patients
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-United Kingdom citizens were treated by the NHS between 1 May 1997 and 1 May 1998; and what was the total cost to the NHS. [49145]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients who had had one or more children prior to in vitro fertilisation treatment received such treatment on the National Health Service in 1996–97. [48800]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per patient of in vitro fertilisation treatment on the National Health Service. [48803]

  Ms Jowell
  The average cost per patient of in vitro fertilisation treatment on the National Health Service is not collected. However, we have estimated, using information supplied by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the national infertility awareness campaign, that the cost is £2,000–£3,000 per cycle.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that primary care group areas should be coterminous with the geographical areas of social services responsibilities. [48954]

  Mr. Milburn
  No.

WALES

  Housing Renovation (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy concerning the modernisation of housing estates, with particular reference to Flintshire. [47422]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  We aim to tackle the worst problems on local authority housing estates by co-ordinating efforts to raise the quality of the housing stock, along with social and environmental improvements. In this context, it is for councils to determine their own spending priorities in the light of local needs within the resources available to them. For 1998–we were able to increase local authority housing capital provision to £214.2 million, an increase of 11 per cent. on inherited spending plans. Provision for future years is being considered in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  For 1998–99 Flintshire County Council received –1.331 million as the housing element of its Basic Credit Approval; an additional £1.881 million under the Capital Receipts Initiative for housing and housing related works;
  390
  and an allowance within the housing subsidy calculation of £6.874 million for the management and maintenance of council housing. The Council also received £6.151 million for the renovation of private housing and disabled facilities grants. The Council did not submit a bid under the Estates Partnership Programme.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff are employed by his Department, or executive agencies responsible to his Department; where those staff are located; and how many civil servants are directly employed at his Department's offices in London. [48463]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The number of full time equivalent staff (including casuals) employed by the Welsh Office and its Executive Agency CADW are as follow:

  Location

  Number

  Welsh Office

  Cardiff

  1,602.22

  Out Stations

  504.48

  London

  20.00

  CADW

  Cardiff

  82.50

  Monument Sites

  119.09

  Access to the Countryside
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the principal extensive areas of open countryside in Wales to which public access is not at present available. [48863]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The extent of "open countryside" in Wales is estimated to be between 0.8 and 1 million ha. About 0.3 million ha of that is accessible through statutory provisions and voluntary agreements.

  There is little information on how much of the remainder is or is not available for public access.

  Roads (A487)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the starting date of works on the A487 trunk road between Llanllyfi and Groeslon; and if he will make a statement. [49014]

  Mr. Hain
  The A487 Llanwnda—Llanllyfni scheme is subject to the current review of the Welsh trunk road programme. A report on the review will be published later this year.

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the public registers for which his Department has responsibility. [47365]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: My Department has responsibility for the following public registers:

  Register of independent schools in Wales Register of approved voluntary children's homes

  Register of medical centres in Wales responsible for the administration of yellow fever vaccine

  List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest

  391

  Schedule of Ancient Monuments

  Register of Historic Parks and Gardens

  Register of Historic Landscapes.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Disability Discrimination
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what measures have been taken by each Government department to implement the provisions of the employment code of practice issued in connection with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; [38758]

  (2) what measures have been taken by each Government Department to implement the provisions of the goods, facilities and services code of practice issued under Part B of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [38759]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 20 April 1998]: In July 1996 the Head of the Civil Service wrote to all Departmental Permanent Secretaries to alert them to the implications of the employment provisions in Part II of the Act and the employment Code of Practice for Government Departments as employers. As a result, Departments have taken a variety of steps reflecting their particular circumstances to ensure that they comply with the provisions. Departments will continue to keep the need for further action under review. All Departments are committed to equal opportunities and do not discriminate against staff or eligible applicants for posts on any grounds including disability.

  An action pack entitled "Government as a service provider" was also sent to all Permanent Secretaries. The pack gives guidance to Government officials and those working in executive agencies and associated bodies to assist them in complying with the first rights of access to goods and services introduced under the Act. The guidance was for dissemination to key staff with responsibility for overseeing implementation of these new duties upon providers of services to the public. Departments will continue to keep the need for further action under review.

  A selection of actions taken is as follows:
  Cabinet Office
  The Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service) in addition to its role as an employer promotes and monitors the overall effectiveness of the Civil Service's equal opportunities policy. To help departments and agencies with the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act, the following actions were taken:
  General
  In 1995 the OPS set up an Inter-departmental Focus Group on the Act to help Departments and Agencies comply with the legislation. The Group looked at issues around monitoring of disabled staff, changes to the recruitment Orders in Council and the revision of the Programme for Action to Achieve Equality of Opportunity in the Civil Service for Disabled People, and the information handbook, Focus on Ability. It also met with officials from the DfEE to discuss the draft Code of Practice and the implications for the Employment Service's Positive About Disabled People symbol.
  The (revised) Programme for Action
  In 1996, the Programme for Action to Achieve Equality of Opportunity for Disabled People was updated and revised to take account of the changes in the law. To help departments and
  392
  agencies meet these duties, the "checklists" in the revised Programme for Action were highlighted in bold to show they originated from the requirements of the Act. Copies of the revised Programme were issued to departments and agencies through the Equal Opportunities Officers/Disabled Persons' Officers (EOO/DPO) network in November 1996.
  Focus on Ability: A Practical Guide to Good Practice in the Employment of Disabled People
  A revised copy of the handbook, Focus on Ability: A practical Guide to Good Practice in the Employment of Disabled People, was issued to departments and agencies on the EOO/DPO network in March 1997. The revised handbook included advice on implementing the Act.
  Progress Report
  On 2 April 1998, Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service; A progress Report 1995–1997 was published. This report demonstrates good progress in promoting equality of opportunity in the Civil Service during the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1998, with at least 80 per cent. of departments and agencies reporting specific action to comply with the Act. Some of the more common actions include: issuing guidance notes to staff, organising seminars and workshops, buildings audits, staff surveys, drawing up action plans and updating existing personnel and training guidance notes.
  The Civil Service Data Summary
  With the introduction of the Act, the disability categories used to collect information for MANDATE were amended to reflect the Act's definition of a disabled person. (MANDATE is the OPS's database of information about Civil Service personnel. It covers most, but not all, Government departments and agencies and is updated quarterly. Because it has records on a person-by-person basis it is possible to examine combinations of features such as grade, age, gender and disability. The records are made anonymous by departments and agencies so that individuals cannot be identified in OPS.)
  Cabinet Office (OPS) as an Employer
  The Department has integrated the requirements of the employment Code of Practice within its personnel procedures. Disability is included within the ambit of the Department's equal opportunities statement which make it clear that everyone shall have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement on the basis of their ability, qualification and suitability for work. When necessary, reasonable adjustments are made to enable those with disabilities to compete freely and openly for work. This includes the provision of sign language interpreters and consulting the Employment Service's Placing Assessment and Counselling Teams when disabled staff join or become disabled whilst in post. The Department has commissioned a disability audit of its buildings and actions recommended by the report are being carried out. Disability awareness was included in the training of the Department's network of Harassment Contact Officers. The Department is participating on policies which improve the position of disabled people within the Civil Service such as Workable.
  The Department has no significant involvement with the provision of goods and services to individual members of the public but selected publications are available in alternative formats; and if a request was received to give information in an alternative format, arrangements would be made for this to happen.
  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  The provisions have been brought to the attention of all staff. Recruitment practice and all internal procedures for staff have been reviewed. Additional guidance has been issued to personnel staff. Material on equal opportunities for training courses has been updated. Managers of staff who have declared a disability which has an impact on their work have been provided with specific guidance, in addition to the annual guidance issued to all staff on all equal

  393
  opportunities aspects of staff appraisal. Additional seminars on disability awareness and the employment considerations of disability have been held for personnel and other staff.
  When recruiting, the Ministry welcomes applications from individuals with a disability, and is taking part in the "Workable in the Civil Service" programme. A disability audit of all its buildings is almost complete and many recommendations are already in place or underway.
  The Ministry is keeping under review access to services and premises under the Citizens Charter initiative and in the light of responsibilities under the Act. It is ready to respond to requests for information in alternative formats and able to provide guidance and support on the use and completion of forms. The disability audit of the MAFF estate will address the needs of disabled customers as well as staff.
  Department for Culture, Media and Sport
  The Department is committed to equal opportunities and does not discriminate against staff or eligible applicants for posts on any grounds including disability. All possible steps are taken to ensure that staff are treated equally and fairly and that decisions on recruitment, selection, training, promotion and career management are based solely on objective and job related criteria. The Department recently launched a programme of equal opportunities awareness training for all staff, which includes a session on the Act. It has also provided application forms in alternative formats.
  All the Department's buildings are accessible to people with disabilities and a full disability access audit was commissioned at the end of 1997. The report is due to be finalised shortly and the Department will then consider what action is necessary.
  The Department is largely a policy department and sponsors a wide range of public bodies to deliver its objectives. These bodies are in the front-line of service delivery to the public and are each responsible for ensuring that they do not discriminate against disabled people.
  Ministry of Defence
  The provisions provided an underpinning to many of the Department's existing civilian practices in respect of the employment of disabled people. For example, the Ministry already had a programme to promote the employment of people with disabilities, and used the Positive About Disability symbol.
  The Department has ensured that its statutory responsibilities towards disabled people, as defined in the Act and its supporting Code of Practice, were communicated to all staff, both civilian and those Service personnel with responsibilities for managing civilian staff. Means used included: publication of a Defence Council Instruction; specific guidance in the MOD Personnel Manual and the proofing of existing Departmental personnel management procedures and practice; disability awareness issues in equal opportunities training programmes and seminars; and articles in in-house journals. Early this Summer, the launch of a new Departmental Programme of Action on Disability, which includes comprehensive guidance on how the needs of disabled applicants or staff should be met, will provide a further opportunity to disseminate best practice aimed at improving the Department's performance as an employer of disabled people.
  The Department has communicated to staff those responsibilities relating to the implementation of the goods, facilities and services provisions contained in legislation and in the Code of Practice. Dealings with the public are limited and consequently to many of its personnel the Department's role as a service provider will not be immediately obvious. Nevertheless where there is contact with the public, for example, in the provision of printed information or at "Open Days", the Department has emphasised the need for staff to take into account the needs of disabled people.
  Department for Education and Employment
  The Department has undertaken a number of measures to implement the provisions. A confidential survey was made of all staff to ascertain the incidence and nature of any disability or impairment in DfEE. The survey also covered what help was already
  394
  being received, if further or new help was required and if there were any need to receive communications in an alternative format. Presentations were held in all locations to promulgate both information about the Act and to impart best practice in the management of staff with disabilities. Copies of the employment Code of Practice were issued to all senior managers.
  In November 1996 the Equal Opportunities Team issued a guide to help staff and line managers to understand and comply with the Act. It is now being revised in the light of the issues which have arisen since the provisions came into force. An Advisory Group for People with Disabilities was set up to act as a forum to discuss any issue relating to people with disabilities. The Group has a DfEE Board member as a sponsor who acts as a direct link between the Group and the DfEE Board. The Positive about Disability symbol was adopted in April 1996. Its use has been reviewed to ensure that the system is working successfully.
  All the Department's Directorates develop and implement action plans to mainstream equal opportunities in all policies and services. The Department has undertaken surveys of all its headquarters sites in anticipation of the Act's provisions, it also considers carefully the impact of any works or alterations on its facilities and provision of services with regard to the Act. The Department has assessed its provision of information to include various media and has made its public inquiry point as accessible to people with disabilities as is practicable.
  Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
  Within the central core of the Department, a special working group was established to develop existing employment policy and ensure compliance with the provisions. Initially the group spearheaded an awareness programme which included the issue of a specific guide on the Act for all staff, training modules for practitioners, senior managers, and harassment contact officers; circulation of the DfEE videos, good practice information and questionnaires. The group was recently re-established with a new remit to update departmental guidance material and to consider wider issues such as disability in relation to Investors in People.
  As part of the Department's strategy on developing disability policy it has adopted the Positive About Disability Symbol; it operates a staff network for disabled staff; and it maintains a special budget for aids and equipment to assist disabled staff.
  The Department produced a legal and policy framework for the goods, facilities and services provisions which provided full details of the requirements of this part of the Act and how to comply. All Property Managers within the Department have received copies of the document and were asked to ensure they comply fully. They have been encouraged to undertake Access Audits of their properties and to plan actions appropriately.
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  All staff were informed by telegram of the introduction of the Act and its implications. A disabled persons officer co-ordinates reasonable adjustments for disabled staff. A budget is also available for the purchase of aids and equipment. A disability access audit of the FCO main building is being conducted.
  The FCO operates a guaranteed interview scheme for people with disabilities who meet the initial sift criteria. There is a requirement for Diplomatic Service recruits to be able to serve at any post overseas; this is not required of people with disabilities.
  A disability access audit has been carried out on the plans for the Public Information Centre currently under construction.
  Department of Health
  The Department cascaded details of the employment provisions of the Act to line managers in December 1996. In addition personnel officers received general disability awareness training and specific training on the Act. In terms of recruitment the Department's Job Specific Selection (JSS) process, introduced in August 1996, was based on fair and open competition in line with the Civil Service Commissioners Code. Recruitment panel members received training on JSS which covered equal opportunities and specifically disability issues. In addition, the Department is a Positive about Disability

  395
  symbol user. The Department has taken steps to monitor retention of staff with disabilities, and its main personnel functions are also monitored regularly for their equal opportunities performance.
  A network of harassment advisers was set up to give advice to staff, including for harassment or discrimination on grounds of disability. The Department also has a Disability Working Group, a staff reference group focusing on disability issues including the Act. The Department has made various adjustments to enable existing staff to be retained, for example supplying special computer equipment and secretarial support. For job applicants with disabilities application forms are made available in Braille, large print, and audio tape on request. At the interview stage, special arrangements can be made, for example using an induction loop for candidates with a hearing impairment.
  The Department makes publications available in Braille, audio tape and large print. They are generally distributed through agencies who have regular contact with those people who have special needs, including the sensorily impaired.
  Home Office
  Staff have been informed by notices and other publications of the provisions and implications of the Act including specific guidance on the duty of reasonable adjustment. Focus groups and workshops are used for two-way feedback. Disability awareness seminars have been held across the UK and awareness raising continues according to need, such as in relation to hearing impairments. Presentations by the Centre for Accessible Environments have been held for key staff on the physical features that need to be taken into account to make buildings accessible to staff with a range of disabilities.
  "Enabling Technology at Work" seminars led by the Computability Centre have taken place and equal opportunities contact points provide advice to staff on all aspects of the Act, including DfEE and DSS booklets. The Home Office is a Positive about Disability symbol user. The Home Office has monitored effective implementation through a telephone survey: staff surveys will be carried out later this year to update existing data on the extent and nature of disability.
  Reasonable adjustments are made on request and signers are provided for meetings and interviews. Most conference rooms have permanent or portable induction loops. Internal communications have been available in large print and in Braille and audio cassette on request. Health and safety officers are aware of the need to take disabled staff into account when considering health and safety issues. Staff with mobility problems have personal evacuation plans in the event of emergencies. All major office buildings occupied by the Home Office have wheelchair accessible toilets. Where possible, access has been taken into account in refurbishment, and this also applies in the acquisition of new buildings. Evaluation criteria of tender bids take into account the requirements of the Act.
  Staff across the Department dealing with the public have received training on the service provisions. Publications are produced in alternative formats whenever practicable. Areas of the Home Office dealing directly with the public have minicom systems and members of staff trained in signed language skills.
  The Home Office Constitutional Unit, with disability organisations, is exploring ways of making the electoral process more accessible for disabled electors. A Working Party on Electoral Procedures has considered a number of proposals about improving procedures which affect disabled voters and has authorised work to take these forward.
  Department for International Development
  The Department's equal opportunities policy has been amended to reflect the provisions and staff have received training in its implications. A guide to the law on discrimination has been drawn up and made available to members of recruitment and promotion boards. Other measures include an access audit carried out for the Department by the Centre for Accessible Environments. Adjustments to premises include the installation of induction loops in conference rooms, visual fire alarm warnings, adaptation of toilet facilities and emergency evacuation chairs for people with mobility
  396
  impairments. Adjustments are also made in response to a number of individual needs. Testing and assessment materials have been modified for use by candidates with visual and hearing impairments.
  The Department has no significant involvement in the provision of goods, facilities and services to individual members of the public but these measures have also contributed to meeting its responsibilities towards disabled customers.
  Law Officers' Departments
  These Departments endeavour to meet the provisions by ensuring that all recruitment, induction, general development and promotion opportunities are free from discrimination. Consideration is given, where necessary, to adjustments to working environments to ensure the workplace permits disabled staff to perform their duties to the best of their ability.
  The Crown Prosecution Service has implemented a programme of modifications to the premises it occupies and new occupations and refurbishments take into account the requirements of the Act and reflect the needs of disabled users.
  Lord Chancellor's Office
  Detailed guidance has been supplied to all staff and a copy of the employment Code of Practice supplied to all senior managers. Further practical guidance on specific aspects of the Act, internal magazine articles and specialist videos have been widely circulated and guidance notes produced for welfare officers. Internal training courses and procedures for recruitment, induction, selection and appraisal, and a confidential questionnaire to staff have been reviewed and revised. An accommodation user group has been established which includes staff with disabilities.
  The Department has commissioned a set of studies throughout the Estate to ensure best practice for the future. These reports were received in February 1998 and are currently being analysed before a schedule of works is produced. Guidelines dealing with the provision of courtroom interpreters for deaf litigants and witnesses have been prepared.
  Northern Ireland Office
  The Equal Opportunities Unit of the Department of Finance and Personnel has issued a revised Code of Practice on the employment of people with disabilities in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The main aim of the Code is to provide a framework to help Departments in Northern Ireland to achieve equality of opportunity for people with disabilities and to make full use of the skills and abilities that people with disabilities possess, through career development, training, opportunities for flexible working and the provision, where necessary, of adaptations to premises. equipment or support.
  A copy of the Code of Practice on access to goods, facilities, services and premises was issued to staff in Northern Ireland Departments with specific responsibility for the Act when the Code was published in Northern Ireland in December 1996. The then Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Services wrote to all Northern Ireland Permanent Secretaries about the new Act's duties enclosing a copy of the Code of Practice. In August 1996 all Northern Ireland Principal Establishment and Finance Officers and Principal Establishment Officers were alerted to the implications of the Act for Northern Ireland Departments as both employers and service providers.
  Scottish Office
  The Scottish Office set up a steering group to consider the implications of the provisions for all aspects of employment practices, including recruitment, career development, and promotion and dismissal. The Department has undertaken a survey of all staff, giving them the opportunity to self-declare any disability which meets the definition given by the Act. In promotion and recruitment the Department has extended to candidates who self-declare a disability the same support which was previously offered to registered disabled candidates in line with DDA requirements. Training on the Act and disability awareness, which was open to all staff, has been held. Staff with disabilities can also seek specialist support and equipment from a centrally held budget.

  397
  The Department has also carried out an access audit on all buildings in the Scottish Office estate. A programme of work has been drawn up to address the areas identified in this exercise. Works being carried out include fixed and portable induction loops for people hard of hearing; fixed and portable wheelchair ramps; automatic doors to some major buildings; tactile floor surfaces on stairways; providing disabled toilet facilities providing dedicated car parking spaces. All of these will benefit disabled customers as well as disabled staff. Work was started in 1996 and will continue on a rolling programme basis over the coming years.
  Department of Social Security
  The Department has examined its personnel policies and practices to make sure that they are not potentially discriminating and amending them as necessary to take account of the new legislation. It runs legal awareness seminars on the employment provisions of the Act for personnel staff across the Department as well as disability awareness sessions for staff covering the implications of the new legislation. Some business units are also undertaking staff disability surveys using the Disability Discrimination Act definition of disability.
  The Department has made all estates staff aware of the content and implications of the Act and of their role in establishing accommodation that is both accessible and suitable for disabled people. An increasing number of buildings occupied by the Department now fully meet the requirements of the new legislation. Now that the ownership and management of most of its buildings have transferred to the private sector, contracts are in place which will ensure that our private sector partners comply with the legislation.
  Department of Trade and Industry
  The Department has issued a notice to all staff setting out the main provisions of the Act and how it may impact on the Department's practices and procedures, providing examples of reasonable adjustments. Guidance material on staff appraisal and internal transfers includes examples of best practice in dealing with applications for promotions and transfers from staff with disabilities. Training liaison officers consider any special requirements which staff attending training events may require. The Department maintains an electronic noticeboard which covers disability issues.
  The Department has also established a Disability Group to co-ordinate issues affecting disabled staff and has established focus groups to discuss specific issues. Staff with disabilities are represented on Building User Groups. Central budgets are available to provide adaptations to equipment and information technology.
  The Department's Inquiry Unit has a textphone and guidance has been issued to all managers about what they can do to ensure that publications are more accessible to a disabled audience. It has arranged for access surveys to be carried out by RADAR on all DTI headquarters buildings and is currently following up the recommendations as appropriate. The Department has also established a Disability Group to co-ordinate issues affecting disabled people including building access, access to information services and services open to the public.
  HM Treasury
  HM Treasury keeps under constant review all recruitment, accommodation and employment arrangements and is doing so in light of the Act. Action taken so far includes raising awareness with the issue of information to all staff about the employment provisions of the Act, reminding staff of the services of the disabled persons officer and the support which is available and announcing the launch of the Bursary Scheme for Civil Servants with disabilities and inviting all eligible staff to apply. A full disability audit was conducted to identify which employees are, or may be, disabled persons under the terms of the Act and a re-survey will be undertaken soon to try to improve response rates.
  The Department is also considering a full audit of the physical features of the buildings used by the department to identify any features which may place disabled staff or visitors at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, it has installed evac-chairs in both buildings and in its main building increased the number of disabled car parking spaces
  398
  available. Evacuation procedures relating to disabled persons have been revised. Standing instructions on recruitment have been revised to provide for the needs of disabled candidates. Application forms, with specific reference to identifying the needs of disabled candidates, and monitoring procedures covering recruitment, appraisal, postings, and promotion have been revised to reflect the new definitions of disability under the Act.
  HM Treasury has notified all staff of their obligations under the Act in the provision of services to the public and their needs will be addressed in the access audits undertaken.
  Inland Revenue
  A major task has been systematically to review personnel policies and practices to ensure that the Act's provisions are met. Additionally, a project team of key personnel was established; the Positive about Disability symbol introduced; disabled persons' officers established to provide support and guidance to disabled people, their managers and colleagues. A disability survey was carried out in 1995 and personnel procedures and practices are monitored to ensure they do not impact adversely on disabled people.
  Model competence-based schemes have been introduced for recruitment at junior levels. A disability strategy and related programme of action being developed should ensure that disability issues are dealt with in a pro-active manner and employer responsibilities are fulfilled. Regular articles in departmental publications inform employees of developments and build awareness of their responsibilities. A guide for all employees helps them understand the implications of the legislation and their individual responsibilities.
  The Inland Revenue has been taking steps to meet its current obligations under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and to prepare for its future obligations to make adjustments. Qualitative research into the needs of disabled customers has been completed which has been used to inform policy and the Department is working towards a written policy statement on services to disabled customers. All new buildings will provide a range of facilities for disabled people. Existing buildings are being audited for disability access, and such items as induction loops provided to help people with hearing problems as part of any modernisation or refurbishment programme. If a disabled taxpayer is unable to visit his/her local Tax Inquiry Centre, or if the building is not accessible, an appointment can be made to see the taxpayer at an outreach clinic, of if necessary, the taxpayer can be visited at home.
  The Inland Revenue introduced a Departmental Braille service in 1996 to provide letters for blind customers. It has also produced guidance to staff on how to use large print and audio cassette formats in letters to blind and partially sighted taxpayers. The Department has produced four leaflets in Braille, large print and audio tape and is currently reviewing the possibility of greatly extending this. The Department has also issued guidance to staff on how to help disabled taxpayers fill in their tax forms.
  Within Revenue offices, private interview rooms or a quiet room elsewhere in the building can be provided for those with hearing difficulties. Whilst it is not yet a requirement of the Disability Discrimination Act, the Department is working towards providing signers for those taxpayers who wish to use British Sign Language.
  HM Customs & Excise
  All staff were informed of the DDA provisions and the Department's equal opportunities policy. Personnel policies affecting recruitment, conditions of service and appointment, as well as equal opportunities trainer awareness and other courses have been amended to reflect the requirements of the Act. Legal seminars were given to equal opportunities officers and disabled persons officers on interpretation and practice of new provisions of the Act and briefings given to staff assistance officers and other personnel practitioners. The employment Code of Practice and Guidance on disability issues has been issued to personnel practitioners. The Department is a Positive about Disability symbol user.
  Relevant provisions relating to services are incorporated into the Department's equal opportunities policy and also policy areas affecting estate management and publication of information for

  399
  customers. Equal opportunities policy staff are trained in the provisions of the Act. A new Departmental policy on the provision of alternative formats of published information for customers with disabilities has been developed.
  An access programme is undertaken of all offices and buildings wherever practicable and an access audit pack was developed with the Centre for Accessible Environments.
  Welsh Office
  The Welsh Office reviewed its personnel policies and procedures and amended them where necessary to reflect the requirements of the Act and the employment Code of Practice.
  Those staff involved with the provision of goods, facilities and services have been informed of the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
  Forestry Commission
  The Forestry Commission has introduced a wide range of measures to implement the provisions, covering issues such as recruitment, training, equal opportunities, career development, promotion, grievances, accommodation and technical support.
  The Forestry Commission ensures that all new recreational facilities it provides have access for the disabled, and many of its existing facilities such as holiday cabins and visitor centres already have such access. The Commission is also an active participant in the BT "Countryside for All" initiative and has just published a gazetteer which shows the location of all facilities where easy access is provided.

  Student Transport
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities which do not provide free travel to schools or colleges for students in post-16 education. [48997]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Dance and Drama Students
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities which do not provide discretionary awards to those studying dance or drama. [48998]

  Numbers and percentages of UK domiciled UCAS applicants accepted onto full time first degree, HND and DipHE courses by university groups and previous educational establishment 1994 to 1997

  Year or entry

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Previous educational establishment

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Oxford and Cambridge Universities

  Independent

  2,780

  47

  2,783

  48

  2,717

  48

  2,838

  48

  Maintained1

  Grammar

  755

  13

  749

  13

  801

  14

  788

  13

  Sixth Form Centre

  50

  1

  41

  1

  63

  1

  32

  1

  Comprehensive

  1,322

  22

  1,314

  23

  1,274

  22

  1,324

  22

  Other

  20

  0

  15

  0

  18

  0

  17

  0

  Other2

  955

  16

  935

  16

  842

  15

  944

  16

  Total

  5,882

  100

  5,837

  100

  5,715

  100

  5,943

  100

  400
  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not collect the information required to answer the question.

  New Deal (Business Start-ups)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance will be offered under the New Deal to young unemployed people who wish to start up new businesses. [48529]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for young unemployed people provides extensive help and guidance for those who wish to enter self-employment. This includes an initial session to ensure that participants' ideas are viable and that they fully understand the work involved in setting up their own business; further advisory seminars and intensive guidance during the Gateway; financial support and advice throughout the Employment Option—Self Employment; and the provision of a supporter with experience in the field of self-employment. During the follow-through stage of the New Deal, people who did not originally opt to enter self-employment but who have, through their experience on other options, come to view self-employment as a possibility, will be given advice and training.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the numbers and percentage of undergraduates accepted in each of the last 10 years by(a) Oxford and Cambridge universities, (b) other universities and (c) those universities previously incorporated as polytechnics from (1) independent schools, (2) grammar schools, (3) church schools, (4) grant maintained schools, (5) local authority schools and (6) other institutions. [48465]

  Dr. Howells
  The available information is in the following table, covering UK applicants accepted onto full time first degree, HND and DipHE courses through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) for 1994 to 1997. Prior to 1994 there were two application systems, the Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA) and the Polytechnics Central Admissions System (PCAS), and the required information is not available. Such information as was published by UCCA and PCAS appears in their annual reports, available in the Library.
  401

  Numbers and percentages of UK domiciled UCAS applicants accepted onto full time first degree, HND and DipHE courses by university groups and previous educational establishment 1994 to 1997

  Year or entry

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Previous educational establishment

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Other former UFC funded universities

  Independent

  19,572

  15

  19,883

  15

  20,810

  15

  21,756

  15

  Maintained1

  Grammar

  11,111

  9

  11,899

  9

  12,125

  9

  13,422

  9

  Sixth Form Centre

  1,807

  1

  1,925

  1

  1,973

  1

  1,472

  1

  Comprehensive

  38,605

  30

  39,651

  30

  41,988

  31

  44,597

  31

  Other

  515

  0

  617

  0

  709

  1

  743

  1

  Other2

  57,286

  44

  59,156

  44

  59,367

  43

  63,747

  44

  Total

  128,896

  100

  133,131

  100

  136,972

  100

  145,737

  100

  Former polytechnics

  Independent

  5,020

  6

  5,093

  6

  4,857

  6

  5,151

  5

  Maintained1

  Grammar

  2,936

  4

  3,031

  4

  2,946

  3

  3,234

  3

  Sixth Form Centre

  1,132

  1

  1,169

  1

  1,266

  1

  852

  1

  Comprehensive

  1,8004

  22

  18,698

  22

  19,698

  22

  21,724

  21

  Other

  315

  0

  371

  0

  436

  0

  521

  1

  Other2

  54,575

  67

  57,915

  67

  58,597

  67

  70,769

  69

  Total

  81,982

  100

  86,277

  100

  87,800

  100

  102,251

  100

  1Includes both grant-maintained and local authority schools

  2Includes further education institutes and not known

  3Church schools cannot be separately identified

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what methods and what criteria are used in the allocation and distribution of funds for women's refuges. [47481]

  Ms Ruddock
  Refuges are supported through a complex patchwork of funding. Most comes from Local Authorities or through the Housing Corporation. Resources may also be available from Housing Association schemes. Refuges charge rents and many women residents claim Housing Benefit.

  We recognise that refuge funding is complex, and needs to be made simpler and more effective. That is why we are supporting research into their needs.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations the Government have received on inequalities in income amongst pensioners. [47492]

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of(a) present and (b) future inequalities of pensioner incomes; and what action she plans in this area. [47501]

  Mr. Denham
  We want today's and tomorrow's pensioners to enjoy security in retirement. Income 402
  inequality between the best and worst off pensioners has grown since 1979, and estimates show that this inequality is set to widen in the future.

  Our first priority is to get extra help to the poorest pensioners. Preliminary findings from our pilot projects and research published recently show that the pilots have so far discovered pensioners who are missing out between 24 pence and £51 a week. They would also be missing out on their £50 winter fuel payment as well as cold weather payments.

  It is a scandal that so many pensioners are living below the breadline. The research and pilots are an important step towards putting that right. The full results should be available early in the New Year.

  Child Support
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment the Government have made of the need to reform the current system of child support. [47493]

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's proposals to reform child support. [47498]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer my hon. Friends to the statement made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of non-resident parents with a child support assessment are not paying maintenance. [48827]
  403
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Of the 740,000 non-resident parents assessed by the Child Support Agency, more than half are not paying any maintenance.

  Benefits (Scotland)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to her oral answer of 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 698, concerning delivery of benefits in Scotland, to which new initiatives to ensure a better service for all customers in Scotland the answer referred. [47495]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department is currently engaged in a wide variety of initiatives such as our New Deal for Lone Parents and Poorer Pensioners pilots which are designed to provide better, more integrated and secure services for our customers. These initiatives are at the heart of the development of Active Modern Service and have been piloted in a variety of locations. The lessons and best practice learnt will benefit our customers throughout the United Kingdom.

  Part-time Working Directive
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the effect of the part-time working directive on women. [47496]

  Ms Ruddock
  We are committed to part-time workers having at least the same rights as full-time workers. This is particularly important for women as 83 per cent. of part-time workers are women. Implementation of the Part-time Working Directive will remove discrimination against them and increase the status of part-time work generally. This is a positive step for all those who choose to work part-time in order to balance work and family life.

  Flood Victims (Northampton)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps she is taking to improve benefit payments to flood victims in Northampton. [47497]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government fully recognise the distress and suffering caused to people in Northampton who were victims of the recent floods. While compensation would normally be through insurance policies we recognise that those without insurance may need help from the social security system. The discretionary social fund can help in such circumstances.

  Most of the flood victims who applied to the social fund for help have received it. However, in view of representations received, officials will be reviewing social fund provision for victims of disasters.

  Benefit Fraud
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets she has set for the reduction of the levels of benefit fraud over the next five years. [47499]

  Mr. Field
  The Government are committed to tough action to stop social security fraud. We are currently reviewing all existing counter fraud arrangements to ensure they meet the Government's strategic objective of working towards a permanent, structural reduction in benefit fraud. Our approach contains three elements;404
  improved detection, more effective deterrence and better prevention. We have not set a numerical target for the reduction in the level of benefit fraud over the next five years.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she next expects to meet the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss the work of the Child Support Agency. [47500]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  My noble Friend Baroness Hollis of Heigham the Minister with day to day responsibility for child support, has regular meetings with the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss operational issues.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to change the distribution of offices of the Child Support Agency. [47504]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Child Support Agency has recently transferred the routine processing work, which does not involve face to face contact, from its local sites to the six large Child Support Agency Centres. This will mean that it can be handled more efficiently. This change has released resources to deal with rising workloads and it will allow the Agency to offer significantly more face to face contact with its clients in a greater range of locations, including, in the future, local Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are the current estimated arrears which are owed to the Child Support Agency; [47343]

  (2) how many requests have been received from a parent wishing to have a personal interview with a Child Support Agency official in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [47340]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 3 July 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about arrears which are owed to the Child Support Agency and interviews with officials of the Child Support Agency.
  The amount of child support full maintenance assessment debt outstanding at the 31 May 1998, was £731;,620,185.51. The Agency undertakes a Debt Analysis exercise at the end of each financial year. The Debt Analysis exercise for 1996–97 indicated that the percentage of full maintenance assessment debt regarded as probably uncollectable was 38%. Similar analysis is being carried out for 1997–98 and the results will be published in the Agency's 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts in July 1998, in a format which will satisfy the Committee of Public Accounts recommendation that the Agency "…examine the scope for eliminating a significant amount of this debt, since it is unlikely ever to be collected…".
  We now have a computerised Debt Management System which identifies cases promptly where payment comes overdue. The system allows staff to automatically track debts and to prioritise cases for early telephone contact with defaulting non-resident parents. The voice link system automatically dials the defaulters and presents answered calls to staff, giving details of the relevant cases on the computer screen which saves considerable staff time. Early dialogue is then established with the non-resident parent to seek to re-instate payments. This robust approach to non-compliant

  405
  non-resident parents will lead to progressive improvements in collection and enforcement. Such contact with the non-resident parent also leads to early identification of changes of circumstances which can prevent inappropriate debt accruing.
  As part of its ongoing commitment to provide a high quality service to its customers, the Agency offers face to face interviews to both non-resident parents and parents with care.
  The facility for face to face interviews is widely publicised by means of:
  The Child Support Agency Charter.
  The Maintenance Application pack and Maintenance Enquiry pack include notes for parents telling them that they can contact an Agency local office if they want advice or further information.
  Parents contacting the Child Support Agency national Enquiry Line are advised of the facility for face to face interviews, where appropriate.
  During the 12 months up to 31 March 1998, the total number of interviews held by the Agency was 55,577; 51,368 of these were in England and Wales.
  These figures are collated to measure performance against the Agency's Charter Standard to see callers within 10 minutes of arrival when an appointment has been made; this has been achieved for over 2 years in all cases.
  I am quite convinced of the need for much increased face-to-face contact, not least because of its effectiveness in reducing the incidence of fraud, improving the explanations available to customers, and improving their compliance and co-operation.
  We have recently changed our organisational structure, and we aim to offer significantly more face to face contact on a peripatetic basis, in a greater range of locations which we hope in future will also include for example, CAB premises.
  As part of the wider strategy to improve face-to-face contact with DSS customers, the Government announced last year that CSA would be working more closely with their colleagues in the Benefits Agency which will provide customers with a one stop service. From 1 April 1998, Benefits Agency staff have been interviewing and assisting all new Income Support parents with care to complete their maintenance application form, where appropriate. The latest available figures show that between 1 April 1998 and 17 April 1998 the Benefits Agency have interviewed approximately 8,000 customers with Child Support Agency interest.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the total arrears for(a) category A interim assessments and (b) full maintenance assessments which are owed to the Child Support Agency. [48859]

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

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 3 July 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about arrears owed to the Child Support Agency.
  A large proportion of the maintenance outstanding attributable to category A interim maintenance assessments relates to the first two years of the Agency when interim maintenance assessments were more frequently imposed because of non co-operating non-resident parents. The Agency is developing the way it contacts non-resident parents, and the emphasis is now to make personal contact with non-resident parents as early in the assessment process as possible to reach agreement. In a large proportion of cases this now avoids the need to impose an interim maintenance assessment and prevents arrears of maintenance building up.
  The total amount of category A interim maintenance assessments outstanding (accrued since 1993) at 31 May 1998 was £728,203,563.
  406
  The move away from imposing punitive category A interim maintenance assessments to concentrating on completing full maintenance assessments has therefore led to an increase in the total full maintenance assessment debt. But this puts the Agency in a better, more realistic position to increase the flow of maintenance to parents with care, because the assessment reflects the actual circumstances of the non-resident parent. This is demonstrated by maintenance of £547.14 million being collected or arranged in 1997–98; an increase of 37 per cent. on the amount achieved in 1996–97. For 1998–99 the Secretary of State target requires £750 million of child maintenance to be collected and arranged by the Agency.
  The information on full maintenance assessment debt has recently been disclosed in response to a Parliamentary Question, 9 June 1998, Official Report, column 552.
  The amount of child support full maintenance assessment debt outstanding at the 31 May 1998, was £731,620,186. For £341,376,152 of this amount the Agency has obtained agreement from the non-resident parent to pay off the arrears by regular instalments. A large proportion of the remainder is either possibly or probably uncollectable. The Agency undertakes a Debt Analysis exercise at the end of each financial year. The Debt Analysis exercise for 1996–97 indicated that the percentage of full maintenance assessment debt regarded as probably uncollectable was 38 per cent. Similar analysis has been carried out for 1997–98 and the results will be published in the Agency's 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts later this month, in a format which will satisfy the Committee of Public Accounts recommendation that the Agency "…examine the scope for eliminating a significant amount of this debt, since it is unlikely ever to be collected…".
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the impact of introducing a £15 per week disregard for income support when CSA assessments are awarded to income support recipients. [48459]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The estimated cost of disregarding £15 a week of maintenance received in Income Support is £140 million in 1999–2000. The Green Paper "Children First" presented to Parliament today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security proposes allowing lone parents on Income Support to keep up to £10 a week of any maintenance paid, bringing real help to children in the poorest families.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the number of lone parents finding work under the new deal for lone parents. [47505]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Full independent evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents is being carried out. Interim findings of the research, published on 21 May 1998 show that the programme is having a real and measurable impact on the lives of lone parents and their children, with a marked effect on the rate at which lone parents move off Income Support.

  Cumulative results for the period up to and including 29 May 1998 show that: 23,881 initial letters have been issued; 9,932 initial interviews have been arranged; 7,740 lone parents have attended interviews; 6,888 lone parents have agreed to participate in the programme following their initial interviews; and 2,241 lone parents have found jobs following agreement to participate in the programme.

  A copy of the interim report is in the Library.
  407
  The final evaluation report will be available in Autumn 1999.
  Notes:

  1. Since 6 April, when the New Deal for Lone Parents was extended to all lone parents making a new claim to Income Support (phase 2), the monthly results have been collated by the Employment Service. Results for the eight prototypes (phase 1) have been amalgamated with those for phase 2.

  2. The figures are subject to further validation.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the interim report on the new deal for lone parents. [47507]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The interim findings of research into the initial phase of the New Deal for Lone Parents shows that it is having a modest but marked effect on the lives of lone parents and their children. The research shows that there has been a reduction of 1.9 per cent. on the overall target population in the New Deal areas, as compared to control areas. And, for new claims, the effect is greater by 31 March, the numbers of lone parents who started new or repeat claims for Income Support since July 1997 was 6.6 per cent. lower in New Deal areas than in Control areas.

  The findings translate into around 800 lone parents and an estimated 1,600 children who have left Income Support because of the New Deal for Lone Parents in the eight prototypes. Those lone parents who have moved into work are, according to DSS calculations, on average £39 per week better off. Not only are these lone parents in work better off, but they have each reduced their benefit dependency—by approximately £42 per week.

  In helping lone parents reduce their benefit dependency we are able to offer lone parents the same opportunity to gain financial independence as everybody else. The key to the success of the New Deal for Lone Parents is the role of the Personal Adviser who gives lone parents help and information on jobsearch, skills training, child care and in-work benefit.
  Notes:

  1. Target population refers to those lone parents on Income Support whose youngest child is of school age.

  2. The interim report provides an initial estimate of what the New Deal for Lone Parents has achieved in its first eight months. The final evaluation report will be available in late 1999.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on Government action to help the poorest lone parent families during the last year. [47489]

  Mr. Denham
  Our New Deal for Lone Parents has already helped some of the poorest lone parents to improve their living standards by moving off Income Support into work. Lone parents who have been helped into work are better off by, on average, £39 a week.

  We have announced a Working Families Tax Credit which will include a child care tax credit. This will provide lone parents with more help with child care costs than ever before.

  We are also increasing Child Benefit for the eldest child and the family premium in the income related benefit by £2.50 a week from next April. Earlier help will be directed
  408
  towards families with young children from this November through a £2.50 increase in the child allowances in the income-related benefits.

  These measures will mean that around one and a half million lone parents will be better off overall, after taking account of the measure to align Child Benefit and family premium rates.

  Women's National Commission
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement about the effects which the Government's review of the Women's National Commission will have on women. [47506]

  Ms Ruddock
  A full report of the recommendations of the Government review of the Women's National Commission (WNC) will be published shortly. The Government Review Group attended the WNC plenary meeting on 23 June to discuss their findings. In many areas these coincided with those of the WNC's own review.

  Some of the key conclusions that we have agreed with the WNC include the Commission retaining the status of a non-departmental public body funded by Government; the membership being increased by fifty per cent., to seventy five full member organisations; clear targets, objectives and priorities being agreed with Ministers; and regular liaison meetings between the WNC and the Ministers for Women.

  Full implementation of the recommendations will result in the WNC becoming a more focused, responsive and influential organisation; better able to represent the views of a broader spectrum of women's organisations, and thereby a greater range of women; and in direct communication with Government.

  Women's Juries
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the value of women's juries in influencing policy. [47476]

  Ms Ruddock
  The pilot juries have been a valuable exercise and a positive experience for those involved in them. They have provided an opportunity for women whose voices are not normally heard to contribute more directly to the policy making process. The two juries made over 60 recommendations, covering a range of issues including the regulation of childcare, parental leave, and part-time working. The responses are being fed into the consultation processes on "Fairness at Work" and "Meeting the Childcare Challenge".

  I wrote to each of the jurors last week enclosing a copy of the Government's response. A copy of each set of recommendations and the Government response is being placed in the Library today.

  A formal evaluation of the contribution juries can make to our Dialogue with Women and their effectiveness as a consultative mechanism will be carried out over the summer months.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has had on the taxing of disability living allowance. [47494]

  Mr. Field
  We have had representations from a number of sources on this issue, most recently in the Social Security Committee's fourth report on DLA published on 20 May. We have made it clear in our Green Paper that DLA will remain a national and universal benefit and as such it will not be subject to a means test. Taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received on progress with her pensions review. [47503]

  Mr. Denham
  We received more than 2,000 responses to the first part of the Pensions Review, and more than 200 responses to the technical consultation document on our proposals for stakeholder pensions. We are continuing to receive contributions and ideas from a wide range of people and organisations with an interest in pensions.

  As set out in the Green Paper, "New ambitions for our country A New Contract for Welfare" (CM 3805), we will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year. There will then be a period of further consultation before final proposals are developed.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will list the subject matters of the(a) oral briefing and (b) written briefing and submissions given by civil servants to each Minister in her Department on the policies being pursued by her Department between 28 April and 20 May 1997 and on related issues, and the dates on which these briefings and submissions were made; [47093]

  Submission about House of Lords judgments, 21 May

  Submission about Benefit Integrity Project, 30 May

  Harriet Harman

  Seen by the Secretary of State

  Seen by the Secretary of State

  Frank Field

  Papers not retained, so no firm evidence, but office

  Papers not retained, so no firm evidence, but office

  policy at the time was to show all submissions to the

  policy at the time was to show all submissions to the

  Minister

  Minister

  Keith Bradley

  Papers not retained, so no firm evidence, but office

  Papers not retained, so no firm evidence, but office

  policy at the time was to show all submissions to the

  policy at the time was to show all submissions to the

  Minister

  Minister

  John Denham

  Papers not retained, so no firm evidence, but office

  Seen by the Minister

  policy at the time was to show all submissions to the

  Minister

  Patricia Hollis

  Seen by the Minister

  Seen by the Minister

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her Department's monitoring of the administration of winter fuel payments. [47487]
  410
  (2) if she will list the dates when each Minister in her Department was first informed by civil servants orally or by written submissions or briefings of the Benefit Integrity Project; [47094]

  (3) what oral or written briefings or submissions each Minister in her Department received from civil servants on aspects of the Benefit Integrity Project prior to 29 May 1997. [47095]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 June 1998]At the time of the election, briefing was prepared for newly appointed Ministers. An initial pack providing an overview of the Department's activities and the main current issues was given to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Welfare Reform, on 3 May 1997 and to me and other ministers at the beginning of the following week. The Benefit Integrity Project was not mentioned in this initial pack.

  A general briefing pack on disability benefits was provided for my noble Friend Baroness Hollis on 9 May. My noble Friend had a wide-ranging introductory meeting with officials on 21 May based on the written briefing pack. The briefing pack included a paragraph which described the Project but which did not highlight the project as an issue of particular concern or about which decisions needed to be made, and it was not discussed at the meeting.

  Also on 21 May, the House of Lords gave judgments on two cases about the scope of Disability Living Allowance. A briefing note was sent to all Ministers on the cases on the same day about the judgment. There was no direct connection between the two cases and the Project, but there was a brief description of it in a general briefing note on Disability Living Allowance attached to the paper. The handling of the paper within each Minister's office is set out in the table.

  The attention of my noble Friend Baroness Hollis was not drawn to the project until 29 May, following a meeting between officials and representatives of disability organisations. On 30 May a paper describing the Project in detail was sent to all Ministers. The handling of the paper within each Minister's office is also set out in the table. The Project was discussed at a meeting at which all Ministers were present on 5 June.

  Mr. Denham
  We were kept informed of all significant developments as they arose. The delivery of these payments to almost ten million eligible pensioners in over seven million households was an enormous and unprecedented achievement for the Department.
  411
  The experience of making those payments will be used to inform the delivery of next winter's payments.

  Disability Benefits (High Peak)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents of High Peak, within the last 12 months for which records are available or on the last available date,(a) are claiming sickness or disability related benefit, (b) have been investigated by the Benefit Integrity Project, (c) have had their benefits reduced by the Benefit Integrity Project, (d) have had their benefits increased by the Benefit Integrity Project, (e) have appealed against their level of benefit and (f) have won appeals against their level of benefit. [47701]

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

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Tom Levitt, dated 3 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many residents of High Peak, within the last 12 months for which records are available or on the last available date (a) are claiming sickness or disability related benefit, (b) have been investigated by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP), (c) have had their benefits reduced by the BIP, (d) have had their Benefits increased by the BIP, (e) have appealed against their level of benefit and (f) have won appeals against their level of benefit. As Mr. Mathison is on annual leave, I am replying.
  The number of residents in High Peak claiming sickness and disability benefits is shown in the table at Annex 1.
  The information concerning the BIP is not available in the format requested. To provide geographical information routinely would incur high costs and disrupt processing of ongoing casework. Figures are available on a national basis only.
  As at 30 April 1998, a total of 172,026 cases, including 27,991 renewal cases have been selected for action under the BIP. At the same date a total of 81,221 cases have been examined. Of the total cases dealt with 1,864 have had their benefit increased, 63,380 have remained unchanged, 10,058 have had their benefit reduced and 5,919 have had their benefit stopped.
  The total included 16,366 renewal cases of which 505 had their benefit increased, 8,407 have remained unchanged, 4,436 have had their benefit reduced and 3,018 have had their benefit stopped.
  1,513 requests for an appeal have been received, of these 1,103 have been sent to the Independent Appeals Tribunal (ITS) for action, 61 have been finalised by ITS. Of the 61 cases, 10 had the Benefit Integrity Project decision maintained, 36 were restored to the original award, 7 were awarded at a lower rate than their original award and 8 were awarded at a higher rate than their original award.
  A monthly statistical report, concerning the BIP, can be found in the House of Commons Library.
  The number of residents in High Peak who have appealed against their level of benefit and who have won appeals against their level of benefit is shown in the table at Annex 2.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex 1: Residents of High Peak in receipt of sickness and disability benefits

  Benefit

  Number

  Disability Living Allowance2

  2,641

  Attendance Allowance2

  1,915

  Incapacity Benefit3

  2,743

  412

  Annex 1: Residents of High Peak in receipt of sickness and disability benefits

  Benefit

  Number

  Severe Disablement Allowance3

  452

  Income Support claimants in High Peak and Derbyshire Dales

  1,000

  LA districts with a disability premium4 5 6

  1,000

  1These figures do not take account of benefit overlap

  2Figures relate to 31 May 1998

  3Figures relate to 30 November 1997

  4Figures relate to 30 November 1995, rounded to nearest thousand

  5Information by parliamentary constituency is not available. The figure has been produced by combining information on those Local Authority districts within High Peak. It should be noted that Local Authority districts may contain parts of more than one parliamentary constituency and will therefore also include customers from other constituencies e.g. Derbyshire Dales is found in both High Peak and West Derbyshire Parliamentary Constituency. The figures cannot therefore be taken as actual estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies.

  6Disabled are defined as benefit units for whom the Disability premium is in payment

  7Figures not available for Council Tax Benefit and Housing Tax Benefit.

  Source:

  1. Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data

  2. Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance: 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system, which excludes a small number of cases held clerically, a rating factor has been used to account for missing Post Codes

  3. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry: 5 per cent. sample

  Annex 2: Residents of High Peak who have appealed against the level of sickness and disability benefit

  Heard and decided

  Benefits

  Lodgements

  Total

  In appellant's favour

  Per cent.

  Total Benefits

  278

  149

  43

  28.9

  All sickness and Disability related benefits

  174

  84

  30

  35.7

  SDA

  3

  1

  —

  —

  IIDB

  16

  1

  —

  —

  DLA

  77

  31

  9

  29.0

  DisBen

  2

  1

  —

  —

  ICA

  2

  —

  —

  —

  AA

  10

  2

  1

  50.0

  IB (not AWT)

  5

  4

  1

  25.2

  IB (AWT)

  40

  27

  14

  51.2

  AWT (not IB)

  19

  17

  5

  29.4

  Note:

  1. The information encompasses all appeals lodged with the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) or heard and decided between 1 October 1997 and 31 March 1998.

  2. Information on appeals relating to the disability premiums of Income Support, Housing Benefit/Council Tax is unavailable

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when her Department expects to pay Mr. Le Feuve the jobseeker's allowance awarded to him on appeal by the Independent Tribunal Service on 22 March and if she will make a statement. [48851]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of Jobseeker's Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  413
  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 3 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent parliamentary Question asking when her Department expects to pay Mr. Le Feuve the Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) awarded to him on appeal by the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) on 22 March. As Mr. Mathison is on annual leave, I am replying.
  The Tribunal's summary decision on Mr. Le Feuve's appeal was received at his local Benefits Agency Office on 1 April. On receipt of the decision an independent Adjudication Officer (AO) identified this case as being potentially worthy of an appeal to the Commissioner and requested a full statement of the facts and reasons for the decision from the ITS. This request was made on 14 April and further requests were made on 15 May and again on 5 June.
  Until the information is received from the ITS a decision on whether an appeal to the Commissioner is appropriate cannot be made. Payment of benefit awarded by a Tribunal may be suspended whilst an AO considers an appeal to the Commissioner for a maximum of three months from the date the decision is received. This can be extended if the customer is given written notice.
  However, as Mr. Le Feuve has not received any notice from the AO, payment of benefit is due. Mr. Le Feuve has therefore received payment of JSA for the period 19 to 21 July 1997, amounting to £21.07. The payment was sent to him on 2 July.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the research undertaken by the Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough, into incapacity benefit and the contributory principle will be published; and if she will place a copy in the Library; [48801]

  (2) when the research undertaken by Market Opinion Research International on attitudes towards disability benefits will be published; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [48802]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the research undertaken by Alan Hedges, on pensions and retirement planning is due to be published; and if she will place a copy in the Library; [49179]

  (2) when the research undertaken by Market Opinion Research International on attitudes towards welfare reform will be published; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [49151]

  Mr. Denham
  These four research projects form part of a wider programme of research on public attitudes to welfare reform issues. We plan to draw together the findings of these and other studies in a report which we expect to publish towards the end of this year. As appropriate, some of the studies will also be published individually. The work on Pensions and Retirement Planning will be published as part of the DSS Research Report Series by early Autumn. Copies of these research reports will be placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the losses incurred by lowland suckler farmers during the period when BSE 414
  has been in the UK beef herd; and what public funds they have received in respect of the effect of BSE on their businesses. [47851]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: In March 1997, the UK Agriculture Departments and HM Treasury commissioned an independent study from DTZ Pieda Consulting to assess the economic impact of BSE on the UK economy. The study was completed in March of this year and a copy of the published report has been placed in the Library of the House. The report includes an estimate of the impact of BSE on the beef sector as a whole, but not for lowland suckler farmers separately.

  Producers of animals suspected of having BSE receive compensation based on average market prices. Additional public funds, totalling in excess of £2.5 billion, have been spent on BSE-related measures since March 1996. Lowland suckler producers will have benefited, directly or indirectly, under many of these measures, but it is not possible to quantify the sums involved.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from which countries Britain imports meat from any species in respect of which the abattoirs do not comply precisely with EU requirements. [47854]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]Controls on the hygienic production of fresh meat for sale for human consumption are set out in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. This sets out the licensing, structural and veterinary supervision requirements to be applied in all abattoirs in all Member States. Implementation of the requirements is a matter for each Member State. The European Commission is responsible for ensuring that all Member States comply with their Community obligations in properly implementing and applying the Directive. The Directive applies similar requirements on third country establishments wishing to export to the Community. These establishments are also inspected by the Commission to ensure that they comply. They are approved on a Community basis, not by individual Member States.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions have been issued to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise with regard to meat imports. [48782]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: Meat imported from non-EU countries must enter the Community at approved Border Inspection Posts (BIPs), most of which are operated by local authorities. HM Customs and Excise have a statutory responsibility to withhold clearance of this meat until they have been notified by the Official Veterinary Surgeon at the BIP that relevant veterinary checks have been completed satisfactorily. These responsibilities have been promulgated to operational staff at ports and airports.

  Beef Industry
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to implement the recommendations of paragraph 31 of the Agriculture Committee's report on the UK Beef Industry (Third report, Session 1997–98, HC 474). [47892]
  415
  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: I have nothing to add to the reply on this point provided on page iv of the Government response (HC 720) to the Agriculture Committee's report.

  Rabies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the central veterinary laboratory will test animal sera submitted by British veterinary surgeons for antibodies to rabies; and what is the current scale of fees for testing by the RFFIT technique. [47995]

  Mr. Rooker
  The testing of animal sera is the responsibility of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive to reply to my hon. Friend direct.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 6 July 1998:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on whether the Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL) test animal sera for antibodies to rabies.
  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency, formerly called the CVL, will test animal sera submitted by British veterinary surgeons for the presence of antibodies to rabies. The current fee for a single test is £38.50, excluding VAT. For ten or more tests submitted at the same time, the price is £28.50 per test, exclusive of VAT.

  Livestock
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take to improve the standard of livestock in the United Kingdom. [48781]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: In the financial year 1997–98, the Department spent some £10 million on research into livestock science, the broad thrust of which is to improve the performance of British livestock.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he uses to determine the standard of livestock in the United Kingdom. [48780]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 July I998]: EU legislation provides for the classification of carcases of slaughtered cattle, sheep and pigs by reference to conformation and fat cover. Abattoir operators are encouraged (but not required) to fix prices to producers on the basis of the classification reached by carcases at slaughter.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations his Department has received on the implementation of the Krebs report. [49223]

  Mr. Rooker
  We received over 300 responses to the formal consultation on the Krebs report and have received more since it ended. Respondents fell into five main groups badger groups and individuals interested in badger conservation; other welfare and wildlife interests; farmers and farming organisations; the veterinary profession; and research interests. I am hoping to make an announcement before the House rises for the summer recess.

  New Zealand Lamb Quota
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the New Zealand lamb quota will next be renegotiated. [47850]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: The current import quota for New Zealand sheepmeat was negotiated in the context of the GATT Uruguay Round. The basis for the quota is actual sendings in the years 1986–1988. The next round of World Trade Organisation multilateral trade negotiations will begin in 2000.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the Government's policy on the sale of vitamin B6 following the completion of his recent consultation exercise. [49199]

  Mr. Rooker
  Ministers will consider the results of the consultation exercise on the Government's proposals on restrictions on the sale of vitamin B6, together with the report of the Agriculture Committee, before deciding how to proceed. An announcement on the Government's policy will be made as soon as we are in a position to do so.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the individuals and organisations consulted on the subject of vitamin B6 during the consultation period on the draft statutory instrument on its retail sale. [49192]

  Mr. Rooker
  The lists of those to whom the consultation document on the Government's proposals on vitamin B6 was sent are set out.

  In accordance with normal procedures for consultations on Government proposals, full details of the consultation will in due course be placed in the MAFF Main Library, 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2HH for public scrutiny. This will include copies of the responses received, other than those requesting confidentiality. A copy of the consultation document and the list of respondents will also be placed in the Library of the House. Separate consultations were undertaken in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  List of organisations to whom consultation letter was originally sent

  Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries

  Association of County Councils

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Manufacturers of Medical Preparations

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of Port Health Authorities

  Association of Public Analysts

  British Complementary Medicine Association

  British Association of Nutritional Therapists

  British Diabetic Association

  British Dietetic Association

  British Health Food Trade Association

  British Heart Foundation

  British Herbal Medicines Association

  British Medical Association

  British Nutrition Foundation

  British Retail Consortium

  British Society of Nutritional Medicine

  417

  British Society for Allergy Environmental and Nutritional Medicine

  Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association

  Consumers for Health Choice

  Consumers in Europe Group

  Consumers' Association

  Co-operative Union Ltd.

  Council for Nutrition Education and Therapy

  Council for Responsible Nutrition

  Environmental Medicine Foundation

  Food Commission

  Food and Drink Federation

  Foresight

  Guild of Natural Medicine Practitioners

  Health Food Manufacturers Association

  Infant and Dietetic Food Association

  Institute for Complementary Medicine

  Institute of Grocery Distribution

  Institute of Health Food Retailing

  Institute of Optimum Nutrition

  Institute of Trading Standards Administration

  LACOTS

  National Association of Health Stores

  National Association of Premenstrual Syndrome

  National Association of Shopkeepers and Self Employed

  National Consumer Council

  National Council of Women of Great Britain

  National Federation of Consumer Groups

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  National Food Alliance

  National Housewives Association

  National Pharmaceutical Association

  National Union of Townswomen's Guilds

  Natural Medicines Society

  Nutrition Consultants Association

  Nutrition Society

  PMS Help

  Premenstrual Society

  Proprietary Association of Great Britain

  Register of Nutritional therapists

  Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene

  Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy

  Vegan Society

  Vegetarian Society

  Individuals and organisations to whom copies of vitamin B6 consultation document were sent on request
  Individuals

  Ms S. Beatson

  Mr. R. G. Burden

  Mrs. J. Chambers

  Mr. S. Chmelik

  Miss J. M. Cochrane

  Ms C. Combie

  Ms B. A. Crouch

  Mr. M. M. D'Souza

  Ms P. Easten

  Mrs. S. Flynn

  418

  Mr. A. French

  Mr. S. Gallant

  Ms J. A. Green

  Ms M. Halliday

  Mrs. S. Halliday

  Ms A. Hargreaves

  Mr. and Mrs. A. Hood

  Ms L. Howells

  Mr. D. Hurford

  Ms A. Johnstone

  Mr. J. Kennedy

  Ms M. Kirkham

  Mr. R. Levin

  Mr. A McCormack

  Ms D. McCrea

  Dr. C. E. McFarlane

  Mrs. G. Moffatt

  Mr. C. Morrow

  Mrs. M. M. Myers

  Mrs. J. E. C. Nelson

  Ms H. Overland

  Ms J. Pearce

  Miss J. S. Prescott

  Mr. P. Rattigan

  Ms T. Sabine

  Mr. R. Simpson

  Mr. D. Skellon

  Ms N. Smith

  Mr.R. E. Sullivan

  Ms S. Walford

  Ms A. Webber

  Ms L. Winterbottom

  Mrs. V. Wolseley

  Mrs. H. Woollin

  Organisations

  Ms A. Bartlett—Westminster Strategy

  Professor Arnold Beckett—Vitamin B6 Scientific Task Group

  Mr. I. Bell—Kellogg Supply Services Europe Ltd.

  Ms J. Blondel—The Naturopathic Health and Beauty Company

  Ms S. Bunday—Hyperactive Childrens' Support Group

  Miss L. Bunn—West Bromwich Library

  Ms P. Clarke—National Pharmaceutical Association

  Mrs. J. Costello—The Happy House Surgery

  Ms S. Flynn—Holland Barrett

  Ms S. Gaze—Clifton Housing Services

  Mr. D. Gresswell—Smith Kline Beecham

  Mr. B. Hampton—The Caring Clinic

  Ms A. Hecks—Hartley Library, University of Southampton

  Ms M. Hills and Ms C. Horner—The Margaret Hills Clinic

  Ms A. Jenkins—Natural Life

  Mr. A. Joy—Natural World Foods Ltd.

  Ms L. Kellar—Central Lobby Consultants

  Mr. I. Lawson—RHM Technology

  Ms A. Martin—Simmons and Simmons

  Judy Mallaber MP

  Mr. B. McKinley—Chelgate Ltd.

  Mr. B. McLoughlin—Health for Business Magazine

  Mr. J. McShane—GJW Government Relations

  419

  Ms E. Munsey—Leicester Reference Library

  Ms H. Nicholson—Food and Health Forum

  Mr. D. Potter—National Autistic Society

  Ms E. Quinn—Chipping Campden Food Research Association

  Mr. M. Rice—OTC Bulletin

  Ms V. Rudd—Barbour Index Plc.

  Ms J. Smith—Leatherhead Food Research Association

  Mrs. Stow—Bromley Central Library

  420

  Mr. B. Strong—Aylesbury Reference Library

  Ms C. Thallon—Solgar Vitamins

  Mr. M. Thompson—The Pharmaceutical Journal

  Mr. I. Tillett—Scotmart Ltd.

  Ms M. Webster—Browne Jacobson Ltd.

  The Editor—Chemist and Druggist Magazine

  Information Section—Andersonian Library, University of Strathclyde

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

Animal Research
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the effect of the delays and administrative burden which result from the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 on the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom's research in the medical sciences and biotechnology.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is essential that the use of animals in regulated procedures is properly controlled to ensure that protected animals are used only where that is fully justified. Applications need to be carefully scrutinised and processed. We have a responsibility to ensure that alternatives which replace or reduce animal use and which refine procedures to minimise suffering are used wherever possible.
The Animal Procedures Committee has asked whether or not there are unjustified barriers to research and development. The animal user community felt that there were in some circumstances. Some of the specific issues raised are being considered further by the Animal Procedures Committee and within the Home Office. I expect a further report to be published in the autumn.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the system of regulating animal experiments in this country under the 1986 Act is the most rigorous anywhere? Does he further agree that it is counterproductive in many respects? Not only does it often hamper entirely beneficial scientific research; it also causes a large number of animals to be killed without purpose. Given that Germany has modified its equivalent legislation because of the burdens placed on industry and science, will the Minister undertake to consult with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Science and Technology and the Department of Health? Will he undertake a review with them to examine the effects on science and industry before any new measures are introduced under the 1986 Act?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the 1986 Act is generally recognised as the most rigorous anywhere in the world—and quite right too. That is what public opinion in this country wants; namely, there should be a decent regard before animals are used for human purposes. I do not believe that scientific research is unduly hampered. We constantly consult colleagues in other departments and colleagues in Europe as to
950
whether or not there could be improvements. At present, the Animal Procedures Committee, under the Reverend Professor Banner, is carrying out a 10-year review of the Act which I expect to be published in early autumn.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, does the Minister agree that countries which are in competition with us internationally also have in place strict regulations very similar to ours? Would it not be difficult to modify our regulations and theirs to provide for easier use of animals? Nor should we do so, since our regulations probably provide the model for animal experimentation throughout the world.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks, bearing in mind his well-known expertise in this area. Successive governments in this country—I repeat, quite right too—have looked to the policy of "the three Rs": replacement, refinement and reduction of animal use. That is the proper way ahead. We co-operate with other countries; however, we are proud to have decent standards in this context.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the 1986 Act is a Chinese copy of my Laboratory Animals Protection Bill, which was drafted by members of the scientific community in the hope of making peace between themselves and animal lovers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if I knew what a Chinese copy was, I might be able to say yes. In any event, I am glad that the noble Earl and I agree that what was done was a sensible balance between competing interests enshrined in an Act of Parliament.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, for those of us who for many years strove to improve the lot of laboratory animals, may I encourage the Minister not to accept any diminution in the protection and welfare of animals used in laboratory experiments?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope I have made that plain. There are a number of different aspects. One is the animal welfare regime. Another is whether experiments in a particular discipline can be entirely justified. The Act requires us, rightly in my view, to ensure that if any licence application is made for experiments on animals, it must be demonstrated that alternatives are not available. Examining alternatives is a productive way ahead.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the great difficulty and expense incurred by scientists in professions allied to medicine as a result of the activities of so-called animal rights people? Has the Home Office any idea as to how to provide scientists with further protection?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. I am well aware of the difficulties and sometimes the dangers brought about by irresponsible campaigners who claim to be animal lovers. Whether they love their fellow

951
humans to quite the same extent is open to question. We constantly liaise with chief officers of police. It will not have gone unnoticed in your Lordships' House that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, to the Crime and Disorder Bill dealing with head coverings on public demonstrations may be of use in this connection. We accepted that amendment and put it into effect in another place.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister share my perception that in general the UK research community is supportive of the framework which defines the standards of research involving the use of laboratory animals but is increasingly frustrated by the burdensome paperwork which accompanies it? Does he also agree that those administrative requirements are seen as more burdensome than those which obtain in other countries with major research bases? Against that background, can he confirm that there is an additional animal research project approval system in the pipeline over and above the requirements already in place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have had frequent personal dealings not only with the pharmaceutical and research industries but also with academics who carry out similar experiments, and I am happy to confirm that there is general support for the policy of the three Rs. In the Home Office we constantly look to see whether the applications procedure can be simplified or the code of guidance made clearer. At the moment, as I said, the Reverend Professor Banner is conducting his review and I expect him to report in the autumn.

UK Entry Applicants: Costs
2.43 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the annual cost of dealing with the number of people applying for entry into the United Kingdom and whether any new measures are being considered to combat illegalities.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the total cost of immigration control at the ports is £125 million annually, excluding the self-financing overseas visa operation administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are using measures such as improved intelligence, prevention strategies overseas and harmonisation of inter-agency co-operation as part of the continuous drive to thwart evasion of immigration control.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of a report which appeared in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago indicating that immigration control now costs £2 billion a year, which is considerably in excess of the figure he gave, and that the list of applicants for entry has increased from 50,000 to 70,000, which is a considerable
952
jump? Can the Minister say whether this rate of increase applies only in the United Kingdom or whether it is also being experienced by our friends in Europe? If it is not being experienced by our friends in Europe, should we not reassess our position on the matter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, quite often figures of the kind which my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick has quoted are not comparable with a figure given in answer to a specific question. I believe the figure I gave to be accurate. Current outstanding asylum applications stand at 52,000, not 70,000. I dare say that all our colleagues in western Europe have problems of this kind, pressures sometimes developing following particular political upheavals or events.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem arises from the fact that, alongside illegal immigrants, there are also those seeking asylum who have every legitimate reason to do so. They include people who have suffered what in some cases amounts to torture in fighting for democracy in their own countries. Is not the difficulty for the Home Office in distinguishing between the illegal immigrants, whom none of us wants to see, and the legitimate asylum seekers, whom we all want to help?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that to be a perfectly valid point, which was well made if I may say so. One perhaps needs to put it into context. There were 80 million passenger arrivals in this country from the European Union last year. From countries outside the European Economic Area there were a further 11 million. Subdivided within that are the different categories and others to which the noble Baroness referred. I believe it is generally felt that our present regime for dealing with illegal immigration and asylum seekers leaves a good deal to be desired, which is why my honourable friend Mr. O'Brien is presently conducting a review of it.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is right in her concern? Is it not the case that the queue of asylum seekers seeking to have their applications processed is far too long? There are now 52,000 applicants. How many were there a year ago? How long do they have to wait now, and how long did they have to wait a year ago? Are Her Majesty's Government making progress?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are making limited progress; but there are still no less than 9,400 outstanding cases pre-1993. That is an indication of how long the queue has become for some people. We try to deport those who are eligible to be deported. We try to prevent illegal entry, which has become something of a criminal ruse for many well-organised gangs. We have to draw a balance between decent consideration of those whose cases may be genuine and requiring people to leave who have no legitimate, lawful ground to be in this country.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the new European style passport is easier

953
to forge than the old blue British passport, and, if so, what steps the Government are taking to combat this aid to illegal entry?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think it is an aid to illegal entry. Without going into too much detail, which probably would not be requested by your Lordships, I have myself been to Heathrow and I can tell the House that there are extremely sophisticated devices in place to detect forgeries of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord. In fact, people are constantly being found in possession of forged documents, which makes it an easy first step to secure their departure from the jurisdiction.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that visitors make an important contribution to tourism in this country; that in many cases they pay towards the cost of their application by paying a visa fee; and that illegal immigrants are but a very small number compared to the millions of visitors who enter this country legally?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course I confirm that. That is why I tried to put the figure of 91 million visitors as part of the context. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right. As I indicated, those who apply for visas participate in a self-financing regime and therefore there is no additional cost to public funds deriving from that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister say whether I am right that an Answer was given in this Chamber some months ago to the effect that the average time taken to deal with an applicant for entry to this country, assuming the case went to appeal, was five years and that during those five years most applicants were supported by finance from this country? Is that not the reason why the figure—whether it is the figure the Minister gave or the one I gave—represents an enormous sum of money? Is not the objective to get the average time taken to deal with an application down below five years, which will then be reflected in a reduced cost?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am certain that I did not give an average figure of five years. Very often the asylum appeal procedure is concluded in much less time than that. However, any delay for people in those circumstances is to be avoided. Last year, 7,000 failed asylum seekers were removed.

Regional Airport in AONB: Planning Application
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bridges Lord Bridges asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is in accordance with government policy for a planning application regarding the creation of a regional airport in an area of outstanding natural beauty to be determined by a local planning authority
954
without a public inquiry, and before the completion of that authority's own inquiry into its local plan policies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, our plan-led system of development control requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. We advise in Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 that account can be taken of policies in emerging plans which are proceeding towards adoption or approval. In preparing development plans, local planning authorities are required to take into account the Government's policies on different aspects of planning, including those relating to areas of outstanding natural beauty. Individual planning applications may be subject to a public inquiry if called in by the Secretary of State or on appeal following refusal of planning permission.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for replying in such detail to the Question, of which I sent her some particulars, though she has not answered it in quite such a positively negative manner as I would have hoped.
Does the Minister realise that in the case about which I wrote to her considerable commercial pressure is being brought to bear on the local authority by the developer to determine the case within the 16-week period laid down by the department's rules? What steps are the Government taking to inform the local authorities of their policy, to which local planning authorities do not seem to be paying much attention? Does the Minister feel that this case falls within the rules of the department set for prematurity?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord in relation to that application; indeed, I read the debate which took place in your Lordships' House two years ago in that regard. It contained another good example of an oxymoron, I seem to remember; that of a charm offensive.
It is a matter of concern expressed both in the context of the current planning application and the policies proposed for the site in the Suffolk coastal local plan, first alteration, about which an inquiry is due to take place in November 1998. The Government Office for the Region, which has a responsibility to monitor the progress of certain planning applications, will do so carefully in this case. If necessary, my right honourable friend can call in the application or issue a holding direction to prevent the local planning authority from issuing a decision without his authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out, in some cases it may be justifiable for a local authority to refuse planning permission on the basis of prematurity.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this land, at the former RAF station at Bentwaters, is needed for housing in accordance with the Deputy Prime Minister's policy to make the

955
maximum use of brown land rather than sensitive green land in meeting housing requirements in this country? Does she recognise also that in the three constituencies involved—Suffolk Coastal, Central Suffolk and South Suffolk—there is full employment under the Beveridge criteria? Does she accept that a regional airport in that area would have major infrastructure implications incurring considerable costs for the taxpayers in the building of roads and so forth which do not presently exist? Finally, does she recognise that the national implications of this case make it far too important to be left for determination by the Suffolk Coastal District Council?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's final point, the policy regarding call-ins is to be selective and in the main to allow local determination of these issues. However, as I said earlier, I understand the anxieties. We are dealing with an area of outstanding natural beauty and a presumption against major development that exists in all such areas. That is the reason the Government Office will be monitoring carefully the progress of the current planning application and advising the Secretary of State accordingly.
I note what the noble Lord said about the need for housing rather than employment in that area. There has been a chequered history surrounding the site and the closure of the US Air Force base took a large chunk out of the local economy. That is of concern, given that, in addition to being an area of outstanding natural beauty, it is also a rural development area.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one point she has not mentioned is that the planning application is also outside the Suffolk county structure plan for airports, which specifically states that any airport that is to replace Ipswich airport should not be within an AONB? That departure was advertised by the district council. Does she also agree that so far the district council appears to be proceeding along the right lines? It made the right advertisements. A number of questions need to be answered in relation to the application. I hope that the Minister can assure me that she will be putting pressure on the district council to come to the right decision, which is clearly one that takes account of the extreme environmental sensitivity and the general unsuitability of a large airport on that site; and the fact that it is generally desirable that such a decision should be made locally.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is right that any application for development within an AONB must take account of policy guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 7. That states that, in general, policies and development-controlled decisions affecting areas of outstanding natural beauty should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and has the presumption against major development that I noted earlier.
I recognise what the noble Lord says about the Suffolk development plan. It is in the difficult situation of various states of the planning process being at various
956
stages of their own development. However, as I said earlier, I recognise the possibility that a local determination may be considered by the local planning authority to be premature because of the development that is taking place in terms of structure and other development plans.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that that application for an airport has large regional consequences as well as merely local ones? There may also be national implications. Does the Minister agree that the whole problem of planning, from the point of view of a local authority, is that there is no context of a national airports policy against which it can make a judgment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept that, almost by definition, any application for a regional airport will have regional implications and also that the policy with regard to regional airports generally is one of national concern in the context of national aviation policy. I hope that we can set a framework in the White Paper which will be published later this month on integrated transport policy. We are also looking specifically at the issue of regional airports and the effect, for example, on the economy and the environment and doing that in the context of a study of regional airport policy in the south-west.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Suffolk County Council is wrestling with airfield commercialisation in another of its areas of outstanding natural beauty; namely, at Nayland? That is Constable country right in the middle of the Stour Valley. Can she therefore given an assurance to the House that that area of outstanding natural beauty will not be threatened by civil aviation developments in the same way as the Suffolk coastline is now being threatened by the proposed regional airport development at Bentwaters?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot give specific assurances in regard to specific or potential applications. I have tried to make clear that the general rules regarding areas of outstanding natural beauty exist and are clear for local planning authorities to take into account. The whole issue in relation to regional airports should be considered in the context of regional and local planning. It is in those contexts that the regional office government officers will monitor individual applications. If they consider that there is a national interest issue which ought to be referred to the Secretary of State, they will advise accordingly.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many aspects of the proposal require detailed consideration, including the extent and the kind of use which has been referred to by other noble Lords this afternoon? Is she satisfied that local planning authorities have the appropriate planning powers and the ability to impose planning conditions which are adequate to control those kinds of development; or is it a matter in

957
which the Government need to be involved in the context of airport policy within the region and nationally?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, our plans for regional planning guidance will ensure that in future a regional transport plan is included in regional planning guidance. That would allow exactly that kind of strategic context to be set for each region.

Community Hospitals
3 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to protect the role of community hospitals in the National Health Service.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, in our White Paper The New NHS we set out the important role community hospitals can play in providing locally based services. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, within this broad framework, individual health authorities are responsible for determining the appropriate balance of care for their populations. But any local decision to change community hospitals—those which might be referred to the Secretary of State—will be upheld by my right honourable friend only if he is convinced that resources could be used differently to improve services for patients.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I appreciate that reassurance. But is the Minister aware of the growing national concern at the increasing tendency of local health authorities to consider, in their desperate search for economies, that community hospitals are expendable? Is she aware, for example, that Watlington Hospital in the rural area in which I live is now threatened with closure as part of an attempt to raise £1.5 million worth of cuts? Would it not be a tragedy if this Government, who believe so strongly in making community care more worth while and more humane, were to allow this vital element of local community care, which is so helpful, particularly to the elderly, just to be swept aside in the overall rush for competing claims?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much appreciate what my noble friend said about the Government's intention to improve community services. That is indeed the case. However, I would challenge her view that this is a widespread change which is happening throughout the health service. In fact, at the moment, only four possible community hospital closures have been referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—all four of those are in Cornwall—and he is now in very detailed discussion with the regional health authority responsible to try to achieve a solution which does not involve closing all those hospitals. As far as concerns the Oxfordshire situation, I would suggest to my noble friend that that health
958
authority has recently received a great deal of money which should help it to address the problems to which she referred. For example, it received £3.4 million more than any other authority in that region to combat so-called winter pressures, and £554,000 has recently gone to community rehabilitation services and £2.1 million in general to community schemes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many community hospitals and cottage hospitals can provide a useful local service and also respite care? Is she aware that in some areas of the country, such as Essex, these hospitals have been taken over by groups of general practitioners? They are used for local people and take pressure off the major hospitals.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords. I very much agree with the noble Baroness that there have been several imaginative schemes to keep open these services in different localities. The point is that there can be no national blueprint for this kind of service because in some places a traditional community cottage hospital may be the most appropriate way of spending local resources but in others community-based nursing services may offer the same services in a more appropriate way.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether her right honourable friend has consented to the closure of Putney Hospital? Does that not rate as a community hospital?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that decision is still under consideration. It is difficult to define community hospitals; but within the terms of the discussion this afternoon, that would not come within that category.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the new emphasis on primary health care? But is it not difficult for general practitioners to look after their patients if they do not have facilities to do that? Does she further agree that there is tremendous support from local people for community hospitals?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, there is always support for services which people feel are those which serve the local community well. However, I would suggest to the noble Baroness that there are new ways of offering that kind of direct care which may be attractive to people in different parts of the country. For example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced that we were extending the NHS Direct service, which is the 24-hour nurse-led helpline, so that it now covers 10 million people in the country. That may be one of the ways in which, imaginatively, we can improve these services in the future.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on child support.
Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Sentence Review Commissioners]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out (", and one of them shall he appointed chairman").
The noble Lord said: We are here today to consider amendments that have been put down to the Bill that is before your Lordships' Committee. I welcome the interest in the Bill that has been taken so far by noble Lords. It is part of our function to scrutinise and improve legislation. But noble Lords will be aware that it is the Government's position that the Bill must remain consistent with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. For that reason I cannot support many of the amendments that have been put down by noble Lords. However, there are one or two amendments which I will be able to accept on the grounds that they improve the overall terms of the Bill while remaining faithful to the agreement.
I shall take government Amendments Nos. 1, 45, 46 and 48 together, as they all relate to the same purpose. Government Amendment No. 1 removes that part of Clause 1(1) which requires that one of the commissioners appointed under the Bill by the Secretary of State is made chairman. But it is clearly not the Government's intention to remove entirely from the Bill the requirement to appoint a chairman.
Government Amendment No. 45, which relates to Schedule 1—the schedule that deals with the appointment of the commissioners—requires the Secretary of State to appoint a chairman or joint chairman. The effect of government Amendment No. 46 is that, if joint chairmen are appointed, they shall be jointly responsible for the preparation of the annual report. Government Amendment No. 48 amends Schedule 2, which deals with the Secretary of State's power to make rules regarding the procedures to be
960
followed by commissioners in exercising their functions. In particular, this would allow the Secretary of State to make rules regarding the allocation of functions under joint chairmen. nder the terms of the amendment, functions may be exercised jointly or concurrently.
I should explain why the Government believe it might be desirable to appoint joint chairmen for the sentence review body. Under the terms of the Bill,
"In making appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the Commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland".
That is set out in Clause 1(3).
It is a challenging requirement. Many Members of the Committee will be fully aware of the contentious nature of appointments within Northern Ireland. The appointment of an individual may be welcomed by one group but condemned by another. The significance of the position of chairman of the sentence review commissioners cannot be underestimated. By allowing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to appoint joint chairmen, it may be easier for her to meet the test in Clause 1(3). I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We also support the agreement. I recognise that that sometimes can give rise to difficulty both for the Government and ourselves in looking at some of the amendments on the Marshalled List and some of those which it might be desirable, in other circumstances, to move or include in the Bill. The agreement is not perfect from everyone's point of view. We would not regard it as the perfect agreement, but it was the agreement that could be reached. That is extremely important in the context of this Bill. Frankly, if the agreement had not been reached, this Bill would not be acceptable at all. It is only acceptable within the terms of the agreement. I am sure that later we shall return to whether certain points are within both the letter of the agreement, which is easier to establish, and within its spirit, which is much more difficult to establish.
As regards Amendments Nos. 1, 45. 46 and 48, I entirely understand the reasons why the Government have now decided that it might be easier to appoint joint chairmen than a single chairman. I see no provision for that in the agreement or in the paper on the release of prisoners which was submitted to the talks. I am not quite sure of the status of that paper. It is clearly not part of the agreement, but it was before the participants to the talks who reached the agreement. Therefore, it seems to represent, in part at least, the spirit of the agreement for these purposes.
In talking about the chairmen and the members of the commission, the Government agreed in Committee in another place that the statutory lawyer on the commission—I use that term deliberately because the statute provides for a lawyer to be on the commission—should be a United Kingdom lawyer and not a foreign one. But the Government resisted attempts to ensure that a qualified lawyer should be the chairman of the sentence review body.

961
I am slightly surprised that the judges in this House have not been keener to see at least a qualified lawyer appointed to head this particular body because it has to make decisions on sentencing. In other contexts the judges often seem keen to emphasise their responsibility and experience, which I acknowledge. That amendment is not before us at the moment. I can see the wisdom in providing for the possibility of joint chairmen. Therefore, I am happy to support this particular amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: This afternoon we shall be considering two sorts of amendments: those designed to clarify the Bill and those designed to improve on the Good Friday Agreement. From these Benches we shall be very resistant to the second sort of amendment. The amendments before us at the moment do not fall into that category. They clarify and they are helpful. We shall support them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I ask for clarification. I wholly accept that one is bound by the scope and ambit of the agreement. If a question arises as to whether an amendment falls within the spirit or letter of the agreement, is a copy of the agreement available in the Library?
Lord Dubs: Yes. There is bound to be a copy in the Library. Indeed, copies were available in the Printed Paper Office. If any Member of the Committee needs to get one quickly, it is possible that I may be able to get one or two copies on demand.
Lord Tebbit: I apologise, but I had to leave the Chamber for a moment or two during the Minister's speech. Can he clear up one thing about which I have doubts? Who will appoint the chairman?
Lord Dubs: The Secretary of State will appoint the chairman.
Lord Tebbit: The amendment merely removes the words,
"and one of them shall be appointed chairman".
Am I misreading what is provided in the amendment?
Lord Dubs: Clause 1(1) states,
"The Secretary of State shall appoint Sentence Review Commissioners, and one of them shall be appointed chairman".
That will be by the Secretary of State. That is certainly my understanding of the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I thought that, with Amendment No. 1, we were also discussing Amendment No. 45. That amendment states:
"The Secretary of State shall appoint a chairman, or joint chairmen, from among the Commissioners".
That is to be inserted into the Bill if the Committee agrees.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("and
(c) at least one is representative of the victims of terrorist crime associated with Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: In the debate that we had on this Bill last week, we heard very little about the victims. I accept of course that that is part of the price which the Government are prepared to pay in their hopes to appease republican opinion. But it seems to me that it would only be appropriate if, among the commissioners who are going to consider the early release of prisoners and the manner in which organisations have given up violence and come into the democratic fold, there was at least one person who will look at all the issues from the point of view of the victims of terrorist crimes associated with Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am very happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. It is an extremely important one if we are to achieve balance in that regard. I see no good reason why this amendment should be unacceptable to anyone. I am quite sure that Her Majesty's Government, having insisted that the victims of terrorism must not be forgotten—and we are grateful for those assurances both by the Minister and the Secretary of State herself—will fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Nor need there be any great difficulty in finding suitable nominees for the post. Members of the Committee will know that the former much-respected head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, produced a splendid report on the need for the victims of terrorist crimes to be kept in the forefront of all our minds and deliberations. Thus far a sense of balance has been conspicuous by its absence. The noble Lord has said that it is understandable that terrorists have to be placated in order to ensure that the mis-named "peace process" is kept on the rails. For that reason what were called "confidence-building concessions" were, until now, directed towards terrorists and their fellow travellers.
The amendment makes a modest start in redressing the balance. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield and his team will have no difficulty in providing representatives—if there is to be more than one—of the forgotten men, women and children who had the misfortune to get in the way of the bullets, sometimes because they were determined to live normal lives and in other cases because they persisted in serving the entire Northern Ireland community, of all faiths and of none.
Now is the time for an element of justice to be done. Including a representative of the victims would go a long way towards achieving the aim set out in subsection (3), to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred earlier, and would command widespread acceptance throughout the community. In my view, the amendment would do just that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: In supporting this amendment, perhaps I may first urge the Government to

963
have very special regard to this paragraph from the Rowe Report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act:
"I agree that there is a reduced amount of terrorist activity, and of course there are ceasefires and a 10th April Agreement and a 'Yes' vote in the Referendum of 22nd May. But I have heard and seen real evidence of intimidation, exerted by paramilitaries, and the fear caused by it. And I refer to Chapter 3 above where I survey the facts about the present terrorist situation, and in my view those facts demonstrate what is the influence, still, of the paramilitaries. Furthermore, where a jury was empanelled to try a case which had paramilitary connections, jurors reported incidents in which they were obviously intimidated, and they were made apprehensive, and the trial was therefore aborted; and there were several attempts to complete the trial, but each failed, and for the same reason. To my mind the case is a clear illustration that juries cannot yet be asked to try cases where there is a paramilitary connection".
It seems to me that that is very relevant to our discussion here because it demonstrates clearly that even now there are victims—victims of severe and continuing intimidation. Someone must speak for them on the commission. I should have preferred that someone to be drawn from either Families Against Intimidation and Terror (FAIT) or from the RUC.
My second point relates to the amendment to Clause 3. I think that we need some information on the contents of the Criminal Justice (Release of Prisoners) Bill which is now being considered in Dublin. Would it be possible for the Minister to make such information available for Report stage? It would be extremely unfortunate if the drafting and the application of the Bill in the South could be used by paramilitaries in the North to exert pressure on Her Majesty's Government to be, as it will be said, as generous and as ready to take risks for peace as Dublin is. I submit that the threats to peace are not the same in both parts of Ireland.
Lord Monson: I, too, support the amendment for the reasons powerfully spelt out from various quarters of the Committee. As my noble friend Lord Molyneaux said, it is difficult to see how anyone could possibly oppose it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: When the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, spoke, he said, perhaps inadvertently, that there was no discussion of victims at Second Reading. He may not recall it, but from these Benches I made a point of speaking about victims and referred to Clause 14—
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I said, or at least I intended to say—perhaps I did not say it or perhaps the noble Lord missed it—that there had been no discussion of victims in the Minister's speech advocating the Bill. If the noble Lord reads the speech, I think that he will find that there is precious little about victims in it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I spoke about victims at some length. I shall not waste the Committee's time by pursuing the point, but I did so particularly in the context of Clause 14 which deals with the notification of victims and which was inserted into the Bill not least because of pressure from the Alliance Party.
964
I agree entirely with the sentiment of this amendment. However, as worded, I believe that it presents considerable difficulties for any Secretary of State in identifying a representative from the wide variety of victims of terrorist crime. There are so many sorts of victims with so many different frames of mind. I should very much like to see on the commission someone who has been affected directly or indirectly by terrorist crime. The suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, is very interesting. She said that an organisation such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror might be involved. There are considerable problems in nominating one person who is representative of that whole wide body of horrible experience. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government propose to handle this thought, which is a very good one.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendment primarily because of the victims and their relatives. Secondly, I believe that all too often the Northern Ireland Office loses sight of the fact that it requires support from the population of Northern Ireland generally. A vast number of the people of Northern Ireland, going far beyond the families of the victims, would see acceptance of this amendment as an extremely sympathetic move in relation to the victims and their feelings. The Government are at present coming under quite a lot of fire for not having a truly representative Parades Commission. The same is said of various other organisations. It would help their case, perhaps more than any other, if they were to include on the commission a representative of the victims from within Northern Ireland.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. My noble friend Lord Dubs indicated earlier that he would accept some amendments; I hope that this will be one. As far as I can see, there can be no objection at all to the amendment. Indeed, there is very much to be said in its favour. As I understand it, one of the great problems in Northern Ireland with regard to this Bill is the outrage that so many victims and their families feel because although their loved ones are no longer here—or, if they are here, they are in dire circumstances and they cannot be released from the effects of the bombings—the perpetrators of the crimes who have not paid the full price of those crimes are set to be released from prison prematurely. Frankly, I can understand why they feel that way. I would feel exactly the same myself.
If a representative of the victims were to serve on the commission—in any event I disagree with the establishment of the commission—they would at least have some assurance that their points of view would be put forward and, posthumously, the points of view of those who have been destroyed by the vicious activities of the terrorist organisations. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I make a sincere plea to the Government that they accept the amendment. I support the amendment because I believe that it would raise the

965
credibility of the deliberations of the sentence review commissioners and because I believe that it would help the healing process which is so important in the context of making the overall peace process work. I recognise the problems of choosing one person to represent the victims, but I do not believe that the late Gordon Wilson was unique in his humanity, forgiveness, wisdom and breadth of vision.
Lord Kilbracken: Can the Minister give any indication of how many commissioners there will be and whether their decisions will have to be unanimous or based on a majority of their opinions?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. I cannot find anything against it in the agreement. Obviously, as has been said, it is a healing and a humanitarian measure. I respectfully suggest that it would only help the implementation of the agreement which will be difficult in any circumstances.
Lord Dunleath: I, too, from Northern Ireland support the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Molyneaux. To support what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has just said, I have with me a copy of the agreement which, in Strand 3, under the heading "Reconciliation and Victims of Violence" states in paragraph 12:
"It is recognised that victims have a right to remember as well as to contribute to a changed society".
I believe that as a commissioner a victim would make an enormous contribution.
Finally, as to where a representative of victims is to be found, I suggest that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield and the Northern Ireland Victims' Commission is an ideal place to start.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I too support this amendment. All noble Lords had victims very much in mind during Second Reading. Many of the speeches reflected that. We have had them particularly in mind since the publication of the excellent report by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. In one sense everyone in Northern Ireland is a victim. The whole Province has been the victim of terrorism for a long period, but there are some who are victims because of what has happened to them or to those close to them. Obviously, that is what one has in mind in considering this amendment.
I hope that at all times the commissioners, in making their decisions, will act with the victims in mind, both victims in general and the victims in each particular case that they consider. The crimes that the commissioners consider will be a guide as to whether or not those who committed them are likely to revert to terrorism. In paragraph 3 of the agreement the section on prisoners states that account will be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted. That is in the agreement. The agreement takes account of the crimes committed and hence the victims of those crimes committed by the prisoners in question.
966
I hope that the Government will agree to this amendment. If the Minister is unable to agree to it straight away, perhaps he will think about it most carefully between now and Report stage.
Lord Dubs: I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and other noble Lords. The Committee is right to draw attention to the importance of giving consideration to those who have been the victims of terrorist crime.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that I do not agree for one moment that the Bill is intended to appease republican opinion. The Bill is intended to give effect to an agreement which was supported by political parties across the spectrum in Northern Ireland, not just republicans. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, also suggested that the Government had not said enough about their concerns for and their wish to do more for victims. I do not believe that that is an accurate reflection of either my position or that of the Government. I remind the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, very helpfully pointed out, that in November 1997 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State appointed Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to report on,
"the feasibility of providing greater recognition for those who have become victims in the last 30 years as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland".
The report We Will Remember Them was published in May 1998. It will be the focus of future government help for victims and their loved ones, and will inform the allocation of the £5 million promised by the Prime Minister to support victims and their families.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has appointed the Minister of State, Adam Ingram, as Minister for Victims and has also established a victims liaison unit within the Northern Ireland Office to develop policy and implement the recommendations of Sir Kenneth's report. Last Tuesday my honourable friend the Minister of State announced the first package of measures, which included £700,000 to establish a new trauma centre for young people and their families who have been affected by the troubles, and a £200,000 fund to be established immediately for community groups and voluntary organisations to take forward recommendations in the Bloomfield Report. A major consultation exercise will inform further action. These are positive measures and the Government are committed to building on them to meet the needs of victims.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The effect of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to appoint as a commissioner someone who,
"is representative of the victims of terrorist crime associated with Northern Ireland".
Although many victims and their relatives will be concerned about the release of prisoners under this measure and the Bill gives recognition to that concern through the provisions for victim notification, that does not mean that victims or their representatives should be given a direct role in deciding who should be released. The Bill does not require that victims' views should be

967
taken into account by the commissioners in deciding whether a prisoner should receive a declaration. In that respect I note that the noble Lord who spoke to the amendment did not say that it should impose such a requirement. The commissioners are required to apply the conditions referred to in Clause 3 and no others. As such, there is no specialist expertise that a victims' representative would bring to the process. This is not to say that the Secretary of State could not or should not appoint to the body someone who might be considered to be representative of victims; only that there is no reason to make it a requirement under the legislation. I believe that that is the nub of the argument.
I deal with two or three specific points. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, requested that a Bill that had recently been published in Dublin should be made available. I shall do my best to see what can be done in time for Report stage. Under this Bill the number of commissioners will be 10. For their normal work they will be arranged in panels of three, but decisions by commissioners will be made by a majority.
I am aware of the sensitivity of any issue to do with victims. Many people in Northern Ireland are victims and have suffered enormously over the past 25 years. But it is my view that many victim groups do not necessarily want a specific role in deciding on releases under the Bill. They are probably far more concerned that their own needs should be addressed. The Government have already gone some way in endeavouring to do that. Some victims do support the agreement; perhaps others do not. There is no unanimity of view among victims. There is nothing between us except whether this should be the subject of a specific requirement in legislation. I am prepared to consider further what the Committee has said in the course of this debate without making any commitment.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the Minister for his last wise words. He could very easily say that, whatever the Bill might say, it would be the intention of the Secretary of State to appoint such a person. I am sure that then we could all rest entirely happy. The Minister underlined much of what was said by all those who supported the amendment when he observed that there was no requirement to consider victims under the Bill. Precisely so. That was why I thought it appropriate to amend the Bill in this way.
I am surprised that the Minister denies that the Bill seeks to appease republican opinion. We do not want to cover old ground today. However, I remind the Minister that the referendum upon which he leans so heavily took place when the IRA was fully armed and the people of Northern Ireland were told that if they did not vote "Yes" there was little doubt that the IRA would again use its arms. I have my worries about that.
I remind the noble Lord that when I asked him whether Her Majesty's Government accepted any
968
obligation to ensure impartiality in the conduct of the Northern Ireland referendum he observed:
"I can comment only on the position of the Government … We wanted to see, and were pleased that there was, a yes vote, but we took the position throughout the campaign that how people chose to vote on 22nd May was entirely a matter for them".—[Official Report, 5/6/98; col. WA 57.]
We would be naive wholly to believe that, especially when the noble Lord also confirmed that the Secretary of State had granted temporary release to four prisoners to attend the Sinn Fein conference and acknowledged that that was a matter of concern and hurt to many members of the public.
The Minister informed me that the Secretary of State had said that such releases would not be granted for such purposes in the future. So it was all right to say that the Government were impartial; and all right for them to release people from prison to campaign for a yes vote. But no one was released from prison to campaign for a no vote, or, indeed, no help was given to those campaigning for a no vote. Nor do I think that talk of £5 million in that context as washing away the Government's responsibilities towards victims is adequate. The victims are not to be bought with £5 million. The Minister may shake his head, but many people would be extremely hurt that in a discussion of whether one of the commissioners should be representative of the victims, the Minister should introduce the question of £5 million that was going to be paid out to help them in some way or another.
I should find the suggestion that there are so many victims that it would be difficult to find anyone to represent them laughable, if it were not tragic. I take some encouragement from what the Minister said at the end of his speech. Therefore I am content to withdraw the amendment so that we can return to it on Report when the Minister might have something more positive to say about the Government's intentions, even if nothing more positive to say about the possibility of putting that into legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Applications]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("for") to ("life") in line 5.
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20 and 27. Clause 3 is an important clause. It deals with the eligibility for release of individual prisoners, and sets out the criteria involved. The criteria include four conditions, three of which apply to fixed sentenced prisoners and a fourth condition which applies, with the other three, to life sentence prisoners alone. It is the fourth condition which is the subject of the amendments.
The fourth condition is that if the prisoner were released immediately he would not be a danger to the public. As I say, that applies to life sentence prisoners only. Even if it were the opinion of the commissioners that a prisoner serving a fixed term would be a danger to the public he would, nevertheless, be released if the

969
other conditions were fulfilled. I find that an extraordinary proposition. I found it odd that a similar amendment was not accepted when it was moved in another place.
In the debate in another place, the Minister of State advanced as a reason for not accepting the amendment that prisoners on fixed sentences were, in the normal course of things, released at the end of the term of their sentence, whatever that may be, which had been fixed by the judge with the appropriate rules for remission and so on. They are released at the end of the term of their sentence whether or not they were regarded as a risk. No judgment is made at the end of the fixed sentence as to whether there is a risk. He therefore regarded that amendment as a significant new concept in the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland. The Minister said rather the same in response to that point being made briefly in this place on Second Reading.
However, the whole Bill is a significant new concept in the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland. In any case, there is to be an assessment of risk for those serving fixed term as well as for those serving life under the third condition:
"if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation, or to become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
That is to say, that even for lifers the risk of committing terrorist offences is to be assessed and is to form part of the decision leading up to or—not, as the case may be—the release of the individual prisoner.
In that sense, the principle of the amendment is conceded so far as concerns terrorist crimes. All the amendment does is extend that principle to crimes that are not regarded as terrorist crimes under the Bill. If a fixed sentence prisoner was thought likely to return to violent crime, but not a terrorist crime, he would still be released early. There would, as I see it in the Bill as it stands, be no legal way to stop that. That is not desirable. It is not that novel a principle, given the context of the Bill as a whole.
We may be told that all that has been drafted in the Bill was set out in the paper Prisoners and the Political Settlement. I referred briefly in some earlier remarks to that paper, which was placed in the Library of the House by the Minister at the time of the agreement. But I am not clear as to what is the exact position of that paper. I take it to be an expression of the Government's view on how they would implement the agreement, which was made available to those negotiating the agreement, and hence it can be thought of in some sense as an embodiment, at least so far as concerns prisoners, of the spirit of the agreement. It is not of course part of the agreement itself.
The agreement itself is clearer on that point. In paragraph 3 on page 25 in the section on prisoners it says that account will be taken of the seriousness of the offences of which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community. It seems to me therefore that it is well within the terms of the agreement itself that the community should be protected from a fixed sentence prisoner who otherwise might be thought liable to go back to violent crime of some kind on his release.
It seems to me that in that respect the Government have not implemented in the Bill the full terms of the agreement, or the section on prisoners. This gives me the opportunity to make it clear once again that we on this side accept the whole of the agreement—the words of the agreement and its spirit. Nothing that I have said before, and nothing that I intend to say, should be outside the terms of the written agreement—if I can manage it, as I read it, at any rate—and I hope that nothing will be outside the spirit of the agreement. Judging by the Minister's remarks on Second Reading, and his colleague's remarks in another place, in this case the amendment is nearer to the words of the agreement than the Bill itself. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It seems to be a totally reasonable amendment, from reading the agreement. What has happened? Why have the Government moved away from the simple concepts in paragraph 3 on prisoners and embarked upon this complicated exercise? There must be some reason for it. Before making up my mind, I should like to know what the reason was and why the agreement, as it stands, is not good enough.
The Earl of Longford: I had hoped that the Minister would speak earlier. My attitude to this and other amendments will depend on what my noble friend, with the authority of his office and expert knowledge, tells us. As I have said previously, this agreement is the best thing that has happened to Northern Ireland in my lifetime. I have the utmost confidence in all those concerned. I would not put my judgment as regards what is within or outside the agreement against theirs.
I shall wait to hear what the Minister says. If my noble friend says that the provision is outside the agreement, I am against it.
Lord Dubs: Amendments that would have the same effect as these were put down and debated in another place. At that time the Government gave reasons why those amendments would not be accepted.
As was explained in another place, there are good reasons for drawing a distinction between determinate sentences and life sentences. A life sentence is imposed automatically as the mandatory sentence for murder. It may also be imposed at the discretion of the court for other very serious offences. In these discretionary cases, the life sentence is likely to have been imposed precisely because the court considered that the risk of further serious offences being committed was an issue. It is therefore entirely proper that in such cases the commissioners should take account of any risk of danger to the public.
However, the same principles and rules do not apply to fixed term prisoners. Under the law in Northern Ireland such prisoners are released automatically after

971
they have served the required portion of their sentence. The release of fixed term prisoners is not dependent on a favourable assessment of risk.
I can understand that because of the new release arrangements introduced by this Bill many would consider that additional protections are required before release may be considered. But I believe that the other criteria which determinate sentence prisoners must satisfy are extremely robust and are appropriate for prisoners who have not been given life sentences by the courts.
It also remains the case that a fixed term prisoner may not be released if the commissioners consider that he is likely to become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. This means that every applicant must be assessed to determine whether he would be likely to re-engage in terrorism or acts related to it.
I shall now deal with the amendment that would extend the licence conditions for fixed term prisoners to include risk. With the exception of some sex offenders, prisoners serving fixed sentences for non-terrorist offences who are released in Northern Ireland are not subject to any licence conditions. If they commit further offences they are simply dealt with in the normal way and sentenced for the further offence. For cases that fall under the Treatment of Offenders Order 1976 a prisoner may be subject to a further penalty in respect of an offence committed after discharge from prison.
Under this Bill, which is primarily to do with terrorism and terrorists, a fixed term prisoner will be subject to licence conditions which allow his recall and return to prison if he becomes or is likely to become re-involved in acts of terrorism after release. This addresses the key concern regarding those released under this Bill that they should not be allowed to remain at large if they are likely to be involved in further acts of terrorism. As such, the Bill makes provision for the risk of involvement in further acts of terrorism.
In addition, to include such a condition goes beyond the terms of the paper placed in the Library by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 20th April to which some noble Lords referred. That paper made clear that life sentence prisoners would be subject to a risk criteria and by implication suggested that other prisoners would not. Although that paper is not part of the agreement, it was made available to the parties in the course of the discussions that led to the agreement as an explanation of what the Government would be prepared to do to implement those parts of the agreement relating to prisoners. As such the Government consider that they should not depart from the terms of that paper at this time and that to do so would undermine confidence in the Government's commitment to making all parts of the agreement a reality, as was helpfully said by my noble friend Lord Longford.
Also, to include such a provision could give difficulty with the coherence of the Bill. As fixed term prisoners do not have to pass a risk test to be released, to impose
972
such a condition as part of the licence could lead to the sort of problem outlined in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State. He explained:
"A prisoner could have his licence suspended by the Secretary of State and revoked by the commissioners on the grounds that he was, or was likely to become, a danger to the public. The prisoner could then apply to the commissioners for a declaration under clause 3. They would have to consider the prisoner for release against the conditions set out in clause 3 and, if those were met, make a further declaration in his favour … a state of affairs in which a prisoner could be recalled to prison for breaching his licence conditions but released again because he meets the criteria in clause 3 would be unsatisfactory, in particular as the prisoner in question would not have committed a further criminal offence".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/98; col. 1440.]
I hope that I have explained the reasons for the Government's position. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will not be pressed further.
Lord Monson: If a prisoner is sentenced to a fixed term of 25 years in prison for a serious terrorist offence—we can all think of a recent case—and is released in consequence of the Bill after two years instead of 16 years and eight months, as would normally be the case, is there not a serious danger that he might reoffend?
Lord Dubs: First, I do not wish to comment on particular cases. However, if someone has been given a 25 year sentence, the court has presumably taken a view as to the likelihood of reoffending; and that view influenced the court into giving a fixed term decision rather than a life sentence. It is on that basis that the distinction in the Bill continues. If the court had believed that there was a grave risk of that individual reoffending, the court would surely have imposed a life sentence.
Lord Tebbit: I hope that we shall all remember to keep our copies of the Official Report of the debate because I think that the Minister's words may come back to haunt him.
I have to remind the noble Lord that the people it is proposed to let out of prison are not all first time offenders. A number of them have served sentences and have been suitably released, under the provisions of the Northern Irish jurisdiction, and the different and easier rules from those on the mainland which have been in place there for some time, and have been rearrested and reconvicted for committing new terrorist acts. So the Minister must be extraordinarily confident that as a result of this agreement there will be a change of heart on the part of men who have had no change of heart previously and have not been reformed in any way by their time in prison. Indeed, the latter is hardly surprising since most of their time in prison will have been spent in receiving instruction in the ways of terrorism from their camp commanders, as they refer to them.
The Earl of Longford: Is the noble Lord telling us that the amendment is or is not consistent with the agreement?
Lord Tebbit: I am not entering into that discussion at this moment. There are those who will maintain that it is; and those who will maintain that it is not.

973
I am saying that the Minister must be extremely confident of himself. I should also like to tempt him briefly. Of course he cannot see ahead as to how the review board will operate and what conclusions it will reach. But does the noble Lord believe that those who signed up to the agreement expect that most, some, all, or nearly all of the members of their terrorist group will get out? It will be intriguing to know. Will these commissioners, review board members—whatever we call them—rubber stamp? Or can we expect that in many cases they will consider a man's record and say, "No, this man is too dangerous to let out, whatever expectations were aroused by the agreement"?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister responded earlier with words that had probably been prepared before he heard the debate. He did not address the points which I and others made. Part of the argument was whether the amendment is consistent with the agreement. The Minister did not argue that it was consistent with the agreement; he said that it was consistent with the paper that was issued and placed in the Library, rather than the agreement.
My noble friend and I drew attention to the fact that the agreement specifically said that the review process would provide for the need to protect the community. In each case it appears that it should do so. I cannot see where the Bill does that in respect of fixed-sentence prisoners.
The Minister also spoke of the coherence of the Bill being damaged by these amendments. I do not agree. He said that there was a no-risk test for those serving determinate sentences. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, there is a risk test as regards terrorist crimes. That is the third condition which the commissioners must address. There is a risk test as far as terrorist crimes are concerned. The Minister referred to it. It is true that in the Bill as it stands there is not a risk test in relation to crimes other than terrorist crimes. The point of the amendment is to insert such a risk test.
Is the Minister prepared to say that determinate sentence prisoners should be released earlier than the trial judge thought was the right sentence for their crimes, even if they would be a danger to the public?
4 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I can only repeat what I said. For those prisoners released under the terms of the Bill, a condition of the licence will be that they do not re-engage in, or are not likely to re-engage in, the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The licence conditions are surely one of the key safeguards that the noble Lord sought to establish.
We do not need the additional safeguard as regards the risk element to which he referred as the basis for his amendments. There are sufficient safeguards. Of course no one can predict what will happen in the case of every single prisoner released. I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the figures I gave the House on Second Reading in relation to the number of prisoners that had been released. I speak from memory, but of the several hundred prisoners released in recent years, only two
974
have been reconvicted of terrorist offences. That does not prove that that will be the case in the future, but it indicates that the process has not resulted in prisoners reoffending and that the conditions of the licence would seem to be a safeguard.
The argument that was advanced in the other place and which I advanced both at Second Reading and today is not one that I will live to regret.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps the reason that prisoners who have reoffended have not been caught is because extradition is not working. On Second Reading the Minister said that those of us who considered that to be a possibility were cynical. I have looked at the figures. In the past 20 years, 67 prisoners have been sought for terrorist offences; 20 have been arrested in the south but only six extradited. It may well be that the Minister's figures are confused by these facts.
Lord Dubs: I do not have any figures on extradition. I take the noble Baroness's figures as being accurate. I am not sure what that has to do with prisoners being released under licence—unless the noble Baroness is assuming that every prisoner released under this Bill will then move into the republic. I do not follow her argument.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am sorry, I am confusing the Minister. My point is that these prisoners have not been caught and we do not know whether they are reoffending.
Lord Dubs: That is right. We cannot know in all instances. We can know only of those who have been convicted since release, not those who have not. It may be that some have left Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that many prisoners have been released over recent years, both under his government and in the past year. I was not aware that the particular concerns he has expressed today were ones that he has applied to the programme of releases over the years. If that is so, his comments escaped me. The Bill lays down provisions for an accelerated release programme, but it is essentially a continuation of the policies that have been followed by both Governments for some years.
Lord Desai: I am not a lawyer but the amendment argues, not whether people who are released will reoffend—none of us can predict anything about that—but that we should not make a distinction between those with a life sentence and those with a fixed-term sentence. I have heard no argument that we should not make a distinction. Normally when judges impose a life sentence they take very seriously the distinction between a life sentence and a fixed-term sentence. On what ground is the noble Lord arguing that we should eliminate the distinction? Is it that everybody is very dangerous, whether a life-termer or a fixed-termer? The argument has always been that a life-termer is a different case. I would have expected the noble Lord to

975
have made a big thing about having life imprisonment as a separate and a hard category. Now we are told that we have to obliterate that distinction. Either way, the possibility of reoffending is not at issue—that is not predictable by us or anybody else—but the distinction between life and fixed term is still worth making.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Desai, says that the prediction as to whether or not people reoffend cannot be made, but that is what risk assessment is. The commissioners are obliged to make that judgment—difficult though it is—in respect of both types of prisoner with regard to terrorist crime. They are also obliged to make that judgment with regard to lifers and to all crime.
As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, now that, under the Bill, we are proposing to release people earlier than the judge thought was necessary for their crimes, regard should also be had as to whether they will be a danger to the public, as stated in the agreement.
The Minister relied on the licence conditions. That is what Amendment No. 27 goes to. It makes the same point in respect of the licence conditions as Amendment No. 3 makes in respect of the main release condition. It also makes the distinction between fixed-sentence prisoners and the life prisoner. The case is slightly different in relation to licence conditions, but it does not make it any better that a determinate sentence prisoner should be released when he is regarded as a danger to the public for ordinary crime. He is being released on licence only provided that he does not commit terrorist crime. It seems to me that that fourth condition should apply to both types of prisoner. But the Minister seems determined to try to stick to the opinion expressed by his right honourable friend in another place and, indeed, by himself. In that case, I must press the amendment.
Lord Tebbit: Before we reach that stage, I believe that the Minister could clear up this matter quite quickly if he really wanted to. Is he saying that regardless of what it says in the Bill, the board's review members will never release anyone who is a danger to the public, or is he saying just that they will not consider, before releasing a fixed-term prisoner, whether he will be a danger to the public? That is an interesting distinction.
Lord Dubs: I do not see that the members of the board can do more than act on what they consider to be the case.
Lord Tebbit: With respect to the Minister, that is not quite the question. As my noble friend Lord Cope said, the fourth condition that the prisoner would not be a danger to the public is attached only to lifers. Does that give an instruction to those who are considering the release of fixed-term prisoners that they should not take into account whether or not the individual who is the subject of their consideration would be a danger to the public? Indeed, is he saying that even if they were of the view that he would be a danger to the public they
976
should still release him because they have no powers on that ground to keep him in gaol if he is a fixed termer? If he were a lifer, of course, they could.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that I can add very much to what I said earlier. After all—and I am repeating myself—the commissioners will note what sentence was imposed by the court and will reflect upon the fact that the court had a good reason for drawing a distinction between a determinate and indeterminate sentence. It is on that basis that the Bill has been constructed.
Lord Tebbit: The judge would have had a good reason for sentencing a man to 25 years imprisonment. This Bill provides that he must be released after as little as two years.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that we shall achieve anything more from this dialogue. The Bill refers to people being released at the end of a two-year period and although there are certain safeguards and conditions, that would apply to both life sentence prisoners and determinate sentence prisoners.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I wish to press this matter to a Division.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 171.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Harmsworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Higgins, L.

Arran, E.

Holderness, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Beloff, L.

Leigh, L.

Biffen, L.

Lowry, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

McConnell, L.

Brightman, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Marsh, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Carew, L.

Milverton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chesham, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Moran, L.

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Moyne, L.

Davidson, V.

Naseby, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Norrie, L.

Dunleath, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Erne, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Foley, L.

Palmer, L.

Fookes, B.

Pender, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rathcavan, L.

977

Renwick, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rowallan, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Vivian, L.

Weatherill, L.

Skelmersdale, L

Wedgwood, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wilcox, B.

Strafford, E.

Wise, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hattersley, L.

Addington, L.

Hayman, B.

Alderdice, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Attenborough, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Avebury, L.

Hooson, L.

Barnett, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Borrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Islwyn, L.

Burlison, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Calverley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carlisle, E.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Chandos, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Chorley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Levy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Desai, L.

McNair, L.

Dholakia, L.

McNally, L.

Diamond, L.

Maddock, B.

Dixon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Meston, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ezra, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gilbert, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Newby, L.

Glasgow, E.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goodhart, L.

Orme, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Parry, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Paul, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hamwee, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hardie, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

978

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Taverne, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Russell, E.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Thurso, V.

Sandberg, L.

Tope, L.

Scanlon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sefton of Garston, L

Varley, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sewel, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Whaddon, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Whitty, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Wigoder, L.

Simon, V.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Winston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we move on to deal with the Statement on child support, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on Statements should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. If noble Lords speak at length, they will do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Child Support
4.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with your permission, I will make a Statement on the Government's Green Paper on reform of the child support system. We promised to reform the welfare state so that it is modern and fair and strikes the right balance between rights and responsibilities—reform on the basis of work for those who can and security for those who cannot. We want work for parents and security for their children.
"Children are first and foremost the responsibility of their parents. But we have a responsibility as a government to ensure that parents are in a position to support them—that they are working if they can—and

979
that children get the support that they need. That is why as a government we place so much emphasis on policies for families. We have increased child benefit for all families. We have embarked on a major welfare-to-work programme to ensure that mothers and fathers can work and improve their children's standard of living. The new deal for lone mothers will ensure that mothers work if they can. The new deal for the long-term unemployed and the young unemployed will mean that fathers, many for the first time, can support their children through work. These new deals, together with the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, are important parts of banishing child poverty.
"So welfare-to-work, the first part of our welfare reform, is under way. The second step in welfare reform—to ensure that children are properly supported by their non-resident father—is what I bring to the House today. The child support system is like no other part of the social security system. In most of the benefit system there are just two stakeholders—the benefit recipient and the taxpayer. In child support there are four: the child, who needs an adequate standard of living and is entitled to the father's support; the father, who has a responsibility to support the child and needs enough left to live on and to discharge his other responsibilities; the taxpayers, who need both to support their own children and to contribute through their taxes to prevent other people's children living in poverty; and the mother, who needs a dependable source of income for her family.
"Getting the system right and fair for all four is not an easy task. Few would seriously disagree with those objectives of child support. Most agree that the current system is not working to deliver them. In identifying the need for reform, I seek to make no party political criticism of the previous government. We are all wiser with the benefit of hindsight. Nor will I dwell for too long on the statistics which show the failings of the child support system, except to remind the House that there are 1.8 million children living in families on income support or family credit in respect of whom fathers pay no maintenance at all. One in six of all children in this country are being brought up supported only by their mothers working or, more usually, the benefits system.
"What sort of message does it send to boys who will one day themselves become fathers when they see that the financial responsibilities of fatherhood can be wholly delegated—either to the welfare state or to the mother alone? Seventy per cent. of lone mothers claiming income support now seek to avoid co-operating with the Child Support Agency. Their co-operation takes their time and energy, can cause further conflict with the child's father and, if they are not working, brings no financial gain to their children as all of the maintenance paid by the father is deducted from their benefit.
"The formula for assessing maintenance is so complicated that the CSA has to spend 90 per cent. of its time assessing maintenance or keeping assessments
980
up to date and is left with only 10 per cent. of its time to chase up payments. The complexity of the formula means that fathers do not know where they stand, and often the first demand for maintenance tells them that they are already thousands of pounds in arrears; and complexity leads to errors.
"So our reform of child support involves replacing the byzantine complexity of the current formula with a simple percentage. To assess maintenance will no longer require over 100 bits of information. It will no longer require fathers to report their new partner's income. It will not be necessary to assess the mother's new partner's income. It relies only on identifying the number of children the father has, where the children live and how much income he has after deduction of tax and national insurance.
"We propose that for one child 15 per cent. is deducted from the father's net income and paid in maintenance, for two children 20 per cent., and for three or more children 25 per cent. There will be special rules for fathers with a low income. For fathers who are on benefit or whose net income is below £100 we propose maintenance of £5 a week, with a sliding scale for those between £100 and £200.
"In assessing the amount of maintenance we propose taking into account children in a second family. Our Green Paper sets out for consultation two different options for reaching the right balance between the children in the first and second families. But both of these options are about taking second families into account.
"Moving from a complex formula to a simple percentage will have a number of advantages. Men who father a child with a woman with whom they are not living will know that they will have to pay 15 per cent. of their weekly income to that child for the next 16 years at least. Men who separate from their wife and children will know, before they take on other commitments, what they will have to put on one side for their children. The CSA will be able to spend dramatically less time assessing maintenance and spend more time ensuring it is paid. Everyone will understand the system. The aim is to ensure more fathers pay rather than that fathers pay more.
"But there is also the question of what the children receive when the fathers pay. Almost from the outset there has been complaint because for every pound paid in maintenance by the father a pound is deducted from the mother's income support. For mothers who are not working, this means that while co-operation with the Child Support Agency can mean maintenance is paid by the father, no maintenance is received by the child. For fathers who do not pay, they can feel that they are simply defying the CSA rather than disadvantaging their own children.
"We are proposing to change this. The child will in future receive a child maintenance premium. The first £10 of maintenance paid will go to the mother for the child and will not be deducted from her benefit. So when a father pays he will know that he is fulfilling his responsibilities and his child is better

981
off. When a mother on income support co-operates with the CSA, she will ensure he is paying his fair share and the child gets up to £10 more a week.
"As well as a simple percentage we need a better child support service. We propose a three-stage process. First, when the mother applies for maintenance, the father will be contacted and in most cases an assessment can be made over the phone. He can start paying right away. Secondly, if either parent has concerns about the assessment, there will be a review where the situation can be explained or sorted out. Thirdly, if either parent wants to challenge the basis of the assessment—for example, the calculation of income—their case will be assessed by an independent tribunal. We also propose that the tribunal should be able to set maintenance at a different percentage rate if the non-resident parent can show that he has special expenses incurred in supporting the child; for example, where the cost of paying the maintenance will make him unable to afford the costs of visiting the child.
"Though we propose these reforms, there will need to be time to consult, to take legislation through the House and then to change the computer systems. But people currently in the system cannot wait that long to see progress. We need to do what we can within the existing system to make it work better for them. We therefore intend to press forward with the introduction of more phone lines and service outside normal working hours. We will be taking further action to tackle the backlog. We will be spending an extra £12 million this year, in addition to the £30 million already committed over the next two years, to sharpen up our service.
"The CSA staff have borne much of the brunt of the complexity and unpopularity of the system. Much of the criticism that should have been directed at the system has been heaped on them, usually unfairly. But we are counting on them, and I know we can do so, to improve the current system and then make a first-class job of the new system. This is a Green Paper. Its proposals are for consultation until the end of November this year. We hope there will be the widest possible debate. For fathers, mothers and the taxpayer all to feel that the system is fair is not an easy task. The need for reform is obvious. The demand for reform has been voiced in hours of debate in this House, hundreds of pages of official reports and thousands of letters of public complaints. I believe that we have charted a new way forward.
"But I will conclude with a word of caution. Relations between men and women are not always easy. Relations between men and women where they are parents of the same child but do not share the same home are often intensely difficult. No reform of the child support system can ever change that. But it can work better than it does now and it can better serve those children who have a right to the support of both their parents, irrespective of where they live. It is above all for them that I present this Green Paper to the House today."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, first, I express our thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I do so with particular enthusiasm because I have the impression that much of the intensive work on this subject has fallen on the shoulders of the noble Baroness. Indeed the style that is adopted perhaps reflects that. I certainly hope to engage with her in a sympathetic and constructive dialogue on the basis of the Green Paper.
Before I do so there is one point I ought to make. It would not have been unreasonable for the noble Baroness to have said this afternoon, "Have I got news for you?" The reality is that almost all of the content of the Green Paper has been leaked steadily in the press for many weeks. That is particularly unfortunate. Recently the tendency of the Government to leak information has been accelerating. It has increased from the occasional unfortunate lapse to something approaching a nasty habit. That is to the advantage of the spin doctors whom we now suffer from so much. It gives them the chance either to put a gloss on something which is good news, or, if it is bad news, to say, "That is something which was dealt with days ago. It is old news and therefore do not bother about it" when it is actually dealt with on the Floor of Parliament. I hope therefore that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will feel it appropriate to join with Madam Speaker in saying that this is something we need to take into account.
Having said that, I greet with some enthusiasm what the Minister said. Indeed I greet it with some passion. I do not think that anyone who has been a Member of Parliament since 1991 when the original legislation was passed can do so other than with passion. I spent hundreds of hours on individual cases and had endless interview nights and so on. In the light of what was mentioned at the end of the Statement, I witnessed more bitterness between people in these circumstances than in any other constituency cases.
This will not be an easy task. Indeed, it is right that it should be dealt with on an all-party basis because part of the present structure reflects the proposals made by the present Minister for Welfare Reform when he was chairman of the Social Security Committee in another place. Those ideas have been incorporated but, as has been rightly pointed out, there is still much to be done.
I do not think the answer is in any way to return the matter to the courts. Much of the original problem arose because the courts tended to reach decisions on the assumption that the costs of the children would be borne by the taxpayer in the form of one benefit or another. That is not satisfactory. We must do what we can to improve the present situation. That is particularly difficult because in many cases the parents of the child are not married and therefore their legal status is somewhat different from those who are.
It has been suggested that under the new arrangements something like one-third of lone parents will lose, and only two-thirds will gain. Is that statement correct? I am not sure whether it is lone parents on the one hand or parents with care. Will the Minister give us

983
some idea as to what the balance will be between those who gain and those who lose under the new arrangements? That will be extremely relevant in considering the extent to which the changed system is to operate effectively, particularly in what may be a very difficult transitional period.
The problem with the original proposal was that it was made retrospective. In a sense the same is being done, although, as the Minister pointed out, the Government propose measures to attempt to deal with that problem. There will be significant transitional problems. Clearly the extent to which the changes are acceptable to individuals—especially those who do not wish to pay anything at all for their children—will depend very much on whether they gain or lose in the transition from one scheme to another.
What will the situation be so far as arrears are concerned? As I understand it, there are presently some £1.4 billion of arrears. Are those to be carried forward to the new system? I understand that it covers both full and temporary assessments, but, clearly, we need to know what will happen. In particular, do the Government propose to collect all the arrears that are outstanding under the old system before changing to the new one?
The Government propose to change the present complex formula to a simple percentage. It is very much a question of rough justice. Although there are proposals for appeals against assessments under the new system, one cannot but help be concerned that the burden falling on the tribunals may build up rapidly as more and more people, often determined not to pay at all, seek to dispute even the simplest formula.
The Minister rightly said that the position of second families will be taken into account. That has been much of the problem in practice. Generally speaking, the second family has always been better off, because the father concerned has been promoted and so on. Much of the bitterness has come from the second family not wishing to see money transferred back to the first. It would be helpful to learn more at this early stage about the position of the second family.
I turn to the question of the proposed extra £10, although "extra" is perhaps a misnomer. In many cases, there is a genuine problem in identifying the parent. It is suggested that under the present system a parent will not do so if, for example, she is likely to suffer violence as a result. Apart from the obvious benefit that the child will receive something from the deal, is the extra £10 intended as some kind of incentive to identification? What are the Government's proposals regarding identification?
On a broader point, what will be the overall cost, taking the entire arrangement into account: the cost of the extra £10, of running two systems side by side and so on? Will the Minister give us some idea?
Finally, again I stress that we shall be happy to co-operate with the Secretary of State in another place and the Minister here so far as this matter is concerned. However, there is a real danger that further complexity will be piled on existing complexities. In Australia,
984
where a similar simplified system has been introduced, the burden falling on tribunals has been very great indeed.
There is now an enormous burden in changing from a system that has been complicated to the new system. Apparently there is to be movement from one to the other. Two alternative methods are suggested. I hope the Minister will recognise that the transition is likely to be extremely difficult. We must hope that, nonetheless, the changes introduced will finally result in absent parents contributing more to their children. I hope that that will be the case. Broadly speaking, the Statement is to be welcomed, but it has considerable difficulties and dangers ahead of it.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am human. I know one is not supposed to say, "I told you so". I hope that the House will forgive me if I say it just once and then get down to business.
That said, I congratulate the noble Baroness the Minister on producing this Statement. Admitting error is one of the most difficult things to do in all politics. She has put herself into the company of great parliamentarians such as the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. She has done herself great credit.
This is the second measure that I have seen through from Second Reading to repeal. It is the first that I have seen through from White Paper to repeal while still remaining in the same brief. I remind myself a little of the character in the 18th century epitaph:
"Here lies Will Smith
And, what's something rarish,
He was born, bred and hanged
All in the same parish".
I wish to associate myself with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the advance release of the Statement. It meant that the comment made did not relate to the whole Statement. It was made on those features of the Statement to which the Government or their advisers chose to draw attention. The independent tribunal, which is to me by far the most interesting feature in the Statement, was not even mentioned. If we look at the history of previous legislation we see that the advice of Members of this House was far more valuable where it was listened to than the advice of almost anyone else who spoke. I was slow on the uptake, but my noble friend Lord Meston and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, both of whom are present, spotted what was wrong from the beginning in 1991. If the comments had been made in Parliament, put into the context of the whole Statement from the beginning, we should have got on a little faster.
There are features in the Statement with which I am delighted. I am delighted at the prospect of less inaccuracy; less delay; less chaos; less forcing people inside the agency to do what they cannot do. I am particularly delighted by the introduction of the disregard, for which the Minister and I have many times argued together. That is a great victory on her part. I should be grateful if she would explain in a little more detail exactly how it will work. Perhaps she would

985
explain the phrase, "up to £10", and exactly how that proposal will interact with the problem of poverty traps. It is a detailed and difficult problem in which I know the Minister is interested, and in which she is expert.
I congratulate the Minister, too, on the recognition that there are some women who need to avoid contact. That needs constant protection. As recently as the night before last, I was listening to a close family friend describing the experience of one of her undergraduate contemporaries, who was not told that she had a right to refuse to sign the form because of good cause, which ended with the man who had committed domestic violence against her discovering where she lived. Many times I have received assurances from Ministers of all complexions—who meant it, and did everything they could to bring it about—that that would not happen again. It still does. I hope that the noble Baroness can in future make sure that it does not.
The Government have not spotted the key principle of error. They think they can make the thing work by simplifying it. That reminds me a little of Ministers in the previous government saying that the poll tax would have worked if only local authorities had not been so extravagant. That is not what is needed.
As soon as one brings in a formula, however simple, one is on a fork. Either the formula is set too high and one increases the number of men who cannot pay without having to give up work; or it is set too low and many women do not receive as much money as they should. In any attempt to use the formula, there is no way off that fork; one must be impaled on one prong or the other.
That is why I find the independent tribunal, which can deal with exceptional cases, one of the most interesting features in the Statement. It takes account of the point made by Ann Chant that the agency has been constantly asked to engage in conflict resolution, which it has no authority to do. This proposal will take account of that. However, I am a little worried by the tightness of the wording, "certain exceptional circumstances", which, if I understand it right, are in danger of being spelled out, regulation piddler fashion, one by one. We shall not even begin to get started unless those exceptions include some other reason why, a case that none of us has ever foreseen. I will not detain the House—I know the Minister knows the cases; they are on her desk—by recounting some of the matters that have come before us which none of us could have foreseen in 1991 in which the formula did injustices that none of us could have imagined to be intended.
I wish to ask why it is only circumstances associated with the support of the child that are taken into account. I quite understand that those expenses are central. However, let us take someone who is supporting his aged parents, which is something the state wishes people to do. Let us take someone who is paying a legally due debt, under a court order, say. We do not want to encourage people to disobey court orders; that would be against public policy.
Ministers may say that children must come first, but people can only put them first so far as they are legally empowered to do so. If the wording remains so tight,
986
people will be under two conflicting legal obligations; and they cannot meet them both. I believe we shall therefore have to consider whether the tribunal is, as we used to argue about my Dalmatian when I was little, black with white spots or white with black spots. We shall have to consider whether it is rules with exceptions or exceptions guided by rules.
There are some very specific queries here. One is with regard to the treatment of arrears, especially in pre-1993 cases of clean-break orders, where the settlement involving the house was not taken into account. Gross injustice was done in some of those cases. I wish to know whether we shall retain anything resembling the welfare-of-the-child provision in Section 2 of the 1991 Act. I see some of those who got that on the statute book here today. If it is to be there, I wish to know how it is to be interpreted. Will the benefit penalty be enforced against women who do not co-operate? I have always said that we should have a carrot rather than a stick. The noble Baroness has provided us with a carrot, on which I congratulate her very warmly. Can she now afford to throw away the stick?
I am a little worried by the sentence in the statement to the effect that the arrangements made,
"will ensure that mothers work if they can".
Maybe I have misunderstood that. If I have, I shall be delighted, and I shall listen to the explanation. It sounded a little unfortunate.
We have had a change of government, but the court and Treasury party are still in office. They still think with the mentality of Procrustes, who used to stretch or cut people to fit them into the one bed in which he gave hospitality to travellers. He no longer cuts them to fit his bed according to hip width but only according to length. That is the great game. It does not mean that it is therefore right. There is still the urge to simplify what is, in its nature, inherently complex. There is still the urge to treat people as if they were Plasticine, to mould them into a pre-ordained shape. It will not work. Matrimonial break-up is not that simple.
We have served seven years for Leah; we have to be thankful. We must still serve seven years for Rachel. When the time comes, which of us will be speaking from which place is something on which I shall not speculate; but come it will.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there have been 20 minutes of very detailed questions. I apologise to the House, but I believe that it is important to get replies on the record to as many as I can. I hope your Lordships will be tolerant.
First, I thank both noble Lords for giving a broad, though careful, welcome to the Green Paper. I also thank them for endorsing what I hope will continue to be a non-party, inclusive and consultative approach. If the Child Support Agency has a chance for radical reform, it must be one that has robustness and staying power, because it is built on consent. I believe that that includes the consent of your Lordships' House.

987
Both noble Lords raised the point about leaks. I think I am right in saying that my right honourable friend said in the other place that she had not leaked any information. Nor had anyone with her authority. The same is true for me.
I now turn to some of the detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He agrees that we should not go back to the court system. I am not sure where the noble Earl stands on that point. The failure of the court system was the reason why the Child Support Agency was introduced. Under the previous court system, for example, where couples had identical incomes and three children, in a quarter of such cases the man paid less than £15 a week and in another quarter he paid more than £40 a week. In other words, no one knew until they had been through an elaborate and costly court case what maintenance they would have to pay. For too many people it was too much of a lottery. It depended very largely on the skill of the solicitor, and the like. Costs in terms of legal aid and administration were very high. That is why the system that we now have was introduced.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, related to lone parents, 75 per cent. of them being winners and the rest losers. I am sorry if the Statement did not make the point clear. Currently 75 per cent. of lone parents are on income support. Where the former partner pays, they will gain by having 10 per cent. maintenance disregard. A further 15 per cent. are on family credit, which, by the time this piece of legislation comes into force, will probably have been transformed into working families tax credit. They will be no worse off, and, dependent on the terms of the working families tax credit, they may be better off. Ten per cent of parents only are sprung from the benefit trap or in work and choose to use the agency to collect their maintenance, but for too many the maintenance falters.
Perhaps I may share with the House some statistics. At the moment the average maintenance assessment is £38 a week. The average maintenance paid is £25 a week. Very many lone parents who are in work do not receive the maintenance assessed. Under our formula the level of maintenance to be assessed comes down from £38 to £29 per week, but we are expecting, by virtue of the simplicity of the formula, to increase compliance from 66 per cent., which it is at the moment, to 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. As a result, therefore, there will be 75 per cent. who will be winners and 10 per cent. whose position will improve or stand still when the working families tax credit comes into effect; and, of the 10 per cent. of parents who are not on benefit, very many will for the first time gain reliable maintenance. We are seeking to make more fathers pay, not to make fathers pay more. For those fathers who see the situation change dramatically between the current and future formulae, we are proposing a cash phasing-in of no more than £5 per week each year. If somebody is £10 worse off under the new formula, it will take two years for them to get on to the new system. They can therefore bring their lifestyle into line with the new formula.
988
The noble Lord raised a point in relation to arrears. There will be no amnesty. Those arrears are owed either to the parent with care or to the Government and should be paid. However, we expect the backlog of existing cases to be cleared by next April.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned "rough justice". We are saying that the only formula that will work is a simple one about which people can obtain booklets from the Post Office, the CAB, the library, their MP and so forth. On one side will be their income—their take-home pay after tax and national insurance—on the other the number of children involved and they can read across. It will only work if it is simple and people know what they are expected to pay at the point when they conceive a child and the point when the relationship breaks up.
In order to be fair (we are anxious that the formula is seen to be fair, decent and balanced), we suggest to the men that they pay less—on average from £38 to £29—and also that there is greater fairness between first and second families. To the woman and her child we say that the fairness lies in the fact that for the first time she will receive a £10 maintenance disregard. The system is fair because it is simple and therefore we believe that it will work. It is fair to men and, we hope, to women and their children. But because it is simple, it will also be enforceable and therefore firm. That is our structure.
The noble Lord pressed me about maintenance disregard. As it stands, maintenance disregard costs £80 million net or around £100 million gross. However, as we are rolling up the child maintenance bonus, which brings it to £80 million net, overall the total package cost is neutral. We only go on to the maintenance disregard when the father is paying the money. Every new father coming in will pay an average maintenance of £29; a third of that will go to the mother, two-thirds to the Treasury. The maintenance cost is paid for by the extra compliance and the total package is therefore cost neutral. As a result, we expect at the moment one-fifth of women or parents on income support to receive maintenance. We expect two-fifths of that to be cost neutral. Any improvement on that—we hope to reach three-fifths or more—will be a bonus for all concerned.
In relation to tribunals—a wider point shared also by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—we are seeking to avoid pushing the complexity of the existing formula away from the original assessment in to an appeals assessment. All that does is reinvent the complexity of the CSA. If we take into account pensions, debts, the care of an elderly relative, housing costs and travel to work, we may as well stay with the existing system and simply muddle through. We will have reinvented the complexity. For instance, there are 58 different kinds of mortgage. At the moment around 100 pieces of information are required to calculate an assessment. Every time any one of those changes, there is a right of review and appeal. The system never catches up and that is why it does not work. That is why it takes six months to obtain an assessment and that is why fathers never end up paying and mothers and children never receive the money. By simplicity, we expect to make the money

989
flow and turn a case round in between four to six weeks. Fathers will know where they stand and mothers and children will gain.
We are anxious not to reinvent the complexity of the original assessment and have it displaced into the appeals system. We are saying that the grounds for appeal to the tribunal, apart from error, are for exceptional costs in supporting the child. It is about child support. We do not want to see paying for the child through maintenance stopping the father having contact with the child through access; for instance, where a child is disabled or where the father has taken on the full cost of the mortgage of the first home.
We are not saying that we will take all the other costs cited by the noble Earl into account. Instead, we will leave the father with a much higher percentage of his income—maintenance down from £38 to £29—with which to pay all his other costs. We will not try to second-guess his priorities. We will say to him "You are an adult. We will leave you with more money.". Everybody has different responsibilities and priorities. If we try to second-guess them all and put them into a formula, we will reinvent the present CSA. We are saying, "We will leave you, oh father, with a higher percentage of your income, with due allowance for your second family, and you, as an adult, will make your own decisions as to where your priorities lie. We will not try to second-guess you and build it into the formula". That is why the tribunal, as the Green Paper suggests, is for child support only. Clearly, it is a Green Paper and is open to discussion.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what the phrase "up to £10" means. Any parent who has an income of less than £100 per week—for example, is on benefit—currently pays £5 to the Treasury. We are proposing that the entire £5 goes straight across to the lone parent. The Treasury will not take one penny of it. That includes up to £100 a week. From £100 to £200 there will be a sliding scale to reach the moneys. That is why we say "up to £10." The £5 goes straight across from his benefit or from his low pay to the parent with care to help the child and thereafter it will climb on a sliding scale up to the £200 figure, at which point the basic assessment will be the 15 per cent. for the first child.
I was asked about the different approaches to the second family. I could spend five minutes explaining this, but it is explained in the Green Paper. Either way, it says that there is greater fairness between first and second families. We do not believe it to be right to impoverish the children of the second family in order to finance the well being of the first family. Equally, the first family is the primary responsibility of any non-resident father and he must take that into consideration before making his financial arrangements for the rest of his life.
Finally, there may or may not—I hope not—be anomalies in the Green Paper. They will arise. We have plenty of time for consultation—the consultation period does not end until 30th November. There will almost certainly be a pre-legislative Bill discussed by the Social Security Select Committee and again there will be plenty of time to analyse it there.
990
We are not suggesting to adults that they must be Plasticine to fit into our mould. On the contrary, we are saying that we will take from the non-resident parent—because society believes it appropriate and that parent signs up to these principles—a slice of his income for child support. Thereafter, far from being treated as Plasticine moulded to us, we are saying, "You are an adult. You make your choices. You get on with the rest of your life and prioritise your responsibilities. We will not seek to turn you into a child by second-guessing you. That is for you to decide". However, we say throughout that being a non-resident parent is difficult and demanding and we want to be on his or her side. At the end of it, what matters is that the children gain; that they are supported and supported by both parents equally. That is the basis for the Green Paper.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I know only too well from personal experience how extremely difficult it is to calculate what a person should be paying under the ludicrously complicated formulae set out in the Child Support Act. For that reason, I support the new proposals.
However, the formulae are so complicated because there are so many different things that should be taken into account if a fair figure is to be reached. Among those is the salary of the mother, which has so far not been referred to by my noble friend. It often happens nowadays that the mother earns more than the father or nearly as much. Surely, when that happens, the amount payable by the father should in some way be modified. Perhaps my noble friend can comment on that point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are not taking into account either the income of the parent with care nor the income of the non-resident father's new partner. Forgive me if I use these gendered words; 95 per cent. of lone parents are women, but the whole scheme is gender neutral.
The reason we do not take that income into account is that the child living with the parent with care enjoys the living standards of that parent with care. For example, if the parent with care can afford a larger house, the child enjoys it; if the parent with care can afford generous holidays, the child enjoys them; if the parent with care drives a larger car, the child enjoys it. Second children in the second family enjoy the living standard of the non-resident father; equally, the children of the first family enjoy the living standard of the parent with care. Whatever the mother's income and whatever the father's, he maintains a responsibility for his children. The marriage may end but his family responsibilities continue.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I wish to take up one technical but rather important point. I refer to the question of how far the Government have taken into account the interface between the assessment of fathers and the poverty trap. Page 26 of the Green Paper states:
"we would like to use a simple definition of what counts as income. For example, the new scheme will not include an allowance for housing costs, so it would be unsuitable to class Housing Benefit as assessable income".

991
That started the alarm bells ringing with me because as a father's income goes up he will lose housing benefit, which is not assessable, and it will be replaced with earned income, which is assessable. In that situation it seems to me that there is a serious risk that there will be a poverty trap and that the father will be worse off as his income rises. I have not checked whether that is equally true in other situations, but it worries me greatly. This should be looked at carefully because it seems to be a case where, as is all too common, simplicity and fairness may well be in conflict with each other.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there is a real issue of the poverty trap in all benefits that are tapered. I think we all accept that. It is clear that from earnings of about £200 a week the father is increasingly likely to be off housing benefit. However, on benefit fully, or up to £100 a week where he is paying only the £5 per week, that figure is low enough not to affect his entitlement to housing benefit, and so the poverty trap does not exist.
There is an issue of the income scale between £100 and £200 a week. However, the reason we do not go into this in detail in the Green Paper—we have obviously discussed this at some length—is that housing benefit is currently being reviewed. Secondly, we are reviewing the whole of the New Deal. Thirdly, we are reviewing the working families tax credit, which will overtake family credit. Fourthly, the minimum wage will be coming through. The working families tax credit will have a different taper—not 70 per cent. but 40 per cent. The result is that over the next two years there will be a good many changes in three or four of the different interlocking benefits which affect that income group. By the time it comes to drafting the Bill and the regulations we will have a much clearer idea of where, if anywhere, this bites unreasonably. But that is why, at the moment, it remains relatively open. We are not yet sure how possible changes in housing benefit—no such decisions have been made—the impact of the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and some of the New Deal proposals will interlock to affect that group.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, it was pleasing to hear what the Minister said and I liked the emphasis on children. That is important. The previous system was far too obscure and complicated. If this brings, as I am sure it could with all parties working together, fairness, decency and comprehensiveness, I am sure it will benefit families and children. The fathers should have time to see their children and have a say about them. But they should realise that they have a moral and ethical responsibility in the way of finance. The father's access is another matter because there are sometimes occasions when, even with his responsibilities, it is perhaps not wise for him to have contact. However, what is
992
proposed is good and I hope that it will be done thoroughly and well, as I am sure it will be, the Minister being who she is.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was waiting for the Minister to answer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as it was a compliment, I thought it was more decorous to say nothing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I see. I congratulate my noble friend on repeating the Statement made in another place. It is certainly a good Statement. The Government have done their best to deal with a situation which was none of their making. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I shall say only once, "We told you so". Nevertheless, I would add that we predicted at that time that the Child Support Agency would be another poll tax. We were wrong. It was far worse than the poll tax, as so many people have found out to their cost; indeed, in some cases, the cost of their lives. If I sound bitter about that, it is because I am bitter. I am bitter that we introduced such a system which drove some men to take their own lives because of the impositions on them by the Child Support Agency.
I should like to ask my noble friend one or two questions. I return to the question of access because it is an important question. Often one of the reasons why men do not pay their maintenance is that, despite court orders, they are refused access to their children, with whom they want to continue to associate and towards whom they would be very happy to pay maintenance. They often use refusal of access by the mother as a reason not to pay maintenance. I thought that something was going to be done about that.
Secondly, the workload of the agency will presumably fall considerably and therefore the system will be less costly. Will the Government give serious consideration to returning the whole question to the magistrates' courts? I know that my noble friend criticised the magistrates' courts and their previous lack of ability to collect the maintenance. But that was because of lack of resources which the then government poured into the agency without any good results. I hope my noble friend will reconsider the position.
Finally, with regard to the £10 net benefit—at least I understand that it will be a net benefit and that there will be some benefit from the maintenance that will not all go back to the Government—has she considered whether £10 might be a little low? Can she also say whether there are plans to increase the £10 year-by-year, in accordance with the cost of living or the wages index, or a mixture of both?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his welcome to and support of the Statement. He began by saying that the CSA had been another poll tax. This will be a different body, working a different system in a different way. I believe that we are giving the staff who will be

993
delivering the system the best possible opportunity to deliver something that is seen as fair, balanced, decent and workable.
My noble friend referred to access and to women refusing access despite court orders. I am sad to say that my noble friend is correct. Some research shows that 40 per cent. of parents with care admitted to thwarting an access order, often, although not invariably, because they are in a new relationship and wish to have a clean break from the father. What we are trying to say throughout all of this is that they can divorce each other but not their children. As a result, the father's right to have contact with that child unless the court has said otherwise is something that we should all seek to uphold. Obviously, the courts will be scrupulous where there is any risk of violence or damage to the children and none of us would wish for anything different. The fact that so far 70 per cent. of parents with care have been refusing to co-operate with the agency, nominally alleging "good cause", suggests that things other than a fear of violence are going on.
There is a dilemma as regards the latest announcement by the Lord Chancellor concerning the proposals for parental rights to go alongside the name on the birth certificate. If one wishes to buttress marriage at the expense of all other relationships, one may regard that as undesirable. However, if one wishes to encourage fathers to take on their responsibilities and to share in the upbringing of their children, one has to treat them as though they were married parents in all but legal name. There is a dilemma here and your Lordships will accept it. If we downgrade the rights of former cohabiting fathers, the children will suffer in terms of the attention they receive from their fathers in future. That is why my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is seeking to extend parental rights to fathers who are cohabiting. I hope that that will ensure, where there is no risk of violence or threat of it, that the father will go on to enjoy some of the rights that divorced fathers have. It is quite remarkable that at the moment men who are most willing to pay also pay the highest amounts of money. That is because they are divorced fathers who have access and where there has been higher engagement in their children's lives.
I was asked whether we were thinking of returning to the magistrates' court. The whole thrust of this paper is for a simple formula. We believe that lone parents were let down by a system that was random, uneven and costly. As regards the maintenance disregard at £10 being higher, I do not doubt that there will be an on-going debate with the Treasury on that subject in future years.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the Statement referred to dramatically less time being required to process applications. Can the noble Baroness say what time, effort and machinery will be devoted to assessing the true net income of the self-employed father, particularly those who are not inclined to overstate their income to the Inland Revenue, to the former wife or to anyone else? That is a problem that is not going to go away. It
994
is easy to be deceived by the conveniently clear and round figures which always appear in the worked examples in Green Papers such as this.
Now that there is to be a simpler formula and the legal profession can throw away their expensive computer programs but still hang on to their calculators, perhaps it is time to say that the courts can once again be trusted to make orders or sanction agreements at least where they are incidental to matrimonial proceedings between husband and wife in which the finances will have been scrutinised in considerable detail. I do not say that that should be confined to the magistrates' court. Indeed, it is more likely that those cases are heard in the county court and the High Court.
I thought I heard the noble Baroness say that the matter would be considered by the Social Security Select Committee. Does that indicate that there will be full pre-legislative scrutiny of any legislation that comes before Parliament?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the answer is yes to the noble Lord's third point. My noble friend gave an assurance to Mr. Archy Kirkwood in another place that, should the Select Committee wish to take it up, there would be the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. It is so important to try to get the broadest possible consent and information concerning the proposals.
The second point that the noble Lord raised concerns the self-employed. He is right. Perhaps they are between 7 and 10 per cent. of the non-resident fathers. They are certainly between 20 and 30 per cent. of the problem. In the Green Paper we are proposing that the calculation of income for self-employed parents will be on exactly the same basis as the returns prepared for the Inland Revenue. That will be a start. The degree to which there will be any sharing of information with the Inland Revenue is a question that has yet to be discussed and resolved. There will be no excuses that we are trying to work on a system different from that being prepared for the self-employed person by his accountant.
As regards the court sanctioning orders, apart from the cost and its random nature and unpredictability, the court system is essentially adversarial. In the past it has sought to have "high noon" over the levels of maintenance for children's support. It is not an approach that we wish to see continued. It is certainly true that under the new divorce proceedings mediation will be much more to the fore, and we welcome that. Therefore, we are hoping that the information about expected child maintenance liability will be part of the information that goes into the mediation process and that it will allow it to be simpler and cleaner than in the past. We do not believe that the court should seek to determine what should be paid. It can do so only if it has full discretion. We are seeking to treat alike similar people in similar circumstances. That is the basis of the formula.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement. I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the start of it. I wish to ask a couple of questions. As regards a clean break, and if there is a change of circumstance for the caring parent who gets income

995
support, is it the intention that automatically the CSA will come against the absent parent? Are we going to take account of one-off payments or the setting up of trust funds for children, remembering, as my noble friend Lord Higgins said, that in many cases absent parents do not mind at all paying for the upkeep of their children but what they cannot stand and do not want to do is to support the absent wife?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as regards the clean break, in the past it has been concerned with property between the two spouses and not maintenance for the children. The legal profession currently knows what is expected through the CSA. The legal profession knows what the CSA will be doing in future with the Green Paper proposals. The disposition of property between the spouses will be made in the light of those proposals. Essentially, the clean break applies to spousal property and not to child maintenance, and it never has. As regards trust funds and one-off payments, we shall be looking at that kind of thing in the consultation period. It is possible that this could be the kind of circumstance the tribunal could take into account.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
5.28 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("four") and insert ("five").
The noble Lord said: After that interlude on a highly complex subject, I assure the Committee that there is nothing particularly complex about this group of amendments. Amendment No. 8 is the effective amendment, while Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are merely consequential.
I believe that there is widespread concern, except in terrorist circles, that there has been persistent and consistent backsliding by both this Government and their predecessors on what was once called the surrender of arms and is now called decommissioning. Once—it now seems so long ago—there would be no talks with the mouthpieces of terrorism without the permanent renunciation of violence and indeed a surrender of arms. That was in a bygone age when Front Bench politicians made brave speeches about there being no concessions to violence and when paramilitaries, as they were to become, were known as common criminals or terrorists.
Now we recognise that those who kill for politics or out of prejudice are criminals of a special class who deserve specially soft treatment. This Bill is the last occasion on which we have any leverage at all before we make that concession to those who believe that violence is the appropriate political response to difficulties. The amendment would put some small obligation upon those special category political criminals.
Perhaps I may take a moment or two to read to the Committee a Written Answer to a Question which I tabled on 21st May. I asked Her Majesty's Government,
"their latest assessment of the likelihood of the surrender of terrorist arms in Northern Ireland".
I should have thought that there would be a pretty short reply to that but, as ever, when the short reply would be embarrassing, one gets quite a long reply—I have been a Minister myself! The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, replied:
"All the parties supporting the agreement of 10 April are committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They have also confirmed their intention to work with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to achieve decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement of the agreement in referendums.
The agreement—if endorsed at referendum—must be implemented in all its parts. In his speech in Belfast on 14 May, the Prime Minister clarified the factors that would be taken into account in judging whether the terms and spirit of the agreement were being met. These factors include, 'full co-operation with the Independent Commission on Decomissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement' and the Prime Minister undertook that this will be enshrined in forthcoming legislation".—[Official Report, 21/5/98; col. WA 199.]
I should have liked to enshrine those precise words in my amendment, but that was technically slightly more difficult than I could cope with, and the nearest that I could get are the words of Amendment No. 8, in which I laid down a fifth condition (above the four in the Bill) relating to the release of a prisoner. The fifth condition is that that person is,
"co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883".
That is as close as I could get technically to the precise words of the Prime Minister, but it is certainly the spirit of his words.
I hope that Ministers and other noble Lords will agree that it is nothing less than common sense and justice that, before a prisoner is finally approved for release on licence, he should have done all that he could to secure the decommissioning of arms. A prisoner may know where arms are hidden. He may have access, through his continuing links with the IRA, the UVF or any other terrorist organisation, to information by which the security forces might have access to those arms. He may have friends who can help. It seems to me that before he is released he should do everything in his power to secure the decommissioning of arms. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am happy to add my support to these amendments because they are designed to assist the commission in supplying what I think could be called "greater clarification" of the position, mindset and status of a prisoner applying for release. Without the amendment, the conditions are so vague as to be almost useless to the commission. The second condition, is,
"that the prisoner is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation".
But who decides that? Is there to be a mere verbal assurance from the prisoner? Will the commission ignore the verifiable fact that the prisoner, on his admission to prison, had insisted on being housed in the

997
prison block under the control of a given terrorist organisation? I know that it may seem curious that a prisoner becoming a guest in the Maze Prison can dictate to the governor which block he wishes to be in so that not only can he chum up with his comrades, but, as was said earlier, he can receive instruction from the more experienced godfathers.
The third condition is that he would not be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or to become involved in or connected with terrorism. In the light of what I have just said about choice of residence in the Maze Prison, we must ask of what value are the words, "would not be likely". Surely the new, modest condition which has been proposed is essential if the whole release scheme is not to become the object of ridicule.
Lord Renwick of Clifton: I have the highest regard for the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Molyneaux, but I must appeal to the Committee not to support this amendment. We all have strong feelings about aspects of this Bill. As others have said, there will be no early release for the victims of terrorism. Like many others in this House, I have spent a large part of my professional life fighting against those who committed these horrendous crimes, but in relation to this amendment, surely we have to keep in mind the purpose of this Bill, which is to give effect to an agreement upon which the future of Northern Ireland will depend and which, if successful, should help to ensure that there are no more victims of terrorism.
The fundamental consideration is the principle of consent—and that has been fully protected. The other fundamental issue is not decommissioning but a permanent end to violence. Decommissioning is part of that, but it is not the only part. The Government have to make a judgment as to the quality and permanence of the ceasefire in a process which, as the Prime Minister said, will necessarily be more rigorous over time. The 1995 Act on the early release of prisoners, which was sponsored, I believe, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, received bipartisan support. This is not an amnesty, and it is also deserving of general support. All sorts of conditions are imposed: an application can be refused; a licence can be revoked; the entire process can be suspended—and no doubt will be—if there is a return to violence.
Given the terms of Clause 3(9)(d) of the Bill, the amendment is superfluous. Clause 3(9) states:
"In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation"—
not a person, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested—
"(d) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act".
The issue is covered to the full extent that it reasonably can be by that provision. I firmly believe that the cause of peace in Northern Ireland will not be helped by amending the Bill today and I hope that the Committee will not support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise briefly to oppose the amendment. The Stormont agreement is not subject
998
to renegotiation. It was no more or less than a linkage between irreconcilable opposites placed in juxtaposition to achieve a common purpose. It was a desperate, but fragile, mutual expression of hope, endorsed by the vast majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland. That linkage reflected an understanding which is not found in the paper in the Library to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. This linkage in no way embraced the position of decommissioning. That was put aside obviously for the purpose of serving the common end, which is something akin to an oxymoron. To try to introduce it at this stage when there is no reference to it in the agreement at paragraphs 1 to 3 on page 25, or in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the paper in the Library, places the Government in an all but impossible position if they accept it. For that reason, and in furtherance of the peace process, I oppose the amendment.
Viscount Brookeborough: I cannot say whether this amendment alters the agreement. However, I support the intention behind it. Its intention is to provide the people of Northern Ireland with some tangible evidence that these terrorists will become reformed. When we ask for this evidence we are told that a prisoner must declare that he is not the supporter of a terrorist organisation. On a purely practical point, he will leave his cell, which is located in a terrorist block, and declare in an interview that he no longer supports his cell mates. Presumably, the decision as to his release will not be taken while he is in the interview. What happens to him? Does he return to his cell where others ask him where he has been, or will there be a cooling off area in which all of these reformed terrorists wait their time? A practical problem arises should an individual declare that he no longer supports a terrorist organisation.
The other matter that is put forward by way of reassurance is that the licence can be revoked if the individual commits another terrorist crime. However, the licence can be revoked only if he is caught and convicted of being a terrorist. I do not believe that the point about release on licence is as reassuring as it seems. If he commits an offence he must still be caught in order to reconvict him or revoke the licence. I support this amendment in an attempt to tighten up the regulation of this matter.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to be present in the Chamber at Second Reading. However, I read the Official Report of that debate and found it intensely moving. Many noble Lords who contributed had to wrestle over bitter years with the framing of policies with no simple right course of action. Many have had close experience of the suffering of victims. We have to ask what signal we will send out if the Committee agrees to this amendment which seeks to change the agreement, sensitively balanced as it is; for in it there is not a link between the release of prisoners and the decommissioning of weapons. It is organisations that can make that commitment, whereas the point just made makes it extremely difficult for an individual to do just that.

999
This debate takes place in Westminster. The place in which we debate these matters influences the way we speak and think. If we were bringing a proposal to the conference to try to produce an agreement, this could well be part of what your Lordships might want to do. But the agreement that has been reached is an honest attempt to chisel a structure that will be respected by all sides in the community. If we made these changes, what message would that send to the people of east Belfast or the Bogside? Very importantly, what signal will it send to those Unionists who have committed themselves to making the assembly and the agreement work?
On a number of occasions I had the privilege of visiting Northern Ireland together with my friend Archbishop Derek Warlock, often with Free Church leaders from Liverpool. We listened to people from different sides of the religious divide and were very conscious of their closeness to the victims of brutal killings at funeral after funeral. Often they visited victims from other communities. Yet one was conscious of their very firm commitment to reconciliation.
I use "reconciliation" in a quite different context. Derek Warlock and I made a three-week visit to South Africa in 1989, at the invitation of the two archbishops of Cape Town, when the state of emergency was still in force. I used the word "reconciliation" at a meeting with students in Cape Town. They angrily dismissed that word as being soft. I believed that they were wrong. With enormous courage South Africa has appointed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I believe that the way it has worked has demonstrated that reconciliation is not a soft word. It does not imply that crimes do not matter. Reconciliation is very costly. It does not mean appeasement. But it means that each side may have to give up something that it would have wanted to keep.
I have been reading an assessment of the commission's work written by Professor Hugh Corder of the University of Cape Town. He says that the commission has been the medium through which the chasm dividing the life experiences of white and black South Africans can begin to be understood and narrowed. He concludes:
"What it has done, in my view, is to [break] certain preconceptions, countered prejudices and fought for the permanent installation in public and communal life in South Africa of humility, humanity and forgiveness as the essential features of a workable future".
Those are not soft words in that context or in the context of Ireland; they are very costly.
I do not believe that Northern Ireland is yet ready for a truth and reconciliation commission. No amnesty is being granted. As the Minister has made clear, prisoners are released on licence which can be revoked. But in Northern Ireland reconciliation needs to be worked for no less. The Good Friday Agreement puts in place a structure that must not be weakened. On it must be placed the costly process of healing relationships across communities. Victims and their families need to feel safe if they commit themselves to this reconciliation. Protagonists on all sides need to be drawn into it. There are no modern examples of a peace process of which the release of prisoners has not been a major part of the
1000
agreement. For example, over 2,000 Palestinians were released when Israel reached its agreement with Mr. Arafat. There can be no peace and reconciliation without a principled compromise.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me if what I am about to say has already been referred to. I could not see it in the Second Reading debate. I believe that it is worth referring to the comments of Nelson Mandela about Ireland. He said that as long as there were men and women on all sides who were able to rise above feelings for revenge, who could put the future of their children first and put terrible episodes behind them in order to move on, this process could work, as his eventually did. It would take a long time and there would be many disappointments but it could be done if the will was unshakeable.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, but I am not sure that I agree—I recognise and urge the need for compromise which leads to reconciliation—with him that the day will ever come when the model of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission will make a useful contribution in Northern Ireland. I accept the burden of his sentiments, and I am glad that he said what he did.
I respect the motives behind the amendment, and I understand the reasoning that leads to it. I want briefly to challenge the consequences. I can be brief because the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, said very much what I was going to say. First, there is a problem with the amendment, which I think is more than technical. It deals with persons rather than organisations—a point made also by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.
It is difficult for prisoners to be capable of co-operating with the decommissioning commission. It is possible that some may be, but many will not. After all, most weapons are held centrally and controlled by quartermasters. The notion of individuals co-operating with the disarmament commission is a difficult one with which to deal. However, that is not my main objection to the amendment, which is that it undoubtedly tries to move on beyond the Good Friday Agreement.
An amendment was moved in another place which tried to make the connection directly between decommissioning and prisoner release. It was defeated. Indeed, Mr. David Trimble said that for him it had been a negative factor in the elections that we have just had. I hope that we in this place will recognise that our responsibility is to send positive messages in support of Mr. Trimble, and not inadvertently send messages in support of Mr. Paisley. Although, as I said, I understand the motives behind the amendment, I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am inclined to support the amendment. It will send a message from this place to certain people in Northern Ireland: that this place is serious about wanting to punish terrorists, and to see that they remain punished. I was unable to speak on Second Reading. Had I been so able, I think I would probably have pointed out that we were sending a strange sort of message to future terrorists, particularly

1001
at a time when we are setting up a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. We may very well be sending a message to people who want to go a lot further than that, and who might want to do it by unacceptable and terrorist means: "It is all right, chaps. You go ahead. You get on with your terrorism, in the full knowledge that when the UK Government get tired of it all, and want to end it, and want a Good Friday, an Easter or any other sort of agreement, they will bring forward legislation which will reduce the sentences for your terrorism". I do not think that that is a good message to be sending, quite frankly, to possible future terrorists.
It is all right to talk about reconciliation. We all agree with reconciliation, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said, there have to be compromises. Of course there have to be compromises. The problem is that as far as I can see so far the compromises have all been one sided. Mr. McGuinness is still talking about the "terrorist British Army" which has to be withdrawn. There has been no modification of the language against the British Army and the security forces in Northern Ireland. We have not seen the compromises that some of us believe should be made in Northern Ireland if we are to achieve a lasting settlement—a settlement which is acceptable to all the people of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said that people would think it strange if this Parliament were to pass an amendment of the sort that has been moved by the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Molyneaux. But this is still the Parliament of the UK. It does not really matter that the Good Friday Agreement, or any agreement, has been made. In the last analysis, Parliament still has a place, and, indeed, a duty to discuss this agreement, and to make any amendments which it feels are necessary.
I hope that people will not be intimidated into thinking that, because they are Members of this place, or the British Parliament, they no longer have any say over matters which go on in Northern Ireland, because they still do. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, moved his amendment briefly. I believe that it is an amendment that would give encouragement to many people in Northern Ireland. It would give people who have been convicted of terrorism an opportunity to recant in some way. They would be helping towards the maintenance of peace by taking weapons out of Northern Ireland.
Let us not forget that so long as those weapons exist, they are a threat to the new assembly and to the new order in Northern Ireland. That is why it is necessary, and good, that this place and other people should consider the linkage of terrorist early releases to decommissioning. As I have said, while those arms remain—whether they are in the hands of the IRA, the UDA, or whoever else—they are a threat to the continuation of the assembly and its success. I will support the amendment if it is put to a vote.
The Earl of Longford: The greatest danger in Northern Ireland is the existence of the paramilitary bodies. There are half a dozen or more of them. Half of them are Protestant and half of them are Catholic. Half of them are involved in the agreement and half of them are not. If those who are involved gave up their weapons tomorrow far more dangerous paramilitary bodies would
1002
remain. In the end, the only way to get rid of the paramilitary bodies is for the public to repudiate them. That will come about only when the Protestant and Catholic communities overcome their suspicions, as I believe will happen, but it can only happen under the agreement. Everything depends upon getting the agreement through.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was not present to make his speech on Second Reading. He will find that some of the sentiments he expressed were expressed at the time. He referred to the position of the British Army. Of course at the moment the British Army is engaged in protecting the Garvaghy Road and the enclave there. I do not know whether that will change the opinion. I think it unlikely. It should change the opinion a little of some of those whom he mentioned.
In referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, regarding the lack of relevance of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We all agree with reconciliation, but the difficult question for us to answer is whether the prisoners, whom it is proposed to release, have, in reality, put the violence behind them or whether they will return to it. It will not do any good to release them if they have not given up violence. It would do no good for reconciliation. That is the nub of the question which the amendment addresses in respect of decommissioning.
I have no wish—quite the contrary—to make life more difficult for any members of the assembly, Mr. Trimble or anyone else. I have no wish to step outside the agreement. I do not believe that members of the assembly have taken any soft option in supporting the agreement, being prepared to stand up for it and entering the assembly on that basis. However, the question is whether a linkage with decommissioning is within the agreement.
I have difficulty with this amendment because the linkage proposed is personal to the prisoner rather than collective to the organisation to which he belongs. My amendments, Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 18, and Amendment No. 14 which the Liberal Democrats propose, attempt to look at linkage to the organisation to which the prisoner belongs. I make no judgment as to whether it is more desirable or more effective to have the linkage personal to the individual prisoner as opposed to a collective linkage. I am making a judgment as to which is more in line with the agreement.
It is not an easy matter. However, paragraph 5 of the first page of the agreement states that all concerned will,
"work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement".
That seems to set up a general linkage between all the pieces of the package. It has been expressed frequently by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and many others that it is an agreement as a whole, with a series of bits in it. One of the bits relates to the decommissioning; another bit relates to prisoners, as does the Bill. There is a general linkage.

1003
As regards prisoners, in later amendments we seek to stiffen up a little—my noble friend seeks to do so in this amendment—the specific linkage between prisoners and decommissioning, which is part of the general linkage. The real link is the terrorists themselves. It is the terrorist organisations which have to put decommissioning into practice; they have to decommission their weapons. It is the terrorist individuals in prison who stand to benefit most from the Bill and from this part of the agreement.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: How does the noble Lord propose to deal with the paramilitary organisations, Protestant and Catholic, which are outside the agreement and have no intention, it seems, of coming into it?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: They are not dealt with by the Bill because they are specifically excluded if they are not on ceasefire. There is no way that we can deal with those. As I said at Second Reading and on other occasions, the idea that the Bill or the agreement will bring total peace, even if everything goes as smoothly as we all hope it will, is a mistake. There are likely to be organisations on both sides—I make no distinction—that will continue violence for political reasons and for the rackets. That is why a continual security presence and a continual security effort will still be required for a considerable time. But that is no reason for not doing the best we can to put everything in the agreement in place. But the idea that everything will be 100 per cent. successful is wishful thinking of a high order.
I wish briefly to address whether or not a convicted terrorist, languishing (if that is the right word) in gaol can co-operate with the commission in its decommissioning work. My noble friend gave some examples—by giving information, and so on—of the ways in which prisoners might be able to help. However, collectively they have great influence. For example, it was extremely important that in the interview with the Financial Times a few days ago Mr. Wilson, who is described as the senior member of PIRA in the Maze, expressed himself more sympathetic about the possibility of decommissioning than anyone else in PIRA has ever done in public to my knowledge. That is an individual, influential prisoner arguing for the process of decommissioning, and making it possible. It also points out my belief that if prisoners are not arguing for decommissioning—and the Bill is central as to whether they do—it is most unlikely to happen.
On the other hand, if prisoners are arguing for decommissioning, it is more likely to happen. If it does not happen, the agreement and everything connected with it is ultimately doomed. Decommissioning is part of the agreement. It is linked to every other part of the agreement. We are not supposed to use the words "cherry-picking" any more; we were told off for doing so the other day. But people have used the words; we all know what the expression means. No one can separate the different parts of the agreement. There is a general linkage. This is one specific example.
1004
The linkage in the amendment is personal to the prisoner rather than collective to the organisation. I prefer later amendments which I hope to put to the Committee before long.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renwick and Lord Sheppard, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for their support of the Government's position on the amendment. I was impressed by my noble friend Lord Sheppard when he spoke about the need for reconciliation. There is, and has been for some years, a lot of reconciliation taking place in Northern Ireland. I have met former republican paramilitaries co-operating with former loyalist paramilitaries in working for the good of their local communities. Some impressive work is going on. All that seems to me to add up to a process of reconciliation. Of course there needs to be more of it. But that surely is one of the positive features in Northern Ireland and one which the previous government and this Government seek to encourage.
I do not believe, in the words of my noble friend Lord Stoddart, that the compromises in the agreement were all one-sided. I believe that that will be hotly denied by many of the Northern Ireland political parties across the political spectrum which were happy to support the outcome of the agreement. I believe that the agreement reflected the views of most of the political parties and of the two governments and is therefore an important document. I make no apology for invoking it in support of, or against, some of the amendments under discussion today.
Perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that to the prisoner being released on licence the provision would be of little value as he would have to be convicted of a further terrorist offence. I am pleased to say that that is not so. A prisoner may be recalled if the Secretary of State considers he is likely to re-engage in terrorism. So the licence is wider in effect than the noble Viscount suggested.
We do not want to allow any suggestion that the Bill is about bartering arms for prisoners. I fear that the thrust of the amendment gets us very close to that position. The Good Friday Agreement is a package which makes provision for prisoner releases and decommissioning as well as a range of other matters; and the Government are committed to implementing the agreement in full. But it does not propose a process of the kind outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
The amendment also does not take account of how decommissioning is intended to happen. Several noble Lords made the point. It is for organisations to decommission weapons, not individuals. Of course it will be for individual members of the organisation, or other designated intermediaries, to take forward the decommissioning process. But they will do so as agents of the organisation, not on their own behalf. This is what is allowed for by the legislation and the decommissioning scheme which came into effect on 30th June.

1005
For these reasons it would not be appropriate to place such a restriction on prisoners as the noble Lord suggests. I call on the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tebbit: I am not having a great deal of luck today. At least I am encouraged on this occasion by the quarters from which both support and opposition came. I should say to my noble friend Lord Cope that the British Army—or, to be more correct, the Army of the United Kingdom—is today doing in Northern Ireland what it has always done. It is seeking to uphold the law and is operating under the political direction of the Government of the day. It has never done anything else. Of course from time to time that means coming into conflict with one group or another, but it is absolutely certain that there is no difference in what the Army is doing now at Drumcree from what it has done in the past. Whether or not what it is doing at Drumcree is a wise act is a matter for the politicians. It may be seen at some time in the future that it was a very unwise act. That is another matter and no doubt will be the subject of debate on another day.
Once again we are told that nothing can be done which would in any way potentially, possibly conceivably, conflict with the agreement. The agreement is sacred because it has been endorsed by the referendum. I have grave doubts about the conduct of the referendum. As I said earlier, I do not like referendums which are conducted under circumstances where those who support one side are fully armed and have a record for using guns and bombs. In the mildest possible terms, that puts some degree of pressure upon the others.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right—as he so often is, if I may say so: the people of England, Wales and Scotland have not spoken on this deal, this agreement. So we should not preclude the possibility that their representatives in this Parliament might decide to amend in some way the legislation which springs from it. Of course it is right to consider whether we would be wise to do so, what the effects of that would be, or whether we have been backed into a corner where we have little choice, but at least we should remember that we have the right—and that right cannot be taken away from us by virtue of a referendum in one corner of this Kingdom.
I look at page 20 of the agreement, as distributed in Northern Ireland. My amendment does not fly in the face of it. Under the heading of "Decommissioning" it says:
"All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith … to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms".
It does not say "but not as individuals". It does not say "This is a purely collective act". It does not say "Individuals are absolved from any responsibility. It can be done only by the organisation". Of what is an organisation comprised if it is not of individuals? Can we all devolve ourselves of responsibility for what is
1006
done by "the organisation"? Surely not. Surely that excuse has been tried before in many places and condemned by many people.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, reminded us of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. My understanding is that that commission is more likely to threaten to put people in gaol than to open the gaol doors and let them out. That seems to be closer to its powers. I deplore the comparison with South Africa and the disputed Palestinian territories. In South Africa there was no democratic path forward. In the disputed territories in Palestine and Israel there is still no democratic path forward. In Northern Ireland there always has been a democratic path forward. The problem there has never been lack of democracy but the existence of a number of people who would not accept the outcome of democracy.
It is they with their guns who have won the day. They are getting their way with their guns. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, is shaking his head. Then why did we not just rely on the outcome of elections? Why did we have to have this agreement, when Ministers of the Crown sat down with known criminals, when terrorists were invited in as friends of democracy? Oh no, the democratic path was rejected by some of the people of Northern Ireland. This agreement derives entirely, completely, absolutely and in every last word from that rejection of democracy and that use of force.
It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, shaking his head. Everybody knows what has happened. Governments have been bombed to the conference table. That is what the IRA was for and that is what the violence in Northern Ireland has been about. Rejecting not necessarily this amendment but other amendments which may be better drafted will of course send a message to Northern Ireland. The message will be "Hang on to your guns, boys. Hang on to your guns. It will not cost you anything".
We are constantly told that this agreement is a seamless garment. It is an object of such perfection and beauty that it cannot be changed for the better in any respect. We were told that the Government intend to see it implemented in its entirety. I remind Ministers that part of that determination to see it implemented in its entirety is the obligation which will lay upon the Government to see that within two years all terrorist arms have been decommissioned. I hope that in two years' time I shall be able to stand in this House and say that my unworthy suspicions were ill-founded. I shall rejoice in the knowledge that all terrorist arms have been decommissioned. I doubt that I shall be called upon to do that—and, of course, the prisoners will all be out. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("or of an organisation proscribed under section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I am seeking more of an explanation than an argument as to how the Bill is intended to work. I want to know

1007
how proscribed organisations fit into the scheme proposed by the Bill. Amendment No. 24 to Clause 9 has similar effect to Amendment No. 6 as regards the release on licence provisions.
I am seeking to explore the relationship between the term "terrorist organisation", which is the term used in the Bill, and the organisations which are proscribed organisations within the meaning of the PTA. The matter was dealt with in one sense by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on Second Reading when he said on more than one occasion that the Bill is not intended to have any effect on whether an organisatiion is proscribed. He said:
"The provisions in relation to proscription in the Emergency Provisions Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act are unaffected and will remain in place. No organisation which is currently proscribed will be de-proscribed as a consequence of this Bill becoming law. However, it is possible for an organisation to be a proscribed organisation but not be a terrorist organisation as defined by this Bill. This is because the Bill focuses on whether an organisation has established and maintained a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, whereas the EPA and PTA look to the nature of the organisation".
A sentence or two later, the Minister continued that,
"the Secretary of State must consider … whether an organisation is 'concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging'".
That is precisely the language of the PTA.
Later, he said:
"I am talking about prisoners who satisfy the test that they are not associated with an organisation that is not on ceasefire. The key test is that they are not associated with an organisation that is not on ceasefire. If a terrorist",
and the Minister did use that word,
"happens to be a member of the Provisional IRA, and the Provisional IRA is on ceasefire, then that prisoner would qualify".—[Official Report, 29/6/98; cols. 488–490.]
That was extremely helpful and the Minister was in his usual helpful mode in that regard. But it does not seem to me to explain the drafting of Clauses 3 and 9.
The foundation of my concern is the statutory basis for proscribing organisations under the PTA. The IRA and PIRA were both proscribed in Schedule 1 to the Act and other organisations have been added since by order. The test is that the organisations in question appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned in or in promoting or encouraging terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom and concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Section 1 of the PTA also gives the Secretary of State the power to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations. That is a power which she would presumably exercise when it appeared to her that an organisation had so altered its activities that it was no longer concerned in promoting or encouraging terrorism. That is part of the test in this Bill.
Therefore, the dilemma is: how is it possible to be satisfied under Clause 3(5) that a prisoner, if released, would not become a member of a terrorist organisation or would not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and yet at the same time accept that the same prisoner is and
1008
intends to remain a member or supporter of an organisation that warrants retaining its designation as a proscribed organisation?
On the one hand, the four commissioners authorising the release are required to hold that the prisoner is unlikely to be involved in terrorism or with an organisation concerned with it; and, on the other hand, the commissioners are being permitted to reach that view in respect of an individual prisoner—the Minister described him as a terrorist—who is or intends to become and remain a supporter of a proscribed organisation, proscribed exactly because of that organisation's concern in or involvement with the promotion or encouragement of terrorism.
It is extremely difficult to see how anyone can be satisfied that an individual who was and proposes to remain a member of an organisation that the Secretary of State thinks it is necessary to proscribe and to continue to keep proscribed, when released, is not likely to be concerned with those same acts.
I have looked at the terms of the agreement and these amendments would not infringe its terms. However, what I suggest in these amendments is not specifically provided for but nor is there any mention of it. I do not wish to press the amendments if they are not compatible with the agreement, but it seems to me that it would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee what is encompassed by the term "a complete and unequivocal ceasefire". Does that preclude any terrorist activities such as the training of members, the acquisition and stockpiling of weapons, the surveying of possible targets and, for that matter, the disciplining that proscribed organisations have carried out over many years? Or is it limited to the actual carrying out of acts of violence against third parties, whether civilian or military, by shootings, bombings and so on?
If the Minister were able to confirm that the broader intention is the correct one, that would help us all. Certainly, the speech made by the Prime Minister at Balmoral, to which reference has already been made, suggests that the broader construction is the correct one and we certainly hope it is. Indeed, there could be an argument for defining "ceasefire" in the Bill as well on the lines of the Prime Minister's Balmoral speech. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I fail to see the dilemma to which my noble friend referred. Surely it is fairly simple and not very complicated. Under the provisions of Clause 3, at line 11, the commissioners must consider whether a prisoner is or is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation. "Terrorist organisation" must include, in the words of the amendment, the proscribed organisation so that if, as a matter of fact, the commissioners, on their inquiry, conclude that he is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation, that means that there is no need to include the amendment at that stage.
Then one reaches a subsequent stage where a terrorist organisation is specified by order by the Secretary of State. That is not done by a commissioner but it is

1009
another process. He may specify only organisations which, under the terms of Clause 3(8)(b):
"have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire".
I simply cannot understand the difficulty. It seems to me that it is a two-stage process undertaken by two different people. It is the type of process which was envisaged by the agreement. I make no apology for relying on the agreement and on the letter of it. I cannot see a difficulty unless there is something defective with my reasoning.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: It is quite clear to me that this is a rather difficult proposition. If one looks, first, at the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, it will be seen that it is to define what is a terrorist organisation and, indeed, to list those which are terrorist organisations. The commissioners would not therefore release, or recommend for release, any person who is a member of one of those organisations.
Here is the difficulty. Let us take, for example, the IRA. As my noble friend Lord Cope said, the IRA is a proscribed organisation under the Protection of Terrorism Act precisely because it is a terrorist organisation. But a whole number of the prisoners in the Maze gaol have accommodated themselves, at their wish, in the wings which are run by their favourite terrorist organisation. They have taken that action to show that they are members of it. Indeed, it is proposed that they will be let out precisely because that terrorist organisation is currently on ceasefire. It will be held that the IRA is different in this respect from the INLA. They are both terrorist organisations, as set out in the Protection of Terrorism Act, but one of them is on ceasefire and therefore, as the Minister said on Second Reading, the IRA is for this purpose not a terrorist organisation, while the INLA is.
The only distinction between the two organisations is the fact that one is on ceasefire and the other is not. So where do we go from here? I believe that my noble friend has identified a very clear difficulty. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Kilbracken: It seems to me that a great deal of confusion arises because of the use of the words "terrorist organisation" in subsection (4) of Clause 3. When we talk about terrorist organisations, we are completely accustomed to thinking of the IRA, the UVF or any of the other organisations that have been involved in terrorism. However, for the purposes of the Bill, we must look to subsection (8) of the clause for a definition of a "terrorist organisation". In effect, the subsection says that if the organisation is on ceasefire it is no longer a terrorist organisation. The members of it are exactly the same and the organisation is the same, but because for the time being it is on ceasefire, it is no longer a terrorist organisation. If it comes off ceasefire, the same people and the same organisation will be involved. But suddenly it is a terrorist organisation.
1010
My own feeling is that this situation could quite easily be rectified by a simple rewording of subsection (4); namely, that,
"the prisoner is not a supporter of a specified organisation".
Then, subsection (8) should also be reworded to say:
"A specified organisation is an organisation specified by order of the Secretary of State".
That would mean that we could use the phrase "specified organisation" instead of "terrorist organisation" wherever it occurs in the Bill. This matter seems to have caused a great deal of confusion both on Second Reading and indeed today. I suggest that it should be rectified by amendments on Report.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendment for some of the reasons that have just been given. Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA, with the IRA being the military wing of Sinn Fein. Although it is a proscribed organisation within the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I do not see how it can ever become a non-terrorist organisation when it calls itself the Irish Republican Army. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State or anyone else could actually convince most people in Northern Ireland that the UVF, the LVF, the INLA or the IRA were non-terrorist organisations. For that reason, I support the principle behind the amendment.
Lord Desai: My noble friend Lord Kilbracken has pointed out where the problem lies. We shall come across this problem again and again. However, if we defined the whole thing completely, logically and legally, we would find that there are many anomalies because it is a messy situation. In other words, we cannot take it as a straightforward legal situation.
In his excellent Second Reading speech the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, made the point that this is not a post-colonial settlement; it is a settlement within the laws of the UK. He was right in one way, but I would say "yes and no" which, as an academic person, I am entitled to do. We had a second referendum in the South. The referendum in the South had to do with the fact that this is neither a purely post-colonial situation nor a purely UK situation. Those two referendums had to be done together because it was a post-colonial situation as of 1922 which was dragged into 1998. Within the Northern Ireland context, it is a UK situation.
Therefore, as I said, we shall come across the situation again and again where pure logic does not apply and politics takes over. Politics is a very messy concept. I quite agree that many people feel very strongly about the matter. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, there are terrorist organisations which, under some definitions, are "all terrorist". However, some of them have declared a ceasefire and have constructed a situation through which this agreement has been made possible.
All of us know that this is a particularly fragile situation. It may all unravel and we may find ourselves back at square one, where we have been before. However, the point of the Bill, especially the way that it combines subsections (4) and (8) of the clause, is that

1011
it says, "Yes, there are terrorist organisations, but the ones that we are currently interested in are those which have agreed to a ceasefire". That is the distinction. Therefore, it is no good defining those organisations under the PTA; indeed, that would be far too general politically. Legally it is right, but politically the correct situation is to see who has agreed to a ceasefire.
Lord Tebbit: I believe that the noble Lord has missed one of the points; namely, that this is an Alice Through the Looking-glass situation. The IRA will be, simultaneously, not a terrorist organisation but still a "proscribed organisation" because it is a terrorist organisation. I may be a simple soul, but I find that very difficult to accommodate. It is as though the Church of England were being held to be simultaneously both a Christian organisation and an atheist organisation. It will cause some puzzlement to all of us, although perhaps not to entirely all of us at times. However, one can understand that it ought to be one thing or the other: is the IRA a terrorist organisation or not? You cannot have two pieces of legislation on the statute book specifying contrary things.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely we have constructively exposed the gremlin in the drafting. Something has gone wrong here. You cannot be a terrorist organisation and then not be a terrorist organisation because you happen to be on ceasefire. I say that because the next day, after the decision has been taken, the ceasefire may be rescinded. If the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, were prepared to consider how the anomaly arises in relation to this provision as drafted, perhaps it would be helpful to have some form of government amendment, or our own amendment, at Report stage. There is something adrift here.
Lord Desai: I shall now reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The IRA is a terrorist organisation, but within the class of terrorist organisations some have agreed to a ceasefire but others have not. Subsection (8) states explicitly on the face of the Bill that those terrorist organisations which have agreed to a ceasefire are to be treated differently from those which have not. That seems to me logically to be all right. There can be different kinds of terrorist organisation. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, we cannot undo the fact that the IRA is a terrorist organisation. However, we can take into account the fact that it has agreed to a ceasefire and therefore its political wing, Sinn Fein, has taken part in the negotiations which led to the agreement.
I refer to the post colonial/non-colonial distinction. We have been through this before. Someone who was a terrorist became the prime minister of Israel. I refer to Menachem Begin. He was a terrorist who had belonged to a terrorist organisation. The British Government declared him to be a terrorist but he became a prime minister and we loyally supported him when he was prime minister. I could refer to many other examples: Cyprus, India and so on. In this situation we need to apply a political and a legal sense. From that point of
1012
view I believe that we should reject the amendment because it seeks to make a simple situation on the face of the Bill much too complicated.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: There must be something about the clear mountain air at the summit of the Labour Back Benches which encourages clarity of thinking. I think that what the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Desai, have said is absolutely right. When the Minister ponders the conundrum raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I commend to him the solution arrived at by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, which seems extremely elegant and straightforward.
Lord Monson: Is not another possibility the insertion of the words,
"For the purposes of this Act"
at the beginning of subsection (8)?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I point out to the Committee that the Secretary of State will, after this Bill is passed, maintain two lists, one of terrorist organisations and one of proscribed organisations. I accept that any organisation may move from being a terrorist organisation to being an ex-terrorist organisation. It can declare a ceasefire and stop being a terrorist organisation. I do not see how it can stop being a terrorist organisation without, in fairness, being "deproscribed". It seems to me that if it is no longer a terrorist organisation, it should no longer be proscribed. The two ought to move in parallel.
It does not seem to me logical that a prisoner—if this Bill is passed in its present form—will have to say, "I am a member of PIRA", for example, in order to be released. In doing so he will admit to a criminal offence of belonging to a proscribed organisation. He should rightly be charged with saying he belongs to a criminal organisation. Everyone will know he has said that because he has been released. In fact I do not believe he will be charged because a later clause in the Bill will prevent any statement he makes to the commission from being used in evidence. Nevertheless, in logic, he certainly ought to be charged. It is odd for him to have to swear that he belongs to the PIRA in order to be released, and to commit a criminal offence in another context when he does so.
Viscount Brookeborough: Is it not quite simple; namely, that once a terrorist stops being a terrorist—he has to say he is not a terrorist, regardless of the organisation he was a member of—irrespective of which organisation he belonged to, he becomes an official member of the political wing of a party through joining that party? On the loyalist side there is the PUP and others, and on the republican side there is Sinn Fein. At present no one is saying that there is anything wrong with being a member of one or the other of those. By declaring you are no longer a terrorist, you are no longer a member of the kind of organisation, either on the loyalist or the republican side, that we are discussing.
Lord Dunleath: My noble kinsman Lord Brookeborough has summed up the matter admirably.

1013
This is really a matter of individuals, not organisations. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Desai, to try to differentiate between organisations as if they are brands of washing powder or butter or margarine, is not the most helpful thing to do. As someone who comes from Northern Ireland, I do not think it will help us in Northern Ireland at this present and difficult time to refer to 1922 or to talk about us as if we were in some way a colonial problem.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: This seems to have been a somewhat confusing debate. To my mind my noble friend Lord Desai got rid of some of the confusion by explaining the key issues. I shall return to those in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, quoted what I said in the Second Reading debate. I do not wish to quote those words again, but I agree with what he said. He quoted me accurately and if he presses me on the matter I shall read out those words again. However, I know he will not press me on that.
I shall deal with some of the points that have been raised and then I shall try to clarify any outstanding issues that may be somewhat confusing. The effect of these amendments to Clause 3 and Clause 9 would be to make it a condition of release and a licence condition that a prisoner was not a supporter of an organisation proscribed under the PTA.
At Second Reading I explained the difference between the identification of an organisation by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as a terrorist organisation, and the proscription of an organisation. That distinction followed directly from the terms of the Good Friday Agreement which stated that prisoners who supported organisations that had not established and were not maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires would not get early release. The Good Friday Agreement did not make the test whether a prisoner supported a proscribed organisation. We should not rewrite the agreement now by adding such a condition.
However, although it is not a licence condition that a prisoner should not be a supporter of a proscribed organisation, it remains the case that to be a member of such an organisation, or to collect funds, or to provide other forms of assistance, are criminal offences. Should a prisoner engage in such activities, he may be prosecuted and imprisoned.
I think it is reasonable to say that we have a distinction which I believe is understood, except that there may be some semantic difficulty in the fact that in this Bill we use the term "terrorist organisation". I believe that the point is more a semantic one than one of substance. What we are doing in this Bill is defining organisations for a particular purpose in order that a prisoner who is a supporter of an organisation that is on ceasefire can be considered for release. However, if he is a supporter of an organisation that is not on ceasefire he may not be considered for early release. That is the nub of the point at issue here.
Furthermore, it seems to me that it is possible that a paramilitary organisation—I use the term in a more general sense—might declare a ceasefire. That would be
1014
an important but not a sufficient condition for someone to say that that paramilitary organisation had ceased to be a terrorist organisation. It seems to me that in order to be clear that an organisation, has ceased to be a paramilitary organisation, it would have to do more than have a ceasefire, but a ceasefire is an essential part of it. For the purposes of the release of prisoners, we have said that that is one of the important conditions; namely, that the organisation is linked to a ceasefire. I think that deals with most of the points that were raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked what was meant by a "complete and unequivocal ceasefire". It is essentially one that is not tactical or sham. Perhaps I may quote from the Prime Minister's Balmoral speech in which he identified the four factors in the Bill. He said that, as the agreement expressly states,
"the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal: an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
The Prime Minister's definition is very clear. It deals with all possible aspects of what ought to be a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.
Finally, even if we were to change the words—and, as I have said, there may be a semantic difficulty more than one of substance—an organisation could still be proscribed but meet the test in Clause 3(8). The Bill is about realities, not words.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Words and their meaning have very important effects in Northern Ireland on many occasions. Indeed, sometimes meanings become very elaborate and apparent only to those who are, as it were, in the swim of Northern Ireland affairs.
To summarise the Minister's remarks, I hope not unfairly, a ceasefire, even defined as widely as the Prime Minister defined it at Balmoral—and I am grateful to the Minister for reinforcing that definition by using it today—is not enough to satisfy the Government as to whether an organisation should be proscribed but is enough to satisfy in relation to the release of prisoners. I am not at all happy about that. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: We now move on to international terrorism. It is well-known that there have been links of various sorts between terrorist organisations in different states. Arms have been acquired, training has been given and so forth. Yet the Government propose to release prisoners without regard to whether they might revert to terrorism for any purpose other than Northern Ireland terrorism.
Some of these prisoners would in other circumstances, as was made clear by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, at Second Reading, be regarded as war criminals. They have links with other organisations which are well-known to the authorities and might well

1015
be prepared to co-operate with them. I am not sure how releasing terrorists on this kind of basis when they can continue with international terrorism squares with the need to protect the community as expressed in the agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I am happy to support the amendment. It is surely a matter of pure common sense. Apart from being immoral, it would surely be the height of folly for any government to tie their hands in advance by pronouncing in effect that some terrorism is less heinous and less unacceptable than other terrorism of equal magnitude merely because it relates to a different part of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned terrorists having links with other terrorist organisations. But it can go further than that. Take the case of a skilled bomb maker who is prepared to sell his skills to the highest bidder—in other words, he is a mercenary. The Provisional IRA may not need his services for the time being. But should he be released if it looks as though he will immediately be recruited by some latter-day equivalent of Black September or the Red Army Faction? Surely not.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the amendment. Thinking back a few decades, we owe it to my late colleague, Enoch Powell, for his service on the Committee on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill at that time to ensure that the Act, which was first purely a Northern Ireland Act and later became a UK Act, was transformed into dealing with international terrorism. Noble Lords who have spoken expressed sound common sense. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
However. I am wondering if tomorrow by any chance an international terrorist were to read the account of this debate in Hansard, he might have some difficulty in deciphering the signal that we are sending.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I have put my name to this amendment for this reason. Although hard cases make bad law, I can imagine the possibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred of somebody who is, say, involved subsequent to his release on licence in another terrorist offence—let us say, planting a bomb on behalf of a Middle Eastern group. He may be consumed with bitterness about Britain. He may be a mercenary. He may for mercenary reasons have adopted that as his permanent way of life. In that situation, a convicted paramilitary who was originally caught planting a bomb, given a life sentence and subsequently released under this legislation, yet who some time later was caught planting another bomb in London,—for example, in collaboration with Middle Eastern terrorists—could appeal against the re-imposition of his initial sentence on the grounds that his most recent offence was connected with Middle Eastern, not Northern Irish, issues.
As the Bill is currently drafted, it would allow such a character—and we cannot exclude the possibility that such people exist—seriously to embarrass the
1016
Government and avoid many years in prison. The Government would do well to consider that. I take the point that emergency legislation of one sort or another deals with other matters such as drug dealing offences. However, we are talking here about somebody who moves on from Northern Irish terrorism to becoming part of international terrorism and about what would then happen to him.
Lord Tebbit: It does not have to be international terrorism. It does not have to be the possibility of the bomb maker going to Spain to help ETA. Up to now, and we all pray that it will continue, the Scottish nationalist movement has been overwhelmingly peaceful. There have been only one or two occasions on which there has been any element of violence. The same is true of the Welsh nationalist movement. The SNP and its equivalent party in Wales, Plaid Cymru, are absolutely and adamantly opposed to any form of violence. But how absurd it would be if one of the people who had been let out was able to continue his trade, if that is the right word, still within the borders of the United Kingdom for a nationalist cause and would not therefore be pulled back in from release. Of course, he would have to be prosecuted first for the crime that he had most recently committed for it to be established that he had broken the terms of his release. But how strange the wording of the Bill is.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In moving Amendment No. 7, I should have added that I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 11 and 25, which make exactly the same point at subsequent points in the Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I had intended to respond to the three amendments, which are grouped together.
The purpose of the amendment is perfectly simple and straightforward; that is, to remove the qualification in three places. The fundamental point is that the Bill deals with, and is intended to deal with, terrorism connected to the affairs of Northern Ireland, to use the phrase in the Bill. That is what the agreement deals with as well. It is not intended to apply to terrorism that has no connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. There is a good case to be made for a review of international terrorist legislation. That is presently under way in the Home Office. The terms of the Bill include acts of terrorism committed outside Northern Ireland which are connected to the affairs of Northern Ireland. For instance, if an act of terrorism related to the affairs of Northern Ireland were committed in London, Wales or Scotland, that would be caught by the present terms of the Bill. What the Bill does not do, and what it is not intended to do, is to require the commissioners to take account of possible acts of terrorism which have no relation at all to the affairs of Northern Ireland. The example is given of Middle Eastern terrorism.
Amendment No. 7 would require the commissioners to consider whether prisoners would be likely to become concerned in Middle Eastern terrorism, which has no connection at all with Northern Ireland affairs.

1017
Amendment No. 11 would give the Secretary of State the power to identify a terrorist organisation that was engaged in terrorist activity entirely unrelated to Northern Ireland and unconnected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. We do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to extend the remit of the commissioners in this way.
It was mentioned that arms had in the past been acquired by members of the Provisional IRA from other countries, perhaps the Middle East. It was asserted that training was given outside the United Kingdom and that links were continuing. I dissent from none of those propositions. But all those activities would be caught by the Bill in its present form, because the acquisition of arms, the training, the links and possible donation of funds would all be quintessentially and plainly connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I recognise the concerns that have been expressed by Members of the Committee about international terrorism, but this is not intended to be a Bill or an agreement about anything other than the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The reason for mentioning the training and acquisition of arms was that, just as other terrorists elsewhere in the world have given assistance to the PIRA, and, no doubt, to other organisations, so the flow can be in the other direction. It would be most unfortunate if we found that, through this Bill, we were releasing terrorists who then went off to fight in other battles, whether against the United Kingdom or against other people. We have made the point. At this stage, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) The fifth condition is that the prisoner expresses remorse for the suffering caused by his crime.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 sets out four conditions that must be satisfied, subject to certain qualifications, before a terrorist prisoner can be prematurely released. This amendment would add a fifth condition, or a sixth one, if Amendment No. 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, were to be accepted at a later stage of the Bill. I believe that acceptance of this amendment would make the Bill rather less unjust, and certainly less unpalatable to the victims of terrorist crime and their families, even though it will not and cannot wholly reconcile them to it.
Some Members of the Committee may have read the autobiography, or the condensed version of the autobiography serialised in the Daily Telegraph, of a former IRA terrorist, Sean O'Callaghan, whom I have met. A diminutive, soft-spoken and sensitive-seeming man, he does not look as if he would or could kill a fly. Yet, as an idealistic teenager growing up in a strongly republican milieu in the south west of Ireland, he joined
1018
the IRA, became proficient in weaponry and carried out two murders on behalf of the IRA, one of the victims being a woman.
He felt distinctly uneasy after each of these murders, and this persisting unease, combined with a growing distaste for the callous attitude of many of his comrades, caused him to decide to leave the organisation. After a lapse of time, and as a form of atonement, it would appear, he rejoined the IRA but this time under false colours, as a police informer. In this capacity, and at enormous personal risk, he managed, without arousing suspicion, to foil a number of projected IRA murders and ambushes, including, if his claim is correct—and I see no reason to doubt it—the proposed assassination of the Prince and Princess of Wales at the Dominion Theatre in Tottenham Court Road in the early 1980s. Finally, the danger and strain of leading a double life became too much and he quit the Provisional IRA altogether.
Still feeling guilty about the two murders he had committed many years previously, it would seem, he went of his own accord to the police, confessed, was arrested, was put on trial, was convicted and was duly sentenced to life imprisonment. He served eight years. I am fairly certain that, if he had kept a low profile, he would have escaped prosecution, given the enormously valuable work he had done for the security forces on both sides of the Irish border; but his conscience dictated otherwise and he felt that he deserved to go to prison for a time.
The point of all this is that, by his acts of repentance, he wiped the slate clean, certainly as far as most objective onlookers, like most of us, are concerned, and, one would like to think, as far as the families of his victims are concerned as well. It would be nice to think that such acts of contrition could be widely replicated through legislation, but that is clearly totally unrealistic. The contrition that Amendment No. 9 seeks to have expressed as a quid pro quo for early release is vastly less far reaching, less comprehensive and less demanding. Indeed, there could be no guarantee that the remorse to be expressed would be sincere, although the mere fact of having to express remorse in one's own words will to some extent force prisoners to face the enormity of their crimes, which must be a step in the right direction. But, if this small and admittedly inadequate gesture makes the victims' families feel even 10 per cent. less unhappy about the Bill than they are at present, it would be worthwhile writing the obligation into the Bill. It would also help reconciliation in the more general sense, a highly desirable and necessary objective, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, reminded us. I hope that the Committee and the Government will accept at least the principle of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Monson. It is another very reasonable proposition. Without such an expression of remorse, a released prisoner will be tempted, and may yield to the temptation, to repeat the current practice of taunting the widow or children of the person they have murdered

1019
and, as in some cases known to me formerly as a constituency Member of Parliament, targeting and intimidating the bereaved family for years after the murder was committed.
No reasonable person can resist, or object to, a simple requirement for the commissioners to put to the prisoner/applicant such a simple question. If the prisoner/applicant is sincere in his intention
"to lead a new life"—
words which will not be unfamiliar to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard—how could he decline to answer that simple question? After all, surely that question is central to his request for release.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, on Northern Ireland matters. It is a reasonable proposition. However, given the situation that he recalls from his days in another place, I think it is unreal to ask these people to express remorse, which, if that were the price of freedom, they would undoubtedly do with all sincerity. That would put the Government in an embarrassing situation if the action were to rebound on them. I believe that, if we put this requirement on the face of the Bill, we shall create more problems than we stop. One hopes only that that remorse is forthcoming and sincere. But I do not believe that that is what we have to do at this stage.
The Earl of Longford: I felt that perhaps I could contribute from my own knowledge for a moment. Years ago I met a young man who was only a boy at grammar school. He had a promising life and his father was a headmaster. He was so horrified by the performance of British troops on one occasion that he joined the IRA. He distributed letter bombs. Lots of damage was caused and two people lost their hands.
I got to know the boy very well later. He wrote to everybody to apologise. He did not expect to be released; he just felt bitterly ashamed. Eventually, after 15 years, he was released and has made a good life since. So there are people who, completely out of character, do something terrible and then express remorse. On the other hand, I never forget to remind prisoners—people who have done terrible things of whom I see quite a few—of what President Nixon said when he was disgraced. He said, "I have screwed everything up. I have let everyone down. I am not going to grovel". There must always be that little compromise. I simply wanted to contribute to the debate from my own knowledge.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: This is an interesting point. It was particularly emphasised at Second Reading both by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who moved the amendment, and by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. It was also raised in another place where the Minister of State described a similar proposal as "unnecessary, unfortunate and unsound". That seemed to me to be a bit over the top.
1020
The Minister seemed to think that prisoners might suppose that an undertaking they gave to be on their best behaviour would somehow absolve them from meeting the other criteria. That cannot be a serious worry. It would be a confirmation of the criteria for release rather than a substitution of different criteria.
Nevertheless, I have doubts about the amendment. Remorse can certainly be genuine and the case of Sean O'Callaghan is a good one in that context—as no doubt is the case cited by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. But the question is whether remorse should be a condition of release and that is the central difficulty. I have no doubt that if the amendment were accepted it would make everyone—certainly me—feel much better about releasing terrorists. But perhaps my noble friend Lady Denton may be right in that it is difficult to make it a condition of release, which is what the amendment proposes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I share the same instinctive sympathy for the arguments put forward. However, remorse is not something to be required by Act of Parliament; it derives from a moral imperative. Indeed, when I was listening with some care to what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it seemed to me that he illustrated that point abundantly. He said, in reference to Sean O'Callaghan, that he acted in the way he did because his conscience dictated it to him, not an Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord said that actions might wipe the slate clean. I doubt that. If there is genuine remorse, that would be a moral act for those who had behaved criminally and disgracefully. It might—it is not for me to speculate; it is an impertinent intrusion into other people's pain—be some consolation to some families; I do not know. But something required as of rote has no moral worth and, indeed, might reasonably be regarded as insulting.
I pay attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said. On different sides of this Chamber she and I debated the problems of Northern Ireland over many years and I always pay careful attention to what she says. I believe that she is right on this occasion.
I share the thought behind the amendment. I honour the thought behind the amendment. But it is not something we want in an Act. If a man is remorseful, he should be remorseful and express it, not be made to parrot out a formula in an Act of Parliament.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead for supporting me. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, suggests that if a prisoner expressed remorse, was released in consequence and committed another terrorist crime after his release, the Government would be embarrassed. But the Government will be embarrassed anyway if a terrorist prisoner re-offends, no matter whether or not he previously expressed remorse. Therefore, that argument against the amendment is not particularly powerful.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, conceded that the amendment would make everyone feel better, "but", and then brought forward objections. But is not the whole

1021
point to make people feel better, particularly the victims of terrorist atrocities? Making them feel better is valuable and something towards which we should aim. It would make people in Northern Ireland who are unhappy with the agreement feel better. That must be desirable. People on this side of the water would feel better, too.
In relation to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I concede that enforced repentance is not as morally worthy as voluntary repentance. But surely it is better than nothing. It sends some kind of signal. Obviously, we cannot for the moment agree on that and I shall have to reflect on what has been said.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he believe that the victims of this prisoner's crime will believe the expression of remorse?
Lord Monson: There is a chance that they will; the remorse may be genuine. One noble Lord this afternoon talked of meeting prisoners from both the loyalist and republican sides who were genuinely repentant, or partly repentant, for their crimes. There is a reasonable chance that some of the remorse expressed would be genuine. I believe it would be helpful, though that is just an opinion. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("may specify only") and insert ("shall specify").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 10 raises a simple but important point. It seeks to take out from the second line of Clause 3(8) the words, "may specify only" and insert "shall specify".
As drafted, subsection (8) gives to the Secretary of State a discretion as to whether or not to specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation even in a situation where she believes, first, that the organisation is, concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging it, and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.
I fully accept that it will be for the Secretary of State to decide, on the basis of information placed before her—much of which will be from the security services and her security advisers—whether or not a particular organisation is concerned in terrorism and whether or not any such organisation is not maintaining a "complete and unequivocal ceasefire". Subsection (9) sets out on the face of the Bill the matters to which the Secretary of State shall have regard in addressing the issue which arises for her consideration under subsection (8)(b). It is set out helpfully, though possibly the use of the words "in particular", as may be discussed later, are a less helpful part of that subsection.
In relation to the discretion in the first part of subsection (8), the Bill is silent as to what criteria are relevant. The Bill gives the Secretary of State no guidance whatever as to the circumstances in which she should specify an organisation or those in which she may decide not to.
Having considered very carefully what is set out in the Belfast agreement, and in particular what is set out in paragraph 2 on page 25 of the agreement, it seems to me that there is an argument that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a particular organisation is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and if she is also satisfied that such an organisation has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, she should not have a discretion as to whether or not to specify such an organisation as a terrorist organisation for the purposes of the Bill. In considering her duties under the PTA it may be that other considerations may be applied or may be relevant. But, for the purposes of this Bill, it seems to me that there is an argument for saying that there should not be such a discretion.
If the discretion is to remain in the Bill it would lay the Secretary of State open to all manner of pressures upon her to refrain from certifying a particular terrorist organisation. Those pressures might be political and, in certain instances, they might be worse than that. They might in fact take the form of threats of terrorist violence or terrorist violence itself by some offshoot of the organisation concerned.
If one turns to the terms of paragraph 2 of the section of the agreement headed "Prisoners" one reads:
"Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements".
There is no suggestion in that paragraph, or in any other section of the agreement dealing with the issue of prisoner release, that either the British Government or the Irish Government should have a discretion as to whether or not to water down what is set out in the sentence that I have quoted. On the contrary, when one reads the sentence, it is, I believe, quite unequivocal that if a prisoner is affiliated to an organisation which has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, that prisoner will not benefit from the arrangements for early release. In those circumstances, it appears that this matter might merit some further consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Tebbit: I am a little puzzled by the effects of this subsection. As I read it, it seems that the Secretary of State could quite lawfully, if the provision is enacted in this form, believe that an organisation is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire and yet be free not to specify. That is the problem here. The Secretary of State could think that such an organisation is still involved with terrorism and has not established a

1023
complete ceasefire and yet refuse to specify in that way. Therefore, I am inclined at the moment to support the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend.
Viscount Brookeborough: I, too, am inclined to support the amendment. If one looks at paragraph 2 of the agreement and reads a little further one sees that the last sentence states:
"The situation in this regard will be kept under review".
I am not sure that the situation with regard to releasing people who may one day be supporters of a group still involved in terrorism should ever be reviewed. It seems quite simple that unless that group is on ceasefire they cannot be released. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will explain how the situation in that regard will be kept under review.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I, too, have great difficulty with this clause. The key to this part of the Bill is to be found in the passage that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has just identified. It is paragraph 2 of the section headed "Prisoners". It states:
"Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements".
There is a need for the Minister to indicate what kind of hypothetical situation could justify the failure to specify an organisation where the two tests set out in subsection (8)(a) and (b) are not fulfilled; in other words, where an organisation may yet be concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland or in promoting or encouraging it and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. If those tests are not fulfilled, I, for the moment, cannot imagine what circumstances could justify the Secretary of State in not finding that a prisoner was affiliated to an organisation which had not established or was not maintaining a complete and completely unequivocal ceasefire. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could perhaps later, or better still now, fill that gap.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I said at the beginning of the debate that from these Benches we would not support things which sought to go further than the agreement. However, having listened to what noble Lords have said, and having studied, as we have been directed to by several noble Lords, paragraph 2 on page 25, I have been persuaded by the debate and should like to ask the Government why they will not replace the word "may" with "shall".
Lord Dubs: I have listened to the arguments put forward. This amendment was considered in another place but was not accepted there. The Bill quite rightly gives the Secretary of State the power to identify organisations that do not meet the test in Clause 3(8). That this should be expressed as a power is correct and is consistent with the fact that it is the Secretary of State's belief in the matters specified in subsection (8) which determines whether an organisation is or is not specified.
1024
Your Lordships will understand that the Secretary of State will be careful to use that power in the appropriate circumstances. As such, there is no value in placing the Secretary of State under such a duty. Indeed, it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not take this responsibility very seriously. It is, after all, an absolutely fundamental part of the whole Bill. I believe that the element of discretion which is given to her so that she can exercise her responsibilities fairly and properly is a reasonable one.
Subsection (10) makes provision for the Secretary of State to keep under review the organisations identified under Clause 3(8). That was added at the request of the UUP to make the review process clear. The Secretary of State has shown herself capable over her period in office of making difficult decisions. After all, in the past she has thrown parties out of the talks when she has been under pressure from others to keep them in. The Secretary of State takes a very robust attitude to her responsibilities and I am quite sure that she would give effect to them fairly and properly, as expressed by noble Lords here. But I do not believe it is necessary to go as far as to make the amendment that has been suggested.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We do not have to doubt the ability or the integrity of the Secretary of State of the day. After all, persons change. Ministers come and go. The Secretary of State is not specified here as Ms. Mo Mowlam; it is the office which is held. Therefore, the personality of the present holder of that office is irrelevant to the matter. Indeed, as I understand it and if I recollect rightly from my own experience in government, if the Secretary of State were to be incapacitated for some reason, another Secretary of State could carry out this function. I recollect being somewhat surprised to discover that one day many years ago when, as Secretary of State for Employment, I was asked to sign an order prohibiting a suspected terrorist from entering Great Britain. When I observed, "That is a bit outside my responsibility, isn't it?", I was reminded that the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State.
We cannot accept what the noble Lord has said. I would be grateful if he would give us an example of when the Secretary of State would not wish to specify an organisation which was behaving in this way. What would be the disadvantage of putting the matter specifically as my noble friend has suggested? I cannot conceive what it would be. Indeed, the Minister said that he cannot conceive such a situation either so why do we not make the words in the Bill match those that he has uttered?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I suggested that the Secretary of State would exercise her responsibilities properly under the Bill and that there would be no question of anyone feeling that she was not doing that. Given her track record, I believe that that is a reasonable conclusion to reach, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbitt, has more or less agreed. I am suggesting that it is not necessary to go as far in the Bill as the amendment proposes.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not believe that the Minister has faced up to the crucial point which lies

1025
behind this amendment which was focused by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. What could justify a decision not to specify an organisation if the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was concerned in terrorism and had not established and was not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire? No one suggests for a moment that the holder of the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the present time has not provided a great service to the people of these islands. She will no doubt face up to difficult decisions which may lie ahead. However, this Bill will be in force for a number of years. Initially it covers a two-year period. As my noble friend Lord Tebbitt has reminded us, the Secretary of State can be any Secretary of State.
I do not intend to press this amendment tonight, but I hope that the Minister will think very carefully about this matter. He has not provided any explanation of the circumstances which would justify a decision not to specify; nor has he given any reason why my amendment would in any way frustrate the agreement which, time and time again in these debates, we are reminded cannot be departed from in any way. I make it clear that this is a matter to which I suspect a number of noble Lords will return at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill be resumed not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Waste Minimisation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Tourism in the North West
7.34 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what new help they are considering to promote inbound tourism to the North West.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, most of us think, subjectively, that where we come from is very special. Many even think "There's no place like home". In the case of north-west England, where I come from, it must be true, for millions of more objective people from elsewhere think the same.
Inbound tourism to the North West is today a major and fast growing sector of the region's economy. It provides at least as many jobs as the defence, aerospace, automotive, textile and clothing sectors. Tourists also create a huge number of jobs in other sectors. On the north-west coast 40 per cent. of the jobs tourism creates are outside the tourist industry.
The region's growing popularity is proof of its attractions to tourists. In addition to the coastal resorts, they include not only the undoubted natural beauty of the nearby Lakes and Peak District but also the "paradise", as it was royally described, of the Trough of Boland. Other attractions include our rich cultural heritage; our fine universities and cathedrals; the North West's historic role as the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and of movements for social improvement; and its more modern shrines like the set for "Coronation Street" at Granada Studios.
Among the movements for social improvement founded in the region there is one, the Co-operative Movement, in which I have an interest to declare. I do so with pride as former President of the Co-operative Congress, the highest honour the British Co-operative Movement can confer. The CWS, based like other major co-operative institutions in Manchester, is today the biggest enterprise in the North West, with its increased turnover in 1997 of £3.025 billion. The working people who pioneered the movement in Rochdale in 1844 inspired a world venture that today comprises 700 million co-operative members in over 70 countries, all of which have contacts with the movement here.
The other interest I must declare is that I first stood for Parliament in Liverpool, with my noble friend Lord Sefton as my admirable election agent, leaving me with an enduringly high regard for that city, before serving for 33 years as a Member of Parliament for Manchester, my native city. Thus some might conclude that my view of the comparative merits of the North West is not wholly unbiased.
The region's towns and cities each have their attractions for particular groups of tourists, and Liverpool and Manchester of course have commercial, cultural and sporting links worldwide. Manchester will host the next and, given due support from the Government to bridge a funding gap, the best-ever Commonwealth Games, while Liverpool, birthplace of the Beatles and home of one of Britain's two most successful football teams, hosts the world's most exciting horse race every year. International exhibition and conference business also makes an important contribution to tourist income for both of our major cities.
Tourism is the second largest source of employment after retailing in the North West. Its growth potential is far greater than that of the traditional manufacturing industries and makes it one of our most important means of economic regeneration. If with the Government's help we can further increase inbound tourism, we shall benefit both the region and the national economy, to which it already contributes £25 billion a year.
To assist this burgeoning industry we must make the North West more accessible to international visitors. Inevitably a high proportion of overseas visitors want to

1027
see the attractions of the capital. That provides competition enough for regional tourism ambitions without the additional challenge of less than satisfactory access to regional destinations.
Compared with just 13 per cent. for the North West, the latest figures available show that 63 per cent. of overseas visitors came to London. But the growth of inbound tourism to London is not without its problems. Ever-increasing congestion at the London airports makes it all the more urgent for the Government to spread the benefits of tourism more evenly across the country by improving access to the regions.
The North West has so much to offer, but for overseas visitors to see and enjoy it they need direct access to the region, free of the hassle of transfers over the London airports. This would ease pressure on Heathrow and Gatwick and enable the North West Tourist Board—and such bodies as England's North Country and Marketing Manchester—to promote the region to much greater effect and compete on more equal terms with London and tourist destinations across the globe.
It is much to the advantage of the North West that it has in Manchester one of the world's best airports. Over 16 million passengers a year pass through it and that figure is forecast to reach 30 million within the next decade. Much to my delight, my right honourable friend Tom Clarke MP, the Minister for tourism, visited Manchester Airport recently. He heard in detail about its potential for increasing inbound tourism and the pace of economic regeneration in the North West. It was a most timely visit and I am extremely glad he was able also to meet John East, who so ably chairs the board of the renowned Hallé Orchestra, another of our tourist attractions.
Since Tom Clarke's visit the Government have made two welcome announcements that create further opportunities for Manchester Airport to develop to its fullest potential. First, the UK's bilateral treaty partners were informed that the capacity and frequency of direct international air services into regional airports would no longer be linked with issues concerning access to London's airports in bilateral negotiations, provided that UK airlines have the opportunity to operate on the same routes. While this falls short of the full Open Skies policy for which the regional airports continue to press, it is an important move in the right direction.
The second announcement, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, allows Manchester and some other regional airports to fund their development through borrowing on the strength of their balance sheets. This was a major step forward for which I hope my noble friend, who also deals with Treasury matters, will thank himself for me most warmly! The constraints suffered by Manchester and other local authority-owned airports in terms of public sector borrowing requirements were pushing the more successful airports into the private sector for no good reason. Happily now Manchester Airport can retain its present status and focus on regional benefit, while being free to act in a more commercial way so far as its funding is concerned.
Much credit is due to the Government for these announcements. But there is more they can do to enable the major regional airports to make their regions more attractive to tourists. They should develop a proper methodology for assessing the regional economic impact of air services and continue to roll back the barriers to genuinely free international access to regional airports. Specifically, they should allow airlines providing direct international flights into Manchester and other regional airports to fly on to third countries, carrying revenue passengers between each of the destinations served. This is the so-called "fifth freedom" of the air. It would increase the viability of services and add significantly to inbound tourism.
Even more importantly, the Government should allow Manchester Airport a further commercial freedom, one well justified by its pivotal role in the regional economy. The freedom we seek is to allow the airport company to diversify, to pursue its own commercial objectives without being bound narrowly to the operation of the airport itself.
As of now, the airport is barred from this normal business activity because of limitations on its local authority owners—a matter of vires. This has significant implications. Your Lordships will be aware of the impending loss of duty-free trade generated by travel between member states of the European Union. The British Airports Authority, which owns London's airports, can hedge against this loss of income by diversification. It undertakes property development, for example, and invests in airports abroad. But for Manchester such action is impossible because of its more limited powers. And in the case of projects to improve surface access to the airport, the airport company is often relegated to a back-seat role because it cannot put money into them on a commercial basis.
Freedom to invest in such projects would be of immense value to the airport and the North West. It would also further promote inbound tourism by speedier access to all parts of the north from the airport. Growth at the airport creates new employment of the order of 1,000 on-airport jobs for every 1 million more passengers. More inbound tourists from more nations around the world will mean increased spending in the region, sustaining jobs, creating new ones and allowing more investment to make it more attractive to its visitors and the UK as a whole more appealing to overseas tourists.
I know the Government will want to respond positively to the points I have raised and that my noble friend, with his customarily instinctive helpfulness, will do all he can, informed by this debate, to work with us to make the North West an ever more accessible, attractive and welcoming destination for inbound tourists.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I share his enthusiasm for the North West and its wide range of attractions. The more people we can get there, the better

1029
for everybody. I should like to follow the noble Lord, first, by supporting his views about the importance of Manchester Airport. The implementation of his well put suggestions would benefit the airport enormously.
It has been estimated that by the year 2000 tourism will be the world's biggest industry. The North West is an important economic area of the United Kingdom and it is therefore important that it should benefit from that growing industry and that it should have available the resources and opportunities to allow it to grow with that world demand. The North West has many other advantages, but they might be even greater if a little attention were paid to them.
Better and more effective co-ordination of the North West's very different tourism attractions is needed. I am thinking of attractions as diverse as Blackpool and the Lake District. Ever-increasing traffic is a problem, caused in part by the growth of day trips. The pattern of tourism is always changing. When the RDA is established, perhaps it will be instrumental in achieving a more organised approach.
There is certainly a lack of co-operation between local tourist and planning authorities when developing and promoting tourist areas. My own city of Chester has encountered considerable problems in trying to co-ordinate an approach to enable the city to take advantage of tourism opportunities while trying to meet some of the planning pressures encountered by our older cities. During my period in your Lordships' House, I have pressed both governments on this and have asked them to look more seriously at the implications of planning decisions because it appears that the planning authorities do not always consider the general well being of an area.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, the North West lacks a national "must visit" tourist destination. This would raise important planning issues, but the North West of England needs one major tourist attraction. That would make marketing the region a lot easier. At the moment, our attractions are diverse and we have to market a range of attractions and activities, including Blackpool, the Lake District and the City of Chester. One major attraction of world renown would have a major impact on what we can achieve in the region.
We also need effective transport planning. The North West has very good motorway links, but we do not have such good links to the areas that the tourists actually want to visit. We need greater understanding of how we can tackle overcrowding on our side roads which are used by tourists.
It is of interest that tourists do not visit as they once did. At one time, a tourist would visit Blackpool for a week; now he visits for a day. As a result, the ability of a town to offer the right facilities to tourists has changed dramatically. Transport authorities need to be much more aware of the changes. Some 38,000 jobs in the rural areas in the North West of England depend on the tourist industry. This House has had many debates on the future of the rural economy and the requirement for greater growth. The tourist industry can be one of the best providers of new job opportunities within rural
1030
areas and should be considered very carefully by the Government particularly when developing their rural policy.
There is speculation that the Government may scrap the English Tourist Board. It would be a very bad thing if that happened. Perhaps the Minister can refer to that matter in winding up the debate.
Competition from abroad is now fuelled very much by the strength of sterling. No doubt as time goes on this will change. Today the world-wide holidaymaker has much higher expectations of quality. What we could have got away with at one time is no longer acceptable. If the tourist board or a similar organisation is to continue it must try constantly to raise standards and provide what the public want.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has referred to the Commonwealth Games. However, one is considering not only those games but a major festival of academia and other cultural activities that take place at the same time. The promotion of such major events which take place not only in Manchester but throughout the whole of the North West and the provision of resources and opportunities in that area will be very important. I hope that the Government will take heed of what is said in this short debate.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, reference has been made to the possible closure of the English Tourist Board. I do not propose to dwell upon that. I am quite sure that the Government are alive to what needs to be done to promote tourism. If they have in mind better arrangements, we await them with interest. As a director of Jarvis Hotels, with many hotels in the North West and a total of 70 in this country, including Planet Hollywood, and theme restaurants that employ 700 people in the Leicester Square area alone, I am well aware of the importance of having good facilities and interesting things for people to see and do.
I am much struck by what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, about the promotion of a major attraction in the North West. During my six years as chairman of the English Tourist Board I have visited the North West on a regular basis. One of its marvellous attractions to which I draw particular attention is Blackpool. Blackpool is a major attraction, but it requires modernisation. Blackpool needs better conference and exhibition facilities. It is untrue that the Labour Party has left Blackpool and will not be holding any more conferences there. We shall skip one year only. We shall be there this year. I am sure that I speak for everyone on this side of the House when I say that we look forward to being in Blackpool this year. But I respectfully suggest that it is time to consider whether some contemporary conference and exhibition facilities should be developed further to improve that extremely important seaside resort.
It is essential to raise standards throughout the country, not merely in Blackpool, and that depends on getting tourists into the regions. More tourists mean greater profits; greater profits mean reinvestment; and reinvestment means new investment. That is what is

1031
required throughout the country. We also need to raise the standards of the personnel who serve visitors. Some are still a little gruff and unfriendly. I was not surprised to read today in the newspapers that British Airways had some new ideas about how its cabin staff should respond to please visitors. That must be done in all areas of tourism.
We must also be sensitive to the fact that not everyone welcomes tourists. I refer to my experiences in Oxford. I have said in this Chamber before that Oxford is schizophrenic about tourists. Tourists provide very meagre economic benefits and irritate residents by creating a good deal of congestion without a reward. I hope that those who are responsible for tourism in both central and local government will keep a constant eye on that problem. That applies particularly to London. We must try to get more tourists out of London. Surely, tourists who come here on second visits should make London simply an entry point for the purposes of seeing the rest of the beauty and interests of our wonderful country.
This is the time of devolution for Scotland, Wales and London. We must also be cautious about wasting public money. Inadvertently, we may create a good deal of duplication. For example, if we asked the British Tourist Authority to do some of the work that had been done by the English Tourist Board it might create suspicion. The tourist boards for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and perhaps even London might want to establish their own branches overseas in the belief that they could do the job better than the British Tourist Authority. That would be very unfortunate and we must guard against it.
We have been hearing about how well tourism is doing. One in five of all new jobs is created in tourism. Between 1.7 million and 2.2 million people are employed in tourism. People argue about the correct figures. There is a slight decline in inward tourism. For the first time since records were kept we have witnessed the largest quarterly deficit in the tourism account. There is some important work to be done. Therefore, it is timely that the Government appear to be reviewing this matter, although it is being done in the name of the public expenditure round. Thank goodness that that information will, we hope, be available next week and that the sword of Damocles which is now suspended over the head of the English Tourist Board will be removed and the difficulty resolved one way or another. In any sector of commerce there is nothing worse than uncertainty. Uncertainty is plaguing tourism at the moment.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, those of us with roots in the North West are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for giving the House this opportunity to encourage the growth of the tourist industry in that region. Tourism and the jobs that go with it are absolutely vital for the future prosperity of an area that has long suffered decline.
I felt it most important to add my name to the list of speakers this evening in order to give some balance, not in the party political sense but in relation to the famous
1032
rivalry between Manchester men and Liverpool gentlemen. I had not appreciated that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, began his political career in Liverpool, as I did. Liverpool was part of my territorial designation. I was Member of the European Parliament for Liverpool following the first direct elections in 1979. At that time I was very much involved in a number of major European Community-funded infrastructure projects which have helped tourism in Liverpool and the whole area. For example, in 1984 we had the International Garden Festival. We have had the refurbishment of the Albert Docks and the opening-up of the South Docks which have had such a tremendous environmental impact. On one occasion—it may have been the end of the Tall Ships race which was a glamorous occasion for the Mersey or when we were extending the Maritime Museum—the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, visited as chairman of the English Tourist Board. He was helpful and encouraging.
As many noble Lords will be aware, I am a trustee of the National Museums and Galleries of Merseyside. It is one of my ongoing commitments to the area. We have had the vexed subject of entry charges to museums. We struggled not to introduce entry charges, but were eventually obliged to do so. One of my arguments was that the support for museums in London was misguided, because London had so many tourists who could well have paid their way, as they have to pay their way in their own countries. Areas such as the North West should have had more support from the Government. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to that view. Nevertheless, it is important to make the point yet again.
The museums and galleries of Merseyside are a great attraction for tourists. The Maritime Museum is the only Merchant Navy maritime museum. It has a special theme area on Irish emigration which is important for those seeking their roots. There is also the Museum of Atlantic Slavery with which the late Lord Pitt of Hampstead had so much to do. There is also the Walker Gallery. The department responsible for the heritage did a very good job in supporting the Royal Academy's recent regional art exhibition here in London. I have met a number of people who went to that exhibition and who saw paintings from the Walker Gallery in Liverpool and from Manchester's gallery. They said, "I really must go and see the collection on the spot". That was a good move.
There are those, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, who visit Liverpool regularly on a Beatles pilgrimage. There are great sporting events. We have two famous football teams as well as the Grand National course. What about the Grand National? It is an event which takes place on two days a year. The course is virtually unused for the rest of the year. Something should be done to make it a permanent sporting site and a useful centre.
We do our best with conferences. The two Liverpool universities are useful and helpful in promoting conference-type tourism. There is much more that we can do on the theme of education. There is the traditional tourism, which has been referred to, of miles and miles of golden sands at Southport and Crosby which I remember visiting as a child.

1033
It is clear, as my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton said, that there should be more co-ordination with local authorities as well as central government. I hope that there will be support from the Government for the latest project which is to encourage more ships back to the Mersey. There is a plan to encourage tourist ships to visit the docks in Liverpool. Some dredging of the Mersey is already taking place. It would be helpful if masses of tourists arrived who were based on their tourist ships. They could visit Liverpool and the wider region. I also support my noble friend's suggestion that there should be some major annual event.
I hope that we shall hear what plans the Government have for fitting tourist organisations—in particular, the successful Mersey partnership—into their proposed regional development agency. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Macclesfield: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may intervene. I wish to refer to the possible demise of the English Tourist Board. I would welcome that if we could promote England on a regional basis. I shall not repeat the assets of the North West of which we are already aware. I have experience of arguing for the Olympics to come to Manchester. The tourist board's portrayal abroad of England as traditional, with its guardsmen and its old empire and imperial background, oriented on London, undoubtedly attracted some tourists for this country, but it was counter-productive for the many tourists who might have come here had we shown some of the country's other assets.
We have heard about Liverpool. The last view of mainland Europe for the ancestors of many people was Liverpool docks. That is important for people returning to trace their ancestry. I do not need to elaborate on the Lake District, William Wordsworth and so forth. Chester is a Roman city. I would welcome a move towards regional promotion, because the North West has a great deal to offer. What it offers is different from what other regions offer.
8.6 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, when speaking in your Lordships' House I am always struck by the knowledge and experience displayed. This evening has been just one such occasion. From these Benches, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for this opportunity to discuss tourism in the regions. Perhaps I may also offer the apologies of my noble friend Lord McNally, who was unavoidably detained and so is unable to be in his place this evening. I regret especially that he is not here, because he has a great knowledge of the North West, having been a Member of the other place for a constituency in the North West. I was relying upon him to speak with a north western flavour from these Benches, so that I might permit myself to speak on a broader regional theme.
As my noble friend is not here, I shall unfortunately have to confess and display my ignorance of the North West. I think I have only been to any part of the
1034
North West three times in my life. Once was to stay at the Chester Grosvenor, which was a splendid hotel, and I very much enjoyed my visit; once was a day trip to Blackpool to speak to the British Incoming Tour Operators Association; and the third was a visit to the Granada studios in Manchester to speak at the World Travel and Tourism Council. They were at least worthy causes in aid of tourism, but that, I am afraid, is the extent of my knowledge.
In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I shall look at the problem of the promotion of regional tourism for all the UK regions. We can all agree on the benefits of tourism. I have had the privilege of speaking on tourism on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. There are many noble Lords here tonight who have spoken in those same debates. We usually all agree, pretty well, on the benefits of tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, gave the figures. We know about the number of jobs and the economic benefits. However, in more and more of your Lordships' debates we now look at the other side of the tourism balance sheet, which has also been mentioned tonight; that is, some of the downsides of tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, mentioned them in regard to Oxford. We need now a thought-through planned strategic development of tourism within the framework and objective of sustainable growth. The case for that is becoming much more widely accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke mainly on accessibility and transport, with particular regard to air travel. I shall not touch on that. I agree on the necessity for accessibility and I would underline the case for rail accessibility. A great many people come to the North West from other parts of the UK. We must not forget the domestic tourist. That is an important part of the tourism mix in all regions. Without doubt, an improvement in the rail infrastructure would be helpful.
We need to look at two aspects of tourism in the regions: first, organisation; and, secondly, funding. As regards organisation, we have touched this evening on the potential abolition of the English Tourist Board. There was an article in the Financial Times today. On these Benches we believe there is a clear answer: tourism is a devolved issue and the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland assembly will deal with tourism. We therefore believe it appropriate that that parliament and those assemblies should deal with international and domestic tourism. Accordingly, the organisation whose role should be questioned is the British Tourist Authority. We propose a merger of the ETB and the BTA, calling it the English tourist board. I underline the fact that we would maintain the same level of funding of the two organisations in that one organisation. Each of the devolved countries and the remaining mother country would be responsible for its own promotion. I suspect that as a consequence all four of the tourist boards would quickly come up with a mechanism for promoting Britain. However, the fairest way is to allow them to do so under their own steam.
The second area of organisation is at local level. It is sad that so few people in tourism take part in local tourist board activities. There is clearly an opportunity

1035
there for considerable development. It is at the local level that the tactical delivery of tourism is so important. I am concerned about the RDAs. They clearly could work well but they are not accountable to local government. They are accountable to central government but have no proposed elected representatives. I am wary of any body which has no elected representatives.
I have mentioned that we should put together funding of the BTA and the ETB in one central organisation. A figure quoted recently is the spend per head. I totally disagree with that. There are more people in England than in the other countries. Therefore whatever figure is chosen, there will be a greater spend per head in the devolved countries than in England. One could say to noble Lords opposite that possibly it should be from each according to his means; and to each according to his needs, but that might be somewhat Old Labour. I move rapidly on.
Clearly to allow each devolved government to spend its own budget is the appropriate way forward. Rather than invidious comparisons between nations, we should allow them to do that. I urge the Minister not to use reorganisation of tourism structure to achieve an unnecessary and extremely small saving on funding which is so important to tourism.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for introducing this interesting debate at a moment when tourism in general is highly topical.
Recently the Select Committee in another place on Culture, Media and Sport castigated the Government for neglecting tourism despite the lip service paid to its importance by Ministers and officials. When we were in government we were criticised by many for bringing under one department heritage, museums and the arts together with tourism. Some thought that tourism would dominate the department to such an extent that everything would be treated as a tourist attraction. That did not happen. However, tourism does not feature now even in the unpronounceable acronym which designates the department. This is symptomatic of the low priority that tourism is granted.
I agree with the Select Committee of the DCMS that there is the strong,
"impression that tourism is viewed as the Cinderella of the Department".
It is greatly neglected, notwithstanding the economic importance of the sector. Contributing 5 per cent. to GDP, it is the third largest British industry. Britain as a destination ranks fifth in the world tourist market and is growing, as my noble friend Lord Wade so rightly said. It attracted 26 million visitors last year whose main reason for coming here is our great heritage and traditions. If I were the marketing director of Britain Inc, I should be very pleased, though not complacent, with the success of our product. Furthermore, on the basis of those facts I should be very cautious about launching a rebranding exercise across the board.
1036
Britain does not need a new image, nor mega PR stunts like the Millennium Experience. It needs an enlightened Government to act at a number of levels, supporting specific tourist attractions. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Hooper, in the North West the Tate in Liverpool, nearby the National Museum of Photography in Bradford and the Royal Armories in Leeds have contributed to raise the profiles of those cities. For instance, the Royal Armories attracts 60 per cent. of its visitors from outside Leeds and its immediate surroundings and 9 per cent. from abroad.
In Trafford, Daniel Liebeskind's project for the Imperial War Museum rivals in daring and beauty Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. It may fail to find the necessary funds as a direct consequence of the changes to the National Lottery rules. I urge the Minister to press the Government to back this excellent scheme, in particular as it contributes to the regeneration of a large derelict area.
Beyond those specific measures the Government must do more to get the right framework in which tourism can flourish. The publication of a new strategy for tourism is being postponed, and in addition there is great uncertainty about future funding. Will the regional tourist boards lose the 20 per cent. from the English Tourist Board if the latter is to be abolished? What alternative arrangements are being made? Will funding be channelled via the Regional Development Authority? If so, what role will the RTB play in it?
Other than creating uncertainty—so well stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Montague—the Government have initiated yet another review: tourism towards sustainability, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned. Sustainability is the panacea of the moment, the politically correct policy par excellence. In the consultation paper, the Government put forward too rosy a picture. It sounds like a matchmaker extolling the virtues of marriage to young naive couples. In a number of cases tourism and the environment can be married successfully, as in the effective traffic management techniques adopted in Chester. In other cases, marriage can be made to work, for instance, through incentive schemes for the industry such as the Green Lantern. But sometimes it is not possible. In such cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said on another occasion, "conservation should always prevail". Will the Government acknowledge this?
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, concentrated many of his remarks on Manchester airport, and quite rightly so, as airports are the main gateway for incoming tourists. Gateways, however, are only one facet of a transport network which helps tourism, and sustainable tourism in particular. We should like to add our voice to the chorus calling for an integrated transport policy. But how long will we have to wait for it? Will it address the transport requirements of sustainable tourism?
Furthermore, how long will it take for the Government to understand that more regulation is damaging? We understood the significance of regulation or deregulation. For example, we removed the prohibition on 16 and 17 year-old apprentices working in bars. Most importantly for all business, and tourism

1037
in particular, we negotiated an opt-out to the social chapter. By signing up to it, this Government have opened the floodgates to a raft of legislation. Some is highly damaging, like the part-time workers directive and proposals for fixed term workers' treatment, as well as compulsory consultation in establishments with over 50 employees. Will the Minister give assurances that the Government will build flexibility in implementing measures of the existing directives and that they will oppose the current proposals?
We are all aware that one of the most important factors today discouraging tourism is the strength of the pound. The social chapter, together with the introduction of the minimum wage and the working time directive, are likely to increase the industry's costs and make it less competitive. It is impossible to quantify exactly by how much, but inevitably higher costs will affect inbound tourism, in particular in areas such as the North West.
The tourism industry is thus constrained by a strong pound and by environmental as well as social policy imperatives. In these circumstances, are the Government prepared to look at tax measures to help tourism? In particular, are they prepared to reduce VAT on accommodation? I look forward to the Minister's answers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for introducing this short debate. He has a record of distinguished service to his city and his country; now, quite clearly, to his region as well. We are very grateful to him.
The Question on the Order Paper is what new help the Government are considering for inbound tourism to the North West. It is necessary that I address that question although the tone of the debate generally—with the exception, as so often, of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings—was very constructive and laudatory about what the North West has to offer. I am very much in sympathy with the debate in that sense.
When we look at what help the Government can give to tourism we have to be clear about the different roles of government and the private sector. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that governments can deal with major structural failures in industry, be it tourism or any other. What a government can do is provide help with redressing market failures. Above all, they can provide co-ordination, standards and support structures for the tourist activities and accommodation, which, fundamentally, have to be provided by the private sector.
I am pleased that we are making progress on accommodation standards. The new unified accommodation standards are moving ahead and will be publicised within the next two to three years, having been agreed by all the relevant organisations. I accept that we have a responsibility for the transport issues, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, among others, referred. We cannot provide accommodation and we cannot provide more than a part of tourist attractions.
1038
I shall briefly run through what we think the Government can do. Too much is made of the structures of government support for tourism. An enthusiastic government can work to help tourism whatever the structures. I am not too worried about the comments that have been made about the English Tourist Board. We had a short debate at Question Time about this and I made it clear that there is nothing I can say in advance of the comprehensive spending review. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that whatever happens to the English Tourist Board and other tourist organisations will not in any way diminish the high priority which we give to tourism. My noble friend Lord Montague of Oxford said he would await with interest the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review. I am afraid that is exactly what he will have to do.
While on the subject of structures, the House will be aware that we established a very wide-ranging tourism forum last autumn. It has more than 50 members, all with distinction in the industry, working towards a tourism strategy. It will not be only a government strategy but a strategy of the representatives of the industry. It will be published later this year.
Again on structure, concern has been expressed about devolution and the establishment of regional development agencies. We see these as being a real plus already. The British Tourist Authority is working with the Scottish and Welsh Tourist boards, and the prospect of the regional development agencies is leading to better co-ordination of efforts in tourism at a local level rather than nationally.
There was comment from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about sustainable tourism. Our consultation document published in April this year has already been debated in this House. As we said then, we recognise that sometimes tourism can mean that certain parts of the country, to use a phrase, are "loved to death". That is undoubtedly the case. Unless we study these issues, we shall not contribute either to our international obligations on sustainable development or to the development of a greater diversity in tourism, which is what sustainable tourism, to a very large extent, is all about.
We have responsibilities for tourism regeneration. Some of these are private, some public and some are a mixture. The Granada Studio Tours are an entirely private venture; the redevelopment of the Albert Dock and the King's Dock in Liverpool are public and private, as is the Wigan Heritage Centre. The National Lottery and the single regeneration budget are contributing heavily in the north-west region, including a National Lottery grant of £60 million for the Lowry Centre in Salford and the single regeneration budget expenditure of £90 million in Blackpool towards the improvement of the infrastructure, to which my noble friend Lord Montague referred.
There were a number of references to museums. I recognise the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. We hope that we have halted the tide, but

1039
there is a certain amount of a King Canute problem here. Financial pressure will inevitably continue the difficulties which Merseyside and other parts of the country have. They will be difficult to overcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to the Imperial War Museum project in Trafford. We hope very much that this exciting project will succeed. There has been and will be additional fundings for the Manchester museums, for the Xanadu project in Wigan and many other projects in the north-west region.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke about the need for a big idea—although he did not use that phrase—for a tourist attraction of international significance in the North West. I do not agree with that. Diversity of tourist attractions makes for a more balanced tourist industry. It makes different kinds of people come to different parts of the region. That is what we want in terms of sustainable tourism. Seven-and-a-half million people a year visit Blackpool pleasure beach. That is a tourist attraction of international dimensions.
I acknowledge what a number of noble Lords said about the need for continued attention to the transport infrastructure. Of course, that is what the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is working on now, as it is also working on the preparation for its local government White Paper on contacts between local planning authorities and the tourism industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, seemed worried about that. I remind him that local authorities are very active subscribing members of the regional tourist boards, so much so that the North West Tourist Board is serviced by Bolton Borough Council. Considerable amounts of money—£75 million in the North West—are spent by local authorities on tourist attractions. Their role is extremely valuable. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the continuing need for co-ordination between them and the tourist boards, but his fears do not worry me too much. Nobody referred in particular to the division between the Cumbria and North West Tourist Boards, but I can tell the House that they have a joint strategy and are establishing single points of contact which are of great value.
The most important matter for my noble friend Lord Morris and others is Manchester Airport. I am grateful for my noble friend's recognition, first, of the Treasury's conversion to the ability of the airport to borrow money on the strength of its balance sheet, with the effect that the borrowings need not be included in the PSBR. Similarly, I am grateful for his recognition that we have removed many, if not all, of the restrictions on bilateral air services being opened up in Manchester, with the result that from Manchester there are now flights to more than 50 international destinations. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is looking at the possibility of loosening the restrictions which Manchester Airport, as a local authority airport, has in undertaking partnerships and joint ventures. We hope that its conclusions will be apparent in the forthcoming White Paper on local government.
Noble Lords referred to the European Regional Development Fund and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred in particular to the need for support in rural
1040
areas. He will know that under objective 5(b) east Cumbria and north Lancashire are included for help under the Regional Development Fund.
There was reference to the Commonwealth Games in 2002. Noble Lords will know that the relevant departments—the DCMS, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the DTI and the DETR—together with Manchester City Council and the English Sports Council are actively planning the funding which will be necessary. However, noble Lords are quite right to say that at that time other events will be taking place. There will be cultural events and of course, although this was not referred to, the Queen's Jubilee will take place in that year.
I have not had time to talk at all about other government policies which are helpful in promoting tourism, although the House may allow me a few extra moments in order that we avoid adjourning during Pleasure. I pay tribute to those major companies in the tourist industry which have supported our New Deal initiative—Whitbread, Stakis, Thistle, Queens Moat House, Granada, Allied Leisure, Swallow and hotels in every part of the north-west region. They are all taking part in the New Deal.
I believe also that our policy as regards the minimum wage, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, thinks, and the social chapter are helpful to the development of quality tourism. We do not want a tourist industry in which people are paid starvation wages and are forced to work for unreasonable hours. A sensible working week and minimum wage are already applied by those best companies in the tourist industry. The adoption of the social chapter will enable us to ensure that those high standards are achieved by all parts of the tourist industry.
I am not in any way apologetic for the Government's intervention, their role and the help that they can give to inbound tourism in the north-west region. I believe that we are already doing a great deal and that our progressive and forward-looking plans will enable us to do more in the future.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
8.35 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("in particular").
The noble Lord said: This is a more substantial group of amendments and in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 18.
I shall speak first about Amendment No. 12 which is the smallest and least significant amendment in this group. In a way, it is separate from the others although they all refer to the way in which determinations are to be made under Clause 3(9) by the Secretary of State in deciding whether an organisation is in fact a terrorist organisation under subsection (8).
Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove the words "in particular". This is a legal point. I understand that in discussion on the Human Rights Bill, it emerged that the words "in particular" are superfluous. To tell a Minister discharging a statutory function to have particular regard to something is either superfluous or misleading. It is superfluous in the sense that the Minister would not be performing his duty if he failed to have regard to the factors which are relevant; and it is potentially misleading if it is suggested that such factors should exclude other relevant factors.
I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to understand all the niceties of that particular argument as it was discussed on the Human Rights Bill, but I thought it worth raising the matter for discussion on this occasion.
The other amendment standing in my name and those standing in the name of the Liberal Democrats return to the question of decommissioning, which we have already discussed in part on an earlier amendment. It is my view that the difference between the two sides of the Committee, and in particular between the two Front Benches, is not as significant as some commentators seem to make out on this matter. In the first place, we wish to stay within the letter and spirit of the agreement and I shall explain in a few moments why we believe that our amendment is within the agreement.
But it follows from that that we do not want to create a precondition. The Minister and some of his colleagues have returned time and again to the question of establishing a precondition and he spoke earlier this evening of bartering prisoners for guns. I am not quite sure how he works out that our wording means the establishment of a precondition by comparison with the wording in the Bill. Perhaps we mean something different by the word "precondition". We are not necessarily thinking about exactly the same thing. Therefore, to make it clear, I take it to mean what I believe lawyers call a "condition precedent"—that is to say, something which must be in place before something else happens.
If we had tabled amendments which called, for example, for some or all arms to be given up before any prisoners, or all of them, were released, that would be a precondition—a condition precedent. However, our amendment asks only that the Secretary of State should believe that an organisation is co-operating with the decommissioning commission as opposed to merely taking into account whether or not it is co-operating with the commission. We want the two processes to be parallel. The hurdle that we seek to set up is easy to clear today, as it were, for an organisation that might be affected by this provision when the whole matter of decommissioning is at a very early stage.
Apparently some terrorist organisations have appointed representatives and are talking to the decommissioning commission, while others have not done so. Therefore, in taking into account or deciding whether or not she believes that they are co-operating with the commission, the Secretary of State will obviously have regard to the organisations which are talking and those which are not. If the Secretary of State gives any weight to that at all, she is ensuring, to some degree at any rate, that the two processes are parallel.
Of course, we are putting a slightly stiffer test on the matter. However, I also promised to say whether I thought it was in line with the agreement. I believe that it is, for the reasons which I explained earlier to the Committee. The very first page of the agreement says:
"We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement".
So there is a general commitment—a general linkage—between all the different parts of the agreement, including both the decommissioning and the aspects relating to the prisoners. There is also the specific practical link between both decommissioning and prisoners, in that both of them affect the terrorists and the terrorist organisations very directly by comparison, for example, with the setting up of the north/south ministerial council, or some other aspects of the agreement, where those presently languishing—if that is the right word—in the Maze are not so immediately and practically affected. But of course they have every right to expect that all the other parts of the agreement will also be carried out. Indeed, I have no doubt that they will expect that.
We were asked earlier to rely on the character of the Secretary of State—and, indeed, the character of the Prime Minister—as being a guarantee that all would be properly pursued. Frankly, I do not believe that that is really sufficient—not, I hasten to add, for any personal reasons connected with the Secretary of State herself or the Prime Minister, but because, as has already been discussed, the Secretary of State is an institution and not a single person. Indeed, the situation could change even temporarily during which time another Secretary of State might take charge of such matters during the temporary incapacity of the Secretary of State or because of some other difficulty.
In any case, the whole matter has to do with pressures. If there is a gap here and thereby an opportunity for prisoners to be released without decommissioning going along in parallel, it seems to me that people will try to force that gap open. The pressures on the Secretary of State will then be much greater and it will be much more difficult for the Secretary of State—whoever it is at the time—to resist. Those pressures can be of all sorts of different kinds, both democratic and undemocratic. Therefore, I believe it is right to stiffen up the wording of the Bill a little. That is what Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 seek to do.
I put Amendment No. 18 into a slightly different category. Its purpose is to insert the word "and" between paragraphs (9)(c) and (9)(d), which relate to the four conditions. The word "and" is very important. If the Secretary of State is to take into account those four conditions, will she look at each one separately and decide in each case, "Yes, I think we can put a tick against each one"? Alternatively, will the Secretary of State look at all four of them together and say, "Well, on matters (a), (b) and (c) the organisation in question is doing quite well, but on (d), decommissioning, it is not doing very well: never mind, we shall just look at (a), (b) and (c)"? Without the word "and" it seems to me that it is open to the Secretary of State to say just that. Indeed, if it is open, people will press very hard

1043
for it. They will say, "Look, we are fulfilling (a), (b) and (c). We are doing our best on (d) and admittedly we haven't got anywhere. Nevertheless, we are doing our best and you don't need us to fulfil that one as well". The pressure will certainly be on.
Again, one has to address the question whether or not this is within the letter and the spirit of the agreement. I believe that it is, for the reasons that I have already given but also for another more specific reason. We are constantly referred back to the Prime Minister's speech at Balmoral on 14th May. In that speech, he set out the four conditions, although not precisely as they are set out in the Bill. Nevertheless, they are set out in a similar way. Indeed, the legal drafting gives every indication of having been based on the Balmoral speech. In fact, we have been told from time to time that it does pretty directly reflect the Balmoral speech. However, there is one difference: the Balmoral speech does include the word "and". The four conditions that are set out are set out as if they were separate with the word "and" included, but not as a general statement, which is what appears in the Bill. That is very significant in defending Amendment No. 18 against the charge that it is outside the letter or the spirit of the agreement.
While talking about the Balmoral speech, it is relevant for me to quote what the Prime Minister said immediately after setting out these factors. He said that the factors must be,
"given legislative expression directly and plainly in the legislation to come before Parliament";
in other words, this Bill. Later, he said that,
"it is surely reasonable that there should be confidence-building measures from these organisations"—
referring to the terrorist organisations—
"after all the suffering they have inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland … we also have a responsibility to provide protection against abuse of the democratic process, and its benefits"—
and there is no bigger benefit to those concerned than this prisoners' Bill—
"by those not genuinely committed to it".
I agree with that. Indeed, for that reason, I think that this amendment which seeks to include the word "and" is of great importance. However, I do not want to take away from the importance of Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 about which I spoke earlier. As I said, they attempt to insert the proposition that the Secretary of State should believe that decommissioning, among other things, is being carried out by the organisations.
In Amendment No. 14, which is also in this group, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, is suggesting, appropriately enough from the Liberal Democrat Benches, what I believe one could call a halfway house, in that his amendment would still mean that the Secretary of State would take into account the various factors. But instead of just thinking about them, he or she has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion on the various factors one way or another. That does not go as far as I would like to go, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for stepping at least a few yards in our direction. I hope that I can persuade the Minister and his colleagues to go at least that far, but if possible further, because that is extremely important.
I said earlier—I believe this strongly—that if there is no decommissioning the agreement will fail sooner or later. Other things can trip it up, of course, but if there is no decommissioning I believe that confidence in the agreement will fade away to below vanishing point. The only chance of obtaining decommissioning is to make sure that the prisoners realise it has to proceed in parallel because the prisoners will argue for it within the terrorist organisations and then it stands a chance of happening. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was kind enough to indicate that I had moved in his direction. I think the attitude being taken by the Conservative Benches in this Chamber is a great deal more careful and—if I dare say so—responsible than that taken some weeks ago in another place. We can see where the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and his colleagues are coming from. However, I am afraid that that is as far as my politeness goes. I find myself in unfortunate company because I do not agree with any of the amendments in this group, apart from my own. The groupings list states that,
"every effort is made to secure agreement to these groupings".
However, I am afraid those prodigious efforts did not include talking to me about the matter. I find myself not in agreement with Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 18. I shall say why in a moment.
I shall first discuss my amendment, Amendment No. 14. I want to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that the point of this amendment is not in any way to make the conditions either easier or more difficult to fulfil. The point of it is quite different. If my amendment were accepted, page 2, line 34, would state,
"In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether on the evidence available to him he has concluded that an organisation"
and then the four desiderata are set out.
The point of that amendment is that subsection (9) as it is presently worded seems to imply that considerations (a), (b), (c) and (d) are objective facts which are easily understood and easily agreed by everyone. That cannot possibly be the case. Each of them is a matter of difficult and sensitive judgment, even more so—I support this in the Bill—when it is a matter of trying to judge them in combination to see whether, in combination, the Secretary of State should take the view that he or she has to take. The first aim is to transfer a spurious objectivity that these are objective facts in the real world to the realm in which they properly belong, which is as matters of judgment that someone has to make. Who is that someone? Clearly it is the Secretary of State who has to make the judgment. That brings me to the second purpose of my amendment; namely, that he or she should do so on the basis of the evidence available to him.
I think earlier in the debate someone talked in this context about the crucial role of the security services. It is quite apparent that on each of these considerations the advice of the chief constable in particular, but also of other security authorities, will be crucial for the Secretary of State to make these judgments. I prefer a

1045
transparent process in which there is no mumbo jumbo and no mystery, and where it is quite clear that it is the Secretary of State who has to make a judgment and has to reach a conclusion, and that he or she should do so on the basis of the evidence available. That is the whole object—a rather humble one, you may say—of my amendment. I seek to take this matter out of a curious kind of limbo in which these become revealed truths, and put it where it belongs as a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State using the evidence available.
I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Cope, feels that that is a good thing in itself—I welcome that—but it is not meant to be a halfway house to the other amendments, which I fear fail the test I set from these Benches at the beginning of the debate, which is that they should not seek to build on the Good Friday Agreement additional linkages, conditions and tests. I do not think that that is appropriate.
I oppose Amendment No. 18. I think that the insertion of the word "and" turns (a), (b), (c) and (d) into separate conditions, each of which has to be separately met in order for the Secretary of State to arrive at conclusions. That clearly is not the purpose of the Good Friday Agreement which is that when the considerations are taken as a whole and taken together that judgment should be arrived at. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support that amendment in particular. I do not in practice support the others in the group.
I urge the Government to think hard about Amendment No. 14 in my name, and particularly about the discrepancy between subsection (8) and subsection (9). In subsection (8) we find the Secretary of State having to specify organisations which "he believes" fulfil certain conditions. However, in subsection (9) the situation has reverted to the limbo I mentioned. In subsection (9) the Secretary of State has to take into account whether an organisation "is" fulfilling certain conditions. Who works that out? Whose conclusion is it, and on what evidence is it reached? It is that I should like clarified.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I very much regret that I was not able to be present at Second Reading because of an engagement in Northern Ireland. I have, of course, read with great care the Official Report. I was not in the least surprised to find in virtually every speech expressions of great distaste for this Bill, and in some cases for the necessity for this Bill. In one or two instances there were expressions of rather more than distaste. The reason for that is too obvious to need stating again tonight.
The prospect of terrorist prisoners being relieved of the greater part, in some instances, of what courts have held to be their just deserts is something which revolts my heart, as it has revolted the hearts of many others in this Chamber. I have seen too many of the victims and I have seen too many of the scenes at which they became victims. There was a time last week when Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 carried my name in support. In case anyone has noticed that that is no longer the case, I thought I should offer a few words of explanation. I am afraid it is something which will not
1046
surprise my noble friend Lord Molyneaux, for example, or others. It is simply that I have changed my mind. The background is the following.
In almost every speech at Second Reading it was stated that the agreement is a most historic and momentous achievement. I think it a most hopeful achievement. There was a recognition that the agreement has to be sustained, even though, of course, it contains aspects which are distasteful. The importance of Her Majesty's Government not amending it unilaterally was recognised. Like it or not, in some respects I too believe that the agreement has to be given every reasonable chance to work. The agreement is immensely hopeful as an achievement. I wish that it had been tougher on the question that we have been discussing, and more specific in relation to what is required of the Secretary of State when assessing whether an organisation has or has not established, is or is not maintaining, a ceasefire. However, I have to face the fact that it is not.
My distaste for the Bill led me at first to want to support Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I thought that I properly should do so. However, I admit that I have changed my mind. I recognise that there are two ways of looking at the matter; it is not black and white. I do not want any terrorist organisation or future supporter of any terrorist organisation to be given any unnecessary advantage. They have too many as it is. It is important that the Bill is not amended in any way that can plausibly be argued to take it beyond the text, or the spirit deriving from the text, of the agreement.
I was much influenced by the fact that Mr. David Trimble said on 17th June that the Government's concessions have given,
"legal effect to the decommissioning section of the Agreement and the pledge given by the Prime Minister at Balmoral".
I fear that Amendments Nos. 13 and 15, quite unintentionally, would, or might foreseeably, give such an advantage to a future terrorist organisation or a future supporter thereof. I appreciate that there are two ways of looking at the matter. However, it can be said that it imports by being much more specific, and not as general as is the linkage—to which my noble friend Lord Cope is perfectly entitled to point—an indication that can be prayed in aid, plausibly and perhaps unjustifiably, that the British Government had unilaterally moved beyond the spirit at least of the agreement.
I confess to having adopted successively each of the two ways of looking at the problem. However, for the reason that I have tried to explain, I do not feel able to support Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I support Amendment No. 18, for the reasons advanced in support of it by my noble friend Lord Cope. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that I have no problem at all with Amendment No. 14.
9 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his explanation. He speaks as one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, and a recent Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have listened with great respect to all the views that he has expressed so clearly.

1047
However, it is rather a pity that, from the very first day that we read the Bill, and even before it appeared in another place right through the harsher debates in another place, and unfortunately last week at Second Reading in this House and all day today, there has been an implication that somehow or other those of us who dare to table amendments and speak to them are against the agreement and are wreckers of the agreement, that we are determined to pull down the whole edifice.
I, being an old hand at all of these matters, take a rather wider view. A party conference provides a broad brush steer for the party concerned. A party manifesto, particularly an election manifesto, is slightly more definitive. But that, too, is only policy-making in outline. It does not become legislation until it passes through both Houses here and receives Royal Assent. There is a misunderstanding about our desire to improve the Bill. That is why we are here, both in this House and in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, got it right when he said that we seek to put in place the devices and various arrangements outlined—but no more than outlined—in the Good Friday Agreement. Not everyone may be aware of the fact that matters were only broadly agreed in the Good Friday arrangement.
I do not know whether many noble Lords saw the interview given by the chairman of the talks, Senator Mitchell, who did a very good job generally throughout all the tortuous discussions. The BBC in Northern Ireland broadcast a lengthy interview given by Senator Mitchell for television transmission. The interviewer said to him: "Senator, was it touch and go to the very end on Good Friday?". Mr. Mitchell looked very relaxed, smiled broadly and said, "Oh yes, it was. The final draft of the document was circulated in the late afternoon on Good Friday. I had a telephone call from David Trimble, who asked for more time to enable his team to consider recent alterations that afternoon". He said, again with a broad grin,
"Your request will be met, Mr Trimble. I have summoned the final plenary for 5 o'clock because I have to catch my flight in the morning. It is now 4.45. You have your extra time—15 minutes exactly".
I am not complaining about that. I was not on the negotiating team. I do not wish ill on any of those participants or Senator Mitchell. However, that gives an insight as to how broad the brush was. When one talked to members of the negotiating team from various parties, no two of them could give exactly a clear idea of what they had agreed in relation to some of the more substantial matters in the agreement.
That is why I say with great regret that I viewed the Bill when it appeared as I would any other Bill coming before this House or, in earlier days, the other House; namely, as a draft Bill designed to be debated, amended, improved, and all the rest. I cannot understand why there appears to be a degree of resentment in some quarters and a curious misunderstanding that those of us who seek to improve the Bill, as we would any other legislation, are stepping outside the bounds into forbidden territory and attempting to go against or to damage the agreement. The agreement was, after all, not signed by anyone. It seemed to have been assented to
1048
by some people who spoke, but there were other voices in that gathering that were silent. Noble Lords can put their own interpretation on that.
I have got that off my chest and shall now come to the amendment. As it stands, subsection (9) is utterly unconvincing. It would be a bit of an insult to the Secretary of State to retain the form of words in the subsection:
"the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account".
The word "particular" has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. The Secretary of State is required only to "take into account"; not to make a judgment on certain facts, not to make a decision, but simply to,
"take into account whether an organisation",
is complying with four of the most fundamental conditions set out in the Good Friday Agreement, the sacred document. I believe that the words "take into account" debase the Bill and with it the agreement itself. It is true to say that the general public in Northern Ireland are becoming more cynical by the day. In those circumstances, a phrase like "take into account" certainly will not do.
Amendment No. 13, in particular, is designed not to damage the agreement but to strengthen the authority of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in dealing with this most vital issue of all. If we do not do that, I am afraid that the entire release scheme will descend into farce, and confidence thus lost will never be regained.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I support the amendments in this grouping, including the one proposed by the Liberal Democrat Benches. It was nice to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holme, admit that there was more sense on red Benches than on green Benches on this side of the Chamber.
I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in trying to persuade those on the Benches opposite that we are not trying to wreck the agreement or to move in a unilateral fashion. We are trying to improve this legislation and thereby perhaps protect the Government. We hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the suggestions we have put forward. We believe that all of them add benefit to the wording of the Bill. It will be interesting to see whether the noble Lord can accept any of them. After all, he began the Committee stage by stating that he would accept, and be comfortable with, some of the suggestions. We are still waiting for that.
Lord Desai: I am sorry to intervene in this debate; I do not know whether my noble friend will find it helpful. I have the impression that we have still not quite come to terms with the nature of the agreement. I tried, rather hesitantly, to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—who, unfortunately, is not in his place—that this is not entirely a UK matter and that neither are the UK Government overall sovereign but a partner in negotiation with other parties. The fact that these parties are groups of citizens of the UK is neither here nor there. It is a complicated process. We are in a messy situation, half decolonising, half regulating.

1049
I know that this may inflame passions rather than calm them, but I think of the agreement as more like a multilateral treaty which various parties have arrived at. What we are doing is embodying the treaty in a piece of UK legislation, and disturbing it may mean that other parties who agreed to it may feel that they will be better off doing something else.
At least one party, the Republic of Ireland, was a sovereign party. The Republic agreed to an historic decision in its referendum. An historic concession was made by the Republic to remove Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution. That was quite amazing. In the first post-Imperial partition which has been legitimised, as it were, post-haste, the Republic has agreed that it does not have a claim on Northern Ireland. That is very much part of this matter. If we start messing about—with the best intentions of course—the agreement will unravel. That is the way I view the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in relation to Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. It is a delicate situation.
I am not sure that I would include the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. To me, the words "shall take into account" do not need embellishing further. There is no great empirical factor involved; it means that certain things shall be taken into account as the Secretary of State feels it appropriate to do so. I am worried that if we start to unravel this, it will fall apart. It is important that we carry the Bill through as it stands because it was carefully drafted.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to say a few words. I become a little troubled when people say, in relation to a Bill that we are considering, that we should not do anything about it; that we should not amend it in case it upsets an agreement which the Government have already made without consultation with the British people outside Northern Ireland.
The fact is that around 56 million people in Wales, Scotland and England have an interest in this matter. They always have had an interest in it. After all, the IRA terrorists have not confined their activities to Northern Ireland; they bombed many places on the mainland. We have just as much interest in decommissioning therefore as anybody in Northern Ireland.
It is right and proper that this place, as part of the United Kingdom Parliament, should be able to speak on behalf of the English, the Welsh and the Scots who have not been consulted. We have not had a referendum about it here. So this is the only place where we can make our voice heard. Those in this Chamber who represent the mainland—Parliament represents Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the UK—are entitled to introduce amendments and, as with any other Bill, to advise the Government of their opinion. That is what Parliament is all about. If that is not what we are about, why on earth are we discussing the damned Bill? Why are we wasting our time? If we are being told that anything we do will upset the agreement, why are we discussing the Bill? Why do we not go home to our wives and families, go
1050
to bed, have a good night's sleep and come back tomorrow to do business which will perhaps have some effect?
Generally speaking, therefore, I believe, as I hope I made clear, that we are entitled to discuss this Bill. Indeed, if there is a vote, I shall be inclined to support the amendments before us. They stiffen up certain matters; they say to the terrorist organisations—not individual terrorists in this case—that they have to co-operate in decommissioning. As I said earlier today, unless we have decommissioning by both sides, the assembly cannot work. It will be under perpetual threat from one side or the other. I believe that the amendment will be a little help towards that and is deserving of our support.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may first apologise for not being present for the beginning of the amendment; I was trying to rearrange my flights in accordance with the time.
It is my inclination to support the amendment. The Minister may wonder why so many of us are supporting so many small amendments involving words like "in particular". He should realise that the reason there are so many is that the agreement in itself was vague in intention in order that it could be made. The Bills that have come forward, which will probably become Acts, are to make the provisions within the agreement more precise. If we go on allowing very vague words to go through in every clause, it will be a wonder if the Bill is not fought over and disagreed with for months to come. Therefore, although the amendment in itself is not necessarily vital—neither are many of the others in themselves—overall, we are dealing with a very weak and rather limp Bill which could cause more trouble than we realise at the moment.
Lord Dubs: I have listened with great interest to the comments on these various amendments. This is an important part of the legislation and has provoked a great deal of interest both in this House and beyond. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Stoddart that of course this House has the right to consider all aspects of the Bill and, indeed, to put forward suggestions or amendments to alter it. But it is equally the Government's right and the right of other noble Lords to say that, having got an agreement which represents the best opportunity for peace for Northern Ireland for many, many years, if we believe that certain suggested amendments are counter to the agreement and might jeopardise it, that is part of the process of debate and discussion. No one is saying to the noble Lord that he does not have the right to make whatever contribution to the debate he wishes. But the Government for their part want the agreement to stick and want to give effect to it because they believe that that is the best way forward.
Perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 18. I understand the thinking behind them. In essence the argument is that, as it is legitimate for the Secretary of State to take into account the four factors in Clause 3(9) when determining whether a terrorist organisation has established and is maintaining a

1051
complete and unequivocal ceasefire, it is no less legitimate for her decision to be governed by these factors. I understand and recognise the logic behind that argument. On the face of it, it is only a small step from saying that these are factors which should be taken into account to saying that the Secretary of State's decision should be governed by them. I have to tell the Committee that there is a clear difference between the two, however, and the amendments take us into territory which we would not be able to support.
That is because the practical effect of the amendments would be to turn the four factors into specific tests or preconditions which would have to be met. Whatever the merits of that, it would take us beyond what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement and beyond what the Prime Minister said in his Balmoral speech on 14th May. The Prime Minister's purpose in identifying these four factors which are reflected in Clause 3 was to provide a mechanism for clarifying whether those who stood to benefit from accelerated releases were associated with organisations that were genuinely committed to democratic non-violent means. These are crucial factors which will need to be weighed in the balance, but they are not intended to be prescriptive. The Secretary of State must be free to make a judgment in the round, taking account of all the relevant factors, including those listed in Clause 3(9).
I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I welcome his decision not to support Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I just wish he could be nudged a little further into not supporting Amendment No. 18, because I believe that the use of the word "and" also changes significantly the sense and changes it in a way which also takes us further than the agreement. It represents a quite significant change to link all those four factors in the way that is done.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he therefore think that the Prime Minister went beyond the agreement in the Balmoral speech when he used the word "and"?
Lord Dubs: The Prime Minister was not speaking in legislative terms.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Dubs: The Prime Minister was speaking in general terms. Those noble Lords opposite who say "no" have been Ministers. They know exactly what I am talking about. They may feel that they have changed sides and can talk differently now but they will know better than I do, because they have had more experience in government than I have had, that there is a difference between a colloquial form of expression and converting the intent of that into a legislative form. That is the purpose when we have the Bill and that may be the reason why, grammatically, there are some differences
1052
between what the Prime Minister said and what is in the Bill. It is only in that sense that there is a distinction between the two.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the noble Lord for permitting me to intervene briefly. I am even more grateful to him for closing the gap between us because he and I now think alike. He is standing by the principle of putting into legislation something which was said in outline. I was saying exactly the same thing. There was a rather vague document which had been approved verbally but not with signatures. The Bill has the same status now. In my eyes it is putting into effect in detail what the delegates thought they were agreeing to on Good Friday. I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Dubs: I believe that the noble Lord is taking the argument further than is reasonable. He knows that he is trying it on. It was a good effort.
I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, a question. I am no lawyer. He used the term "condition precedent". Can he tell the Committee what is the difference between that and what I would call a "precondition"?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: None, as far as I am aware.
Lord Dubs: That is fine. I am grateful to the noble Lord. At least we are talking about preconditions, which is one of the underlying difficulties. We were unhappy that there should be attempted changes to the Bill which would alter the agreement by inserting preconditions, as opposed to all the elements of the agreement being taken together.
I turn to Amendment No. 12 which concerns the use of the words "in particular". These words are important because they show that the factors in subsection (9) are not exhaustive. They are matters which the Secretary of State must take into account. She can take into account other relevant factors as well. The words do not preclude her from considering other matters. If they were removed it would suggest that the list was exhaustive, and that is not the intention.
I now turn to Amendment No. 14 which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The amendment is helpful as it quite rightly identifies that the Secretary of State must make her decision under Clause 3(8) on the basis of the information available to her, which is the case. As was indicated in another place, that information would include information provided by the Chief Constable and the GOC. I can assure the noble Lord that it will be on that basis that any judgment is made under this subsection.
I hope that what I have said goes some way to meeting the noble Lord's wishes. I am sensitive and sympathetic towards the general thrust of his argument. I believe that the way in which the Secretary of State will give effect to that meets the point without requiring

1053
the change in terminology suggested by the noble Lord. For those reasons I am unable to support these amendments.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may ask a question which is tangential to this discussion if not exactly connected. We shall shortly be leaving the accelerated release Clause 3 and I hope that that is sufficient excuse. Will the noble Lord accept that in the context created by the Good Friday Agreement, and also by this resulting Bill, that there is now a strong and widely held perception that in fairness the cases of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher ought to be revisited now, if not by an accelerated sitting of the Life Sentence Review Board then by some other but immediate procedure?
Lord Dubs: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing this case in the light of correspondence from the guardsmen's solicitors. She has received papers today and will be considering them as soon as may be during the next few weeks. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that papers on such cases are extensive but that they must be given full and detailed consideration. The Secretary of State will consider the court papers, the previous advice from the Life Sentence Review Board, her own previous decisions and the various judicial review judgments. She will also take account of the many representations she has received regarding the case, many of which come from noble Lords who are present today. As the noble and learned Lord will know, the Secretary of State cannot prejudge any decision she may make as a consequence of this further review, but when a decision has been made, she will make it known.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have had an interesting further debate on the linkage between decommissioning and the release of these prisoners. At the moment, we are not making much ground, but I am still in the business of trying to persuade the Committee and the Government that that linkage should be stiffened. I am reinforced in that view by some of the speeches that have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to the fact that the agreement went much wider than just the Government and included, among others, the Government of the Republic of Ireland. However, we have not yet seen the equivalent Republic of Ireland legislation on the same matter which is expected under the same agreement. The Government of the Republic of Ireland are also in the process of putting into legislative effect in their jurisdiction the same processes as we are putting into effect in our jurisdiction on the basis of the same words in the same agreement. The same factors arise in both. We have been promised sight of the Republic of Ireland legislation before Report stage. That is extremely important because it will allow us to have another view of how the agreement might be put into legislative form. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said about the way in which the
1054
agreement was arrived at, it may be that their interpretation is sightly different from ours. We should certainly have the opportunity to see it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that we should certainly be able to speak about and debate these matters. I said at Second Reading that we are heading for an Act of Parliament, not an act of government. It is therefore Parliament's duty and the duty of each of us as Members of this House of Parliament to satisfy ourselves and to discuss all the provisions of the proposed Act of Parliament before it passes into law.
The Minister said that, on the face of it, there is little difference between us, so I have not yet entirely given up the aim of persuading the Government to move in our direction a little with regard to these amendments. Nevertheless, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 40, after ("directing") insert (", assisting").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 bring us to one of the subsections which implement one of the conditions laid down in the Bill and in the Balmoral speech. In that speech, the Prime Minister said that one of the matters to be taken into account was that no other organisation should deliberately be being used as a proxy for violence. That is translated into legislative form by Clause 3(9)(c)—but not quite fully enough, in my view. The agreement is not much help in deciding on the precise wording, but paragraph (c) states that the organisation in question should not be,
"directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations".
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 seek to add the words "assisting" and "or planned", so that paragraph (c), as amended by these amendments, would read that the organisation should not be "directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other organisations".
With regard to "assisting", given that regroupings of terrorist organisations are now taking place, it may be that parts of one organisation help another organisation to form itself into an effective terrorist force. If that is so, it should be provided for in this condition. It is a familiar phenomenon in Northern Irish affairs that from time to time terrorist organisations split and re-form. It comes as no surprise that that is taking place at this stage. Assistance given by one group to another can be of the greatest importance in allowing the latter to get off the ground.
The second amendment seeks to add the words "or planned". We believe that the present wording restricts the Secretary of State to looking at acts of violence that have already been committed. But a good deal of the directing or promoting may relate to acts of violence that have not yet been committed. That is of equal significance in deciding whether or not an organisation falls foul of these provisions. Putting it in practical terms, if someone is intercepted on the way to planting

1055
a bomb, that is not an act of violence that has been committed; it is an act of violence that has been planned and would have taken place but has been prevented by the alertness of the police or by other means. If that particular act has been promoted by an organisation thought otherwise to be "clean" I believe that that fact should not be ignored by the Secretary of State in reaching a judgment under subsection (8)(b). I believe that these two extra words are necessary in subsection (9)(c). I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I am not convinced that Amendment No. 16 makes much difference to the way this part of the Bill is constructed. I believe that the matters referred to are already clearly addressed in Clause 3(9)(b). Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment takes the matter much further.
However, I have greater interest in Amendment No. 17. I believe that there is merit in the point at issue here. I agree that, as currently drafted, Clause 3(9)(c) is too restrictive, in that it is limited in range to acts of violence that are committed by other organisations. We shall explore how to give effect to the spirit of the amendment. If we can devise a form of words, we shall table a government amendment at Report stage.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Suddenly, we appear to be getting somewhere. Given that assurance, I am delighted to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Fixed term prisoners]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("he") to end of line 27 and insert ("would otherwise have been discharged").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. The amendment raises a rather technical point. I am seeking guidance about the meaning of the particular provision rather than pressing the Government on the matter. The amendment proposes to delete the words at the end of Clause 4(4). Those words refer to what happens when a prisoner is released on licence and they help to determine the date on which his sentence is regarded as expiring and therefore the date on which the licence lapses.
During the course of today we have heard a good deal about how prisoners can be pulled back in—it sounds a very easy process but in practice it may be very hard to do—if they fall below the standard expected while on licence. Therefore, the date on which the licence comes to an end is important.
The words in the Bill as it stands suggest that the licence should come to an end when the prisoner could have been discharged on the grounds of good conduct under the prison rules; that is to say, every prisoner is assumed to have good conduct, but that will not be the case with all prisoners. Before the Bill is passed and
1056
before any of its provisions affect them, some prisoners may already have lost remission or had had conduct leading to the discharge date being changed. In that case, bad conduct should not be rewarded. I suggest therefore that the licence should lapse when the prisoner would otherwise have been discharged, taking into account bad conduct, and good conduct if he has behaved well. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he put this matter. The precedent that one remembers is the 1995 Bill, brought forward under the previous government when a similar limitation was not introduced. Clause 4(4) we think has it right, because a prisoner still serves his sentence until the licence elapses. His sentence will continue until such a time as he could have been discharged on the ground of good conduct under prison rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right, that even with his amendment, as it were, there would not be the result that some people might wish. For instance, the amendment would not let a sentence run on a fixed term. I give an example. If a prisoner were serving a 10-year sentence, the amendment would not ensure that the sentence ran to the last day of the 10 years, because it has no effect on the operation of Rule 30 of the prison rules, which derive their validity from Section 13(7) of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.
Again, the noble Lord is right: those prison rules automatically give a prisoner remission for good behaviour unless he misbehaves. If one leaves out the reference to "good conduct" it is arguable that bad behaviour is therefore to be ignored. Therefore we think we have this right. It just indicates clearly that his licence is determined—that is, his sentence comes to an end—at the time when he could have been discharged on the ground of good conduct under prison rules. If he is of bad conduct, under prison rules the remission will not inure to his benefit.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It would seem that the effect that I wish to achieve is being achieved by the Bill without the necessity of my amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Fixed term prisoners: special cases]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Life prisoners]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 21.
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("elapse") and insert ("completion").
The noble Lord said: I am not a great admirer of the drafting of this Bill. This is the first of three little amendments I have put down in the hope of improving it. I will not detain the Committee long with it. It refers to the use of the word "elapse" in Clause 6 (1). This word is not included as a substantive in Collins dictionary nor in the Concise Oxford dictionary. In the 20-volume Oxford Dictionary it does appear but it is

1057
stated as being archaic. There was a use of it in 1793 and again in 1800 but it has not occurred in literature since 1883.
I therefore propose that it is inappropriate in the Bill and that it would be preferable to change it to the word "completion". I know that my noble friend is resisting amendments put down by your Lordships, but I very much hope that he can have no objection to mine. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In this group are Amendments Nos. 21 and 23, both in the name of my noble friend Lord Kilbracken. Since my noble friend Lord Dubs is not replying on this occasion, the Committee will not be surprised to know that a much more flexible approach will be found from me. (I was testing whether anyone was still awake!)
There may be some value in accepting Amendment No.23. I should like to give particular consideration to Amendments Nos. 21 and 23. Before accepting the amendments we would wish to consider further and consult with draftsmen. But if it is decided that the amendments are necessary or helpful, I can undertake to bring forward an amendment or amendments at the next stage.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is highly desirable that this House should not appear antique and out of date in the legislation that it passes. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has done us a service in drawing our attention to it. I am grateful for the Minister's positive reaction.
Lord Kilbracken: I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. In the light of the undertaking that has been given to me by the Minister on this vital matter, I am happy to withdraw the amendment; and also I hope to avoid the necessity of speaking to Amendment No. 23.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Life prisoners: specified dates]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("1999") and insert ("10th April 1998").
The noble Lord said: I find the subsection to which this provision refers rather odd. Clause 7(1) requires that,
"The Secretary of State must inform the Commissioners of the length of time served by persons sentenced in Northern Ireland to imprisonment for life, and released on licence after 1982 and before 1999".
I assume that the Secretary of State and her officials would be entirely willing to give such information, or any other information that the commissioners might require, to enable them to fulfil their duty without needing legislative provision to do so. I put down the amendment because the information to be given relates to the length of time served by life-sentence prisoners up to the end of 1998. I am not sure why only the length of sentence is to be given. Many more particulars are
1058
required to decide how comparable are other sentences served in the past to the sentences appropriate for those serving life sentences at present. It is not an average which is required; it is as precise an application as possible of what the individual prisoner would have served if the Bill had not existed.
On page 25 the agreement states that one of the matters which is relevant is the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted. In considering the seriousness of the offences for which the prisoner was convicted and comparable sentences one needs to know more than the average length of time that was served.
There is a second oddity. Why does it go to the end of 1998? I am not sure how quickly the commissioners will be in business and releasing prisoners, but it is entirely possible that some prisoners may be released—even life sentence prisoners—before the end of 1998. In that case the amount of time served by people who have been released on licence will be affected by those released early by the commissioners. That is arithmetically wrong.
In deciding what a sentence would otherwise have amounted to, the commissioners should look only at sentences which have been served by prisoners after 1982 and before the Good Friday Agreement was signed on 10th April 1998. An alternative might be to make a provision which commences after 1982 and before this Act comes into force, or something of that sort. I do not want the calculation of the lifers' terms to be affected by those released early under this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I should perhaps begin by saying that the Life Sentence Review Board will continue to carry out its advisory role in relation to life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland as part of the normal life sentence review procedures.
The decisions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State are relevant to the commissioners in their consideration of how long a qualifying life sentence prisoner should serve. Under Clause 6 the commissioners are required to specify a day for release which marks about two-thirds of the period the prisoner would have been likely to spend in prison under the sentence.
Prisoners are usually given provisional release dates by the Secretary of State which are about 12 months after the date of the consideration of their case by the Life Sentence Review Board. After they are given their provisional release date they will spend time on a pre-release scheme which counts as part of their period in custody. By requiring that information on all releases before 1999 should be provided by the Secretary of State and taken account of by the commissioners, the Bill ensures that all provisional release decisions made up to and including 10th April may be taken account of.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Licences: conditions]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 15, after ("Ireland,") insert—
("(c) that he is not involved in directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people,").
The noble Lord said: We have reached Clause 9 which deals with the licence conditions. It is interesting that the licence conditions do not include a provision about directing, promoting or assisting in violence by others. At least something reflecting the same thoughts as in Clause 3(9)(c) should apply to the licence conditions. We debated that clause a moment ago and the Minister agreed to consider the suggested improvements. Somebody who is released may not be directly supporting the terrorist organisation to which he belongs but he may be directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people. In that case, his licence should be revoked. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment. The direction of others does not arise only on this Bill. It arises in other emergency legislation. I remember well when that emergency legislation was passed through this House, the issue of the role of godfathers—those who direct the activities of others—took up a considerable part of our deliberations, and quite rightly so.
It may be that the Minister will reassure us that Clause (9)(1)(b) is intended to cover this issue of the direction of activities of others, but I should like to hear that in making up my mind about the amendment.
Viscount Brookeborough: I too support the amendment. One fears that we may reach a situation in which, while there are fewer groups which continue with terrorism, there are still a great number of weapons in the public domain. There will be people, if there are not already, who will commit crimes which are close to terrorism but not terrorism. Some of those people may have lived off their ill-gotten gains for many years and they will then argue that what they did was not terrorism as such. Therefore, I support this amendment to include other acts which may be closely connected.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Holme, the assurance which he seeks. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the matters covered by it are already fully and adequately contained in the terms of the licence set out in Clause 9(1)(b), which make a prisoner subject to the licence condition,
"that he does not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
1060
That quite adequately covers the activity referred to by Members of the Committee. I contend that the amendment is not required.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Is the Minister saying that an individual becoming concerned in the commission, preparation and so on is the same as helping somebody else to do it? Perhaps it is. If it is, my amendment may be unnecessary but I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation of that.
Lord Desai: I believe that in Clause 9, the word "instigation" covers what the noble Lord wants covered. That is what instigating is all about.
Lord Dubs: I thank my noble friend Lord Desai. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is yes.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Accelerated release]:
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 15, after ("is") insert ("whichever is the later of—(a)")
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple and straightforward amendment, as I hope have been all the other amendments which I have put forward this evening. It is designed to ensure that there is reasonable equity between one group of prisoners and another in connection with the sentences which they are intended to serve.
There is a possibility that a distinction will be made between prisoners who have been convicted before and after the coming into effect of this Bill. This amendment merely seeks to ensure that those who are convicted after the coming into effect of the Bill are treated no better than those who were convicted of similar offences and sentenced before the Bill came into effect. That is the intended purpose of the amendments and I hope that they will lead to that effect. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Dubs: When I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List, I was not entirely sure what it was intended to achieve. I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reasons behind his amendment. It is important that this part of the Bill be coherent. For that reason, the Government have brought forward their own amendments, which will be considered soon.
Under the agreement, those prisoners who remain in custody two years after the commencement of this legislation may be released. Clause 10 allows account to be taken of those prisoners arrested and charged after the commencement of the legislation, those prisoners arrested and charged before the commencement of the legislation but sentenced after, as well as those sentenced before the commencement of the legislation so that in each case no prisoner is released before he has

1061
served two years; and no prisoner is released before a date two years after the commencement of the Bill. I believe that that is the best way and a way that is fully in accordance with the agreement. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that his amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Tebbit: I am still not totally certain that my amendments are unnecessary. It is possible that a prisoner who has been convicted not that long before the coming into effect of the Bill will serve, let us say, two years and six months. It is also possible that, immediately afterwards, a convicted prisoner may serve two years having been sentenced to the same length of imprisonment. That would seem to me to be entirely unfair as between the two prisoners. I wish to ensure that, merely because of an arbitrary circumstance of the date on which the conviction takes place, prisoners will not be treated differently when the court has sentenced them to a similar sentence.
Lord Dubs: Without any prejudice at all, perhaps I may consider the noble Lord's point. I believe that I am right in what I say but, just to be doubly sure, I should like to check on the position. If I am wrong, perhaps I may get back to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Tebbit: I thank the Minister for what he says. I am entirely happy to accept his assurance that he will look again at the matter. Perhaps we may return to it on Report. Although I am sure that we are at one in our intention, we must ensure that the Bill carries out that intention, which I believe we both share.
Lord Dubs: I should point out to the noble Lord that, of course, what I have said is subject to the reservation that the agreement does have a two year cut-off period. I want to examine what the noble Lord said to make sure that what the agreement is intended to achieve is not being achieved through the argument that the noble Lord used. If it does achieve a two year cut-off, I am afraid that there may be some differences between prisoners sentenced before and after a certain date. However, that depends on whether or not they fall within the terms of the agreement.
Lord Tebbit: I entirely understand what the Minister says. I realise that he is back on his mantra of the agreement. However, I am back on my mantra of justice. I appreciate that there will be times when the agreement and justice are incompatible. Under those circumstances, if we cannot make them compatible, it is possible that I shall seek to divide the House on the matter. However, I need not do so tonight. I am sure that we shall try to find a way through the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 19, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 and the consequential amendments to Clause 18—that is, Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42—are intended to correct an oversight with a government amendment to the Bill made in another place. Clause 10(8) of the Bill was added to the legislation in another place to take account of prisoners who may have been convicted of a qualifying offence prior to the commencement of the Bill but who had spent time unlawfully at large. As the Bill had originally been drafted, such prisoners might have been eligible for release before they had served two years in custody. That was not the intention and so the subsection in question was added.
However, in adding the subsection, the Government overlooked that Clause 10(4) to (6) were variable by order of the Secretary of State. The variation of these subsections was a direct consequence of the terms of the agreement which allows for flexibility in relation to the two-year cut-off depending on the circumstances and progress towards a peaceful society.
Although this amendment affects only a small number of cases, it ensures that all cases are treated on a similar basis and that no prisoner is released before the date of the cut-off, set under Clause 10(4) as two years from the commencement of the Bill, and no prisoner, no matter when he is committed to custody, serves a shorter period in custody than the period between the commencement of the legislation and the cut-off, that is, under Clause 10(5), (6) and (8), two years. I commend the Government's Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 40, 41 and 42 to the Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not sure that I am entirely happy about the Secretary of State being able to change the minimum of two years. I am not quite sure in which circumstances he would wish to reduce the minimum of two years. It might be helpful if the Minister were to spell that out to us. However, I have another, more technical difficulty with these amendments. As I understand it, Clause 10(7) will permit the Secretary of State to amend Clause 10(8). Similarly, Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 refer to Clause 10(9). As far as I can see, there will not be a Clause 10(9). Perhaps those amendments are defective in their drafting.
Lord Dubs: I am assured that the figures are correct and that everything is proper and in order. Without spelling it out in detail—I am sure the noble Lord would not want me to do that—I have received confirmation that everything is as it is supposed to be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert—
("(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsections (4) to (8).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Interpretation: prisoners and sentences]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("each").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32 I refer also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 which are grouped with it. This is an attempt to increase the fairness with regard to multiple sentences. As I read the Bill—I may be wrong about this—if a prisoner has two consecutive sentences of five years or more for qualifying offences, they are to be treated as one. Therefore the prisoner with two sentences of exactly five years would serve one-third of 10 years; that is to say, three years and four months. That is assuming he is not overtaken by the accelerated release provisions under Clause 10.
Unless an amendment on the lines of my own is accepted, a prisoner with one sentence of five years and another of, say, four years, would serve one-third of five years but a half, under previous legislation, of the four years; that is to say, three years and eight months. That is four months longer than for the first prisoner, who had the longer sentence. That would seem unfair on the man with the shorter sentence. I should be grateful for the Minister's comment.
Lord Dubs: The paper that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State placed in the Library on 20th April made clear that only sentences of five years or more would be considered under the Bill. The effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would be to allow consecutive sentences of less than five years to be discounted if imposed in respect of a qualifying offence and at the same time as the imposition of a qualifying offence of five years or more. That would go beyond what the Government have said they will do. However, if the noble Lord wishes me to do so, I will undertake to consider the matter further before Report.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think the matter should be considered before Report. I realise that both the agreement and the paper have taken on a quality of holy writ in relation to this matter, even though, as previously discussed, clearly there were detailed matters which are extremely unlikely to have entered into the minds of those who were considering them before Good Friday. However, in view of the noble Lord's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Inadmissibility]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("or a co-accused").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36.
Both of these amendments seek to explore what is intended by subsection (4) of Clause 13, which provides that subsection (2) of the clause,
"shall not prevent the admission of evidence adduced on behalf of the accused".
Two issues arise. The first is the need to clarify that an accused man would be able to lead in evidence in his defence at a criminal trial evidence and information provided to the commissioners by another party and covered by the provisions of Clause 13(1).
The second issue requiring clarification is that, if the person who provided the information was one accused, would subsection (4) permit a co-accused to lead that information as evidence in his defence even though the prosecutor could not lead it as evidence upon which the prosecution would wish to found against the first accused, who was the person who had provided the information to the commissioner?
I can well see that the two issues that I raise fall within the policy that is intended in subsection (4) of Clause 13. Notwithstanding the character that the agreement and the document are acquiring as the hours go by, it does not seem to me that either document deals with this issue. I should therefore welcome clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble and learned Lord is quite right in his understanding as to the meaning of Clause 13(4). I am happy to give that clarification.
As has been observed earlier, there are prohibitions in Clause 13(2) against the admission in distinct, discrete proceedings of anything that might have been said for the purposes of these arrangements in Clause 13(1). However, the saver is in Clause 13(4); statements made to the commissioners which may not be admissible in the proceedings that I have described may well be admissible as evidence if adduced on behalf of the accused. The noble and learned Lord is right in his surmise. That would include a person who is a co-accused. I am happy to reaffirm in relation to subsection (4) of Clause 13 that, when one speaks of the admission of evidence, that may be the defendant's or applicant's own evidence; the evidence of a co-accused; or indeed—the noble and learned Lord is right—a party who is not even the subject of the proceedings. I hope that that has reaffirmed the noble and learned Lord in his tentative view that Clause 13(4) is wide enough to cover what we both recognise as being necessary.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. On the basis that my amendment is unnecessary, I seek leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 14 [Information for victims]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 37.
Page 7, line 47, at end insert ("or has been released under section 4 or 6").
The noble Lord said: In Clause 14 we move on to the question of providing information for victims. The clause begins by stating:
"The Secretary of State shall provide a statement … if … he believes—
"that the person about whom the statement is sought is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Northern Ireland for a fixed term of at least five years".
However, subsection (3) provides that such a statement shall state,
"if his application has been granted, whether he has been released and the date on which he has a right to be released".
Clearly, if a prisoner has been released, he is no longer serving a sentence of imprisonment,
"for a fixed term of at least five years or for life",
as required by subsection (1)(a). It therefore seems clear that the words,
"or has been released under section 4 or 6",
should be added at the end of Clause 14(1)(a). I beg to move.
Lord HoIme of Cheltenham: I rise briefly to support the amendment. Given the importance of Clause 14 and the fact that the Committee has agreed that victims should be notified unless it creates,
"a danger to the safety of any person",
the amendment aligns the preamble with the detail in subsection (3). I believe that this is a sensible amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely sympathise with the point made by both noble Lords. The point is already covered. As the noble Lord rightly observed, under subsection (3)(c) of Clause 14, the Secretary of State has a duty to provide a statement giving information about prisoners who have been released. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, stated that, if someone has been released on licence, that person is no longer serving a sentence. A person who has been released and is on licence is still serving a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of Clause 14(1)(a). I am happy to give that reassurance, which I recognise that it was entirely proper to seek.
Lord Kilbracken: I must point out to my noble friend that paragraph (c) does not say anything about being released on licence; it merely says,
"whether he has been released".
1066
The words "on licence" have been added by my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. A prisoner can only be released on licence. If a prisoner is released on licence under this scheme, he is still serving a sentence of imprisonment.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to my noble friend. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 38.
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("in Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 38, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 39. The purpose of this pair of amendments is simple. Clause 14 already obliges the Secretary of State, subject to one or two safeguards, to give information about early release to victims, or to the families of victims, where the sentence was passed in Northern Ireland. No doubt as a result of an oversight—and I understand that Clause 14 was inserted into the Bill at a fairly late stage—no such provision is made for the victims of terrorist atrocities committed in England, Scotland or Wales or for their families—for example, the families of the two men murdered at Canary Wharf. That is quite illogical and, more importantly, wrong. These amendments attempt to rectify the omission, which, as I said, I am sure was due to an oversight. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Monson in what he said both in regard to the past tense and in the future though, strictly speaking, that does not apply to the terminology of this Bill. However, offences have been committed in Great Britain and unfortunately others may be at the planning stage. We are therefore all in the front line together.
Viscount Brookeborough: Further to what my noble friend Lord Monson said, offences have also been committed in Northern Ireland where the perpetrators have been caught just across the border in the Republic. They have then been convicted of those offences. It is important therefore that prisoners who are released from the Republic under any early release scheme which may affect victims in the north should come under this provision.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I sympathise entirely with the purpose behind the amendment. My advice is that it is not necessary because it is already dealt with in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3. That paragraph extends to offences committed in Great Britain the duty of the Secretary of State to provide information to victims which is set out under Clause 14. Therefore I recognise that all the concerns raised are legitimate, but my advice is that the matter is already covered in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to both my noble friends who supported me and to the Minister for his

1067
explanation. I shall study what he said and will not return to the matter if I am satisfied that no further action is required. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Orders and rules]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("10(7)") and insert ("10(9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 9, line 8, leave out ("10(7)") and insert ("10(9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("10(7)") and insert ("10(9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

INTERPRETATION
(" . In this Act, except so far as the context otherwise requires—
"terrorism" means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear, and
"terrorist" means a person who is or has been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of an act of terrorism or in directing, organising or training persons for the purposes of terrorism.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 18 is quite straightforward and seeks to introduce into the Bill definitions of the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist".
As the Minister stressed on more than one occasion this evening, the Bill is concerned with terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. In two other Acts of Parliament of which mention has been made this evening similar definitions are to be found. In the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, Section 20, "terrorism" is defined in exactly the terms used in the first part of Amendment No. 43. In the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 both "terrorism" and "terrorist" are defined in the terms used in both parts of the amendment.
It seems to me to be sensible that this Parliament should make clear to those who may have to apply the provisions of the Bill when it becomes law that, in using these terms, they mean what was meant by Parliament in the 1989 and 1996 Acts. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward the amendment. I consider that it would be helpful to include within the Bill a definition of "terrorism", which is a term used on a number of occasions. However, the term "terrorist" does
1068
not appear in the Bill in the form referred to in the definition and so no amendment is required in that regard. For this reason I intend to bring forward a government amendment at Report stage.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: On the basis of that helpful response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Commencement]:
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 9, line 32, at end insert ("but no such day may be appointed (other than in respect of this section) until after the release on licence of every member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown serving a sentence of imprisonment in respect of a conviction for murder committed in the course of their duties in Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, although it is carefully drafted, and I hope sufficiently carefully drafted, to avoid the hazard of turning the Bill into a hybrid Bill, is about Guardsmen Fisher and Wright and the injustice which would be perpetrated were they to be left in prison when terrorists are let out.
There is no doubt at all in my mind about this issue. I accept, of course, that it is well within the bounds of possibility that the conviction of these men was unsafe and that through the efforts of, most notably, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway there may be what one would call a judicial route towards their release and therefore an end to this injustice. But we cannot assume that the conviction was unsafe and we cannot assume that any judicial process will result in their release. However, what is clear is that, whatever the circumstances of their conviction, it would be profoundly unjust were they to be left in prison when serial killers, who in the judgment of many of us, even if not in the judgment of the commissioners, may well be a danger to the public, were to be released.
These young men are extremely unlikely to be a danger to the public. They were not members of a terrorist organisation, whatever may be the view of members of Sinn Fein about the role of the Army in Northern Ireland. They were seeking to do their duty. They may have made a tragic mistake—that is possible—but what is certain is that they did not set out that day to commit murder.
The circumstances of this case are clear enough. The view up until now, perhaps even up until today—perhaps that view is changing today in view of what I understand was said while I was out of the Chamber—which was expressed in the other place on 11th February by Mr. Adam Ingram, the Minister of State, is perfectly clear. It is that the review board had duly considered the case at its meeting on 14th and 15th October 1997 at the five-year stage of the sentence. The confidential recommendation of the board was then referred to the Secretary of State for her personal consideration. Mr. Ingram went on to assure the House that the cases had been the subject of very detailed and thorough consideration by all those involved at the various stages of the review process. No extraneous considerations, political or otherwise, had been permitted to influence

1069
the decisions taken. I can give that absolute assurance. That was in the context of the reply which had been given on 3rd November 1997 to my noble friend Lord Westbury by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who stated that,
"The review board's advice to the Secretary of State in these particular cases is strictly confidential and will not be disclosed. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has decided that the cases of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher should be referred back to the review board in one year's time, i.e. October 1998, when they will have served six years in custody. No date for release has therefore yet been fixed".—[Official Report, 3/11/97; col. WA276.]
On various occasions, Ministers have made it perfectly plain that they believed that it would not be proper if these young men served less than six years for the crime of which they had been convicted.
The Government have made it plain that no political or extraneous circumstances will be taken into account in determining their sentences. Therefore, unless the judicial route uncovers circumstances which make it clear that the conviction was unsafe, there can be no possibility of their release in less than six years, for to release these young men earlier in the lack of such considerations would be to bring into play political or extraneous circumstances. The Government have said that they are not willing to do that.
More recently, in exchanges in the other place with the Prime Minister when my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter, the Prime Minister himself made plain that the ground was shifting a little underneath his feet. In fact, he suggested that the reason that there had not been another review of their case was that there had been further judicial proceedings. At that stage, he said that now those proceedings were out of the way their case could be reconsidered and that he would ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to so reconsider.
But on what basis? On the basis of a consideration whether the conviction was safe or unsafe or on some political consideration? Indeed, it was not correct to say that consideration of their cases had been delayed by the application for judicial review which their own lawyers had made. It was quite obvious that if the Secretary of State had considered that five years was a sufficient sentence for these young men they could have been released last October. They were not. She took the view that they should serve at least six years, although she also takes the view that serial killers could be released in two years. This whole matter typifies the injustices which will be perpetrated by this Bill.
My amendment would get the Government off the hook on which they have impaled themselves because if the Committee sees fit to enact it then quite clearly it would—shall I say?—cause some difficulty for the Government, which I understand, in taking the matter back to the other place and asking Scottish Members of Parliament who are Government supporters to vote to keep Fisher and Wright in gaol. It would therefore give the Government the perfect and plausible reason, without any consideration of whether or not the conviction was unsafe and without moving from their position that political considerations should not be taken into account, to say, "We were overwhelmed by the
1070
consideration of Parliament and in order that this agreement shall come into effect"—we know of the importance that the Government attach to the belief that this Bill is part of the agreement and that it must be fully brought into effect—"we have to release these two young men". It would be a case of force majeure.
I do not worry in what way they are released. I do not worry if they are released next week on bail, awaiting some other process, judicial or legal, which would release them more permanently on licence in the manner that terrorists have been released. I do not like that. I do not think that they should be released on licence because I do not think that there is any fear that they will reoffend. I think that they should be released clearly, absolutely and without condition. But my purpose is to get them out of prison because nothing less would serve the cause of justice. I hope that this amendment may offer the Government a way out of their difficulties which have perhaps been compounded by the Prime Minister's words more recently in the other place.
I cannot express myself any more clearly than that. I can only hope that the Government will be able to respond. I do not think that any of us believe that these young men should be retained in gaol. I just hope that the Government will indicate tonight that they share that view and that they are looking for a way out of this problem. I offer them one way out. If they have a better way out, I would be very happy indeed to accept it. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My noble friend Lord Tebbit and I share the same aspiration, but we differ fundamentally as to the means by which it should be achieved. It is with the utmost regret that I have to oppose the amendment. My noble friend Lord Tebbit is an old friend for whom I have the greatest respect. He is a man of total integrity whose motives are never to be called in question. However, this amendment proposes to delay release under the Bill (for which eligibility is provided by Clause 3) until all members of our Armed Forces serving a mandatory life sentence for murder of a civilian in the course of duty in Northern Ireland have been released outside and otherwise than the Bill as it stands. Under what mechanism for release? That is not stated in the amendment.
On Second Reading and today, my noble friend Lord Tebbit named Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. No other member of the Armed Forces yet falls within the ambit of the amendment. Release (as proposed by this amendment) is without paragraphs 1 to 3 of page 25 of the Stormont agreement, which is not subject to renegotiation. There is no concept of priority of eligibility for release either under the agreement or the paper used in negotiations to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred this afternoon in the context of Clause 3. I refer to paragraphs 5 and 7 of that paper.
In this and in other contexts the agreement was the linkage of irreconcilable differences placed in juxtaposition to achieve a common purpose and endorsed by the vast majority of the electorate in

1071
Northern Ireland, albeit in somewhat unusual circumstances, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit said. The linkage reflected by Clause 3 refers, on the one hand, to the armed soldier on duty on the streets of Northern Ireland who kills a civilian without legal justification—murder—and who must then serve a mandatory life sentence, subject to release by the Secretary of State. The Committee will be aware that in Northern Ireland exceptionally the lesser charge of manslaughter is not available. I know not for what reason. On the other hand, there are those who have killed and maimed on many occasions for diverse sectarian and politically motivated purposes and have either been sentenced to life imprisonment or a term of at least five years based on the gravity of their offences.
There is no doubt that that is unacceptable to the Committee. It is unacceptable to me. But that is not the point. There is an obvious discriminatory disparity in this agreement against our armed soldiers. But that is not to the point. If the Government tamper with Clause 3, which this amendment inevitably involves, their moral authority to foster the peace process will be dissipated. To what constructive end should the Committee protest, object or support this amendment? Is not the only wise, realistic course to support the common purpose of the agreement in the hope of peace in the Province?
As to the guardsmen, it is not in their interests that they should be taken hostage and used as pawns to claim priority as to eligibility for release as proposed by the amendment. On 23rd June your Lordships concluded that their conviction had been a grave miscarriage of justice and that they should be released at once by the Secretary of State on licence, subject to recall under the delegated remit of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy pending judicial resolution of the rectitude of their conviction. Therefore, those guardsmen are in a wholly distinct category from all others to whom Clause 3 applies, many of whom, as I have said, have killed or maimed for diverse politically motivated purposes, none of whom claims any challenge to the rectitude of their convictions.
In the wake of 23rd June, General Sir David Scott-Barrett and General Naylor, on behalf of the release group, made arrangements for those men to be visited so that all appropriate steps may be taken, with their formal authority, to set aside their convictions. In that context I must again thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his good offices. He sent all my papers to the commission so as to achieve priority—a truly noble gesture across the Floor of this Chamber.
As regards release, as they remain in custody, a Motion has been tabled to resolve that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, who retains overall dispensation of the prerogative, to seek immediate release, having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the miscarriage of justice and the want of any other mechanism to afford immediate release. With respect to my noble friend, it is wholly inappropriate that those guardsmen should in any way
1072
be associated with this amendment or with any kind of political activity which seeks to exert any pressure on the Government.
On the basis of reasoned persuasion, it is the hope that Members of this place may support this Motion for an humble Address, soon, I am informed by the Government Chief Whip, to be debated, although a date has not been fixed. If carried it can but advance the prospect for immediate release.
I was not present in the Chamber, but my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has told me about the present position, and indeed I am grateful. But a decision in three to four weeks—a decision taken on these flawed findings of fact that supported conviction, the miscarriage of justice, the zenith of culpability, which have thwarted release up to now by my noble and learned friend, and by all Secretaries of State, and will continue no doubt to thwart release. I am grateful for what I am given, but it affords me no comfort.
Beyond that there is again the expectation of relief in some four months' time, again on those flawed findings of fact which bedevil the prospect of release. Under this Bill, there is the mechanism for release—the commissioners and this and that, and one thing and another—but does one really imagine that these men could ever be released under about nine or 12 months?
What I seek, by respectful request, is a resolution of Members of this place to seek to present an humble Address to Her Majesty to exercise the prerogative for immediate release, and in no circumstances should that be in any way affected or tainted by politics or by association with this amendment. Such is not the intention of my noble friend, whose intentions and motives are never to be criticised, but that I fear is the result, and it is a result which I oppose on behalf of the guardsmen.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, went to a great deal of trouble and exercised a great deal of patience to get this amendment on the Marshalled List. As I am sure noble Lords appreciate, and as the noble Lord said in introducing the amendment, he is not seeking to employ a political manoeuvre to have released these two honourable young men. I made a modest contribution to the debate a few weeks ago in this House when their plight was debated. I did not hear one voice raised against them. I understood that all present were wholeheartedly in favour of the principles which have just been put forward, and were expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, earlier.
Since the amendment refers to the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, I wish to pay tribute to them—I do not think that it is out of order—for their devotion to duty and the courage and patience they have shown over these many decades. I do not exclude my old regiment which has been there almost from the beginning. I know that I speak for all the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland of whatever faith in paying

1073
that tribute to the Queen's forces in Northern Ireland for all that they have done and are doing—and, God help them, may still be required to do.
Lord Renwick of Clifton: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has raised the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright in the debate. I wish to assure the noble Lord that many of us on this side of the Chamber feel just as strongly as he does that there has been, and is, a miscarriage of justice in this case.
The question is how it is to be dealt with. There are now two ways in which to proceed. One is by the process of judicial review. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I should greatly prefer these cases to be dealt with by that process rather than by the process envisaged in the Bill which relates to terrorist offences. We feel as strongly as does the noble Lord that the security forces in Northern Ireland are called upon to perform an almost impossible task.
I should like to suggest to the noble Lord and to the Committee that there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with this case. I believe that the right way to proceed is for the Minister, as I hope he will, to take back to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the strongly held view of Members on all sides of this Committee that this case should be dealt with, and expeditiously, and that these guardsmen should be released.
I believe that the wrong way to deal with it is by an amendment to the Bill. The Bill gives effect to the agreement. I honestly believe that I am speaking at least in part on behalf of Baroness Ewart-Biggs, who used to sit on these Benches. She herself a victim of terrorism and longed to see the day when an agreement of this kind was possible to give new hope to the people of Northern Ireland. She would not want to see the Bill amended and sent back to another place in a form which could make it more difficult to achieve that essential goal.
On that basis, I hope that the Committee will join in expressing the view that the guardsmen should be released, that this should be a case for judicial review, but that they will not support the Bill being amended tonight.
Viscount Brookeborough: I will support the amendment if necessary. I have not spoken on this matter before. The noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, suggested a judicial review. I speak as a lay person but, if that is to happen, why can they not be released pending that judicial review?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise only to correct the noble Viscount. It is not judicial review. The way that it is done is that authority is given so that application is made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission—and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already sent my papers there to achieve priority. The commission then sends the application to the Court of Appeal and the court of appeal either quashes the conviction, orders a retrial or refuses the application. That is the position.
Viscount Brookeborough: I thank the noble Lord for putting me right.
1074
I will say a few words about it as a lay person. If there has not been political influence in keeping the two guardsmen where they are, then there has definitely been political inactivity in doing anything about it. We know from the size of the majority that the Government have that it is possible for them to do anything if they put their minds to it.
The Government shy away from many of our amendments to the Bill which are designed to tighten up the legislation on terrorists and their release. The Government know that there is much unease felt by everybody about the release of prisoners—except by those connected with the terrorist parties. They seem to be overjoyed. Yet the one thing we cannot do is accelerate the release of two soldiers. They are there not because they choose to be; they are there because of the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland, let alone the remainder of the United Kingdom, feel that this case should be dealt with promptly.
If this amendment is the wrong way of doing it, I know that everyone would plead for some fast action rather than, as they see it, more delaying tactics until the Government feel that things are safer in Northern Ireland. I am not accusing them of doing that but that is the way it is perceived outside. It may not be fair but perceptions are all-important in Northern Ireland. People on both sides of the political divide in Northern Ireland see no threat to the political process, to the peace process or to the present situation at all in doing something for these two guardsmen now.
Earl Attlee: I have one question for the Minister. Before asking it, I will remind him that I do have an interest to declare. As a serving officer in the TA, I have three or four regular soldiers under my command.
Will the Minister tell the House if he believes it reasonable for Guardsmen Fisher and Wright to continue to be held in custody whilst convicted terrorists are released?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that this must be dealt with promptly. I was very heartened by the announcement that the Minister made in response to the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, earlier in the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit was not with us, as he acknowledged.
I was heartened because it indicated that the Government have now taken on board the urgency with which this case is viewed on all sides of the House. It is notable that in his statement he said that the Secretary of State would be taking into account the opinions of your Lordships, which have again been expressed very forcibly this evening.
However, I do not know whether I am alone in feeling unease about the equivalence implicit in the amendment we are now discussing between disciplined soldiers of the Armed Forces upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland and terrorists, whom we all condemn. I find some unease in that equivalence. I understand the

1075
motives behind this amendment in the sense that it is a last resort, but I should rather find a better resort than that envisaged in the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My noble friend Lord Tebbit has once again raised a most important point which, as all Members of the Committee will know, has attracted great attention in your Lordships' House, in the Armed Forces in particular and well outside either of those august bodies all over the United Kingdom.
I noted what the Minister said earlier in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and at this stage I want to say only that this is not a matter which will go away. It is a matter to which we shall return again and again. Once again this evening, as before, Members on all sides of the Committee have wanted to see the release of those men.
There is no doubt that this Bill changes the situation quite radically from what it was last autumn when the last decision was taken. I believe also that the most satisfactory way for the men to be released would be through a judicial process which cleared them of the murder charge, as opposed to just letting them out of prison, which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is pursuing. As he said, we shall shortly have an opportunity to discuss that route.
But it is not the only route by which the end we all seek can be achieved. On previous occasions the Minister has suggested that this Bill may be a route through which it is achieved. The statement which the Minister made earlier seemed to suggest another, although I did not sense quite as much urgency in the way he expressed the matter as this Chamber feels on that matter.
I cannot judge which is likely to prove the quicker of the various routes on offer, but it is clear what the Committee wishes to be achieved. Meanwhile, I hope the Government will pay careful attention to what was said by my noble friend Lord Tebbit.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps the most helpful procedure to follow is for me to explain what is the situation as regards the guardsmen and then deal later with the amendments. I understand the reasons for the amendment, and I am aware of the strength of feeling in this Chamber, reflected today and on the several previous occasions when we have debated the matter.
Although some noble Lords may have been present when I made my earlier comment, it is only fair to those who were not present to repeat what I said in answer to a question by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, two or three hours ago. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing this case in the light of correspondence from the guardsmen's solicitors. She received the papers today and will be considering those papers as soon as may be during the next few weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be aware that the papers in such cases are extensive, but they must be given full and detailed consideration. The Secretary of State will consider the
1076
court papers, the previous advice from the Life Sentence Review Board, her own previous decisions and the various judicial review judgments. She will take account also of the many representations that she has received regarding the case, many of which are from noble Lords who are here today.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will know, the Secretary of State cannot prejudge any decision she may make as a consequence of that further review, but when a decision has been made she will make it known. That was what I said in reply to a question raised on an earlier amendment. That is one avenue forward for the two guardsmen.
An alternative avenue, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred, concerned the Criminal Cases Review Commission. That has nothing whatever to do with the Secretary of State and is concerned with the safety of the previous conviction and the question of a possible miscarriage of justice. During an earlier debate a few weeks ago, I offered to send various papers that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, had allowed me to see, together with others, to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The noble Lord agreed that I should do so; and, indeed, I have.
The third possibility is simply that, if the Bill becomes law in its present form, clearly the guardsmen, having committed scheduled offences—not because they are terrorists, but because they have committed offences which are defined as "scheduled offences"—would also be eligible to have their cases for release considered by the commissioners once they had been appointed under the legislation. I do not know which of those methods is the more likely. The guardsmen would certainly have to apply to the commissioners after the latter's appointment, but the Secretary of State is already considering the matter in the terms which I have described.
All I have said indicates that the Government are very sensitive to the views which have been expressed tonight. Clearly the Secretary of State's wish to look at the papers again, and her decision to start to do so today, is an indication of her desire, as it were, to reflect the views which have been expressed in this Chamber on a number of occasions. However, I cannot go any further in that respect.
I turn now to the amendment. I understand the reasons behind it but I cannot accept it. The Good Friday Agreement contains no such requirement and to impose such a requirement at this time would be not just to depart from its terms but, frankly, to drive a coach and horses—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the Minister continues, perhaps I may point out that there are two further avenues available. There are the general release powers of the Secretary of State after consultation with the trial judge and the Court of Appeal. That is the fourth avenue and the fifth, as the noble Lord conceded on 23rd June, is the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in truly exceptional circumstances where no other mechanism is

1077
available to afford immediate release. Therefore, there are five avenues. It is the fifth that I fight for; indeed, I have always done so.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord is right to say that there are in fact five different avenues which are open to the two guardsmen.
I was saying that the Good Friday Agreement contains no such requirement as that set out in the noble Lord's amendment. I contend that, if this Chamber were to pass the amendment, it would in fact drive a coach and horses through the agreement. I understand the noble Lord's motives, but I am disappointed that he has decided to make the release of individual prisoners an issue in this way. Indeed, it can only be a political issue because of the way that he has put forward the argument.
As I said earlier, there are well-established procedures under which life sentence cases are considered. Those arrangements have been applied in the case of these prisoners. Account has also been taken of the circumstances in which their offences were committed. While many noble and gallant Lords have made representations regarding the consideration of these cases, the argument has not been that different rules should apply. However, the procedures certainly mean that individual circumstances can be taken into consideration. That is what the Secretary of State is doing in looking again at the cases.
It would not be appropriate to pass the amendment. Indeed, I suggest that it would not be in the interests of the guardsmen to do so. I believe that it would take the whole issue which this Chamber has discussed on numerous occasions into the realm of political controversy, which would hardly be helpful to them. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tebbit: I just wonder what those two guardsmen would have felt had they heard the Minister say that it would not be in their interests for this amendment to be carried because it would take them into the realm of politics. I believe that the Minister is living in a different world. Those guardsmen want to get out of prison and be reunited with their loved ones. If that comes as a result of politics, I fancy that their view would be, "Well, that's the way it is", not that they would be upset if the Committee should enact this amendment, and that in consequence the doors of their prison would be opened and they would be released. Surely they would not hide at the back of their cells saying, "No, we cannot accept this freedom, it is so embarrassing for us". Of course they would not, and that is an extraordinarily weak argument.
I do not care how these men are released. I do not believe they care how they are released. In moving this amendment, and in all that I have said about them, I am not looking for honorary membership of the Caledonian Club or anything of that kind. I am looking simply for justice for these men. Had I and others not raised this matter, particularly on the Second Reading of this Bill, would the noble Lord have made the statement which he did today about these young men, or would it have
1078
been left just to drift on with them in prison? I have to ask whether the Government are beginning to shift a little from the position which they had taken up. If they are beginning to shift a little, are they beginning to shift under pressure, and would they have shifted had that pressure not been applied?
The Minister observed that this amendment was outside the terms of the agreement. So we are back again to this wonderful agreement from which not only may nothing be taken away but to which nothing may be added. I should remind the Committee that the representatives of Fisher and Wright were not invited to the talks from which this agreement sprang. There were no representatives at the talks of the Army or of their regiment, no one to speak for the soldiers. There were only people to speak for the terrorists and the democratic parties. We have to speak for them now. There is nothing in the agreement which says that these men should not be released. This amendment does not in any way affect the terms of the agreement. It would not delay the passage of the Bill. It would not delay its coming into effect, not by a single day, because it is within the power of the Secretary of State to release these young men. Of course if we were to enact this amendment tonight, or on Report, there would be great pressure on the Government to find a way out of the problem.
Let me again read to the Committee a paragraph from the letter of 2nd December from the Minister of State, Mr. Ingram, to my honourable friend Mr. Michael Trend, the Member of Parliament for Windsor. The concluding paragraph states:
"It is important to bear in mind that the cases of the Guardsmen were considered by the Life Sentence Review Board significantly earlier than usual in life sentence cases in Northern Ireland. Normally cases are considered for the first time when prisoners have served 10 years. This is within the context that the average period served against a life sentence in Northern Ireland is approximately 15 years' imprisonment. The Guardsmen were considered for the first time when they had served only 5 years in custody.
I hope that you find this information helpful".
There is nothing wrong with hoping, is there?
That was the position of the Government last December. I understand that now the position is changing. I do not know why. Is it changing because they have been impressed by the material passed to them in the past few days by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway; or is it that they are impressed by the fact that people are beginning more and more to see that a fundamental injustice is being perpetrated by the Bill as presently drafted? I do not know which it is, but I have a fair suspicion.
I say to my noble friend Lord Campbell and others that politics is a pretty dodgy and unpredictable trade. All of us who have been in it for many years know that. But it is nowhere near as unpredictable and dodgy as the law. That is the implication of what has been said

1079
this evening. It has been said by my noble friend that he believes that these men are in gaol not because of politics but because the law went wrong.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Well, it did.
Lord Tebbit: My noble friend says that it did. I am not able to judge that matter. I was not in the court. I did not hear the evidence. I do not know what happened. But what I do know is that almost all of us are convinced that, even if these men were guilty of the crime of which they were accused and convicted, in the light of the release of serial killers—terrorists—it is only just that they should be released. That is a political consideration. But clearly it is one that most noble Lords believe is correct.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I apologise for having spoken from a sedentary position. Yes, the law did go wrong. And your Lordships' House unanimously concluded, on 23rd June, that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice and that the judicial findings which supported conviction were fundamentally flawed on the affidavit evidence placed in the Library of the House. The law got it wrong, full-stop.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: The argument could not be made better. I understand that Parliament is the highest court in the land—except, of course, Brussels; but let us not go down the road of that argument this evening. I do not want to lose any more friends than I have lost already—or perhaps I might make a few. If my noble friend is right, if that is the conclusion that has been reached, why are these men still in prison? There is no need for this amendment once these men are out. Let them be out of prison and the amendment will go away.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, suggested that he was horrified by my action in bringing some air of equivalence between these young men and the terrorists. How strange. I did not hear him express his horror when the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested that they might apply for their release under the provisions of the Bill as though they were terrorists. At Second Reading, the noble Lord indeed said that they could apply under the terms of the Bill. That is equivalence if ever I heard it.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord knows that I said then, and I re-stated today, that because they were convicted of scheduled offences they would come under the scope of the Bill. I made that point on an earlier occasion in this House when I was asked whether they would be worse off as a result of the Bill than they would otherwise be. I made it clear that they would not be worse off.
Lord Tebbit: I understand that. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, should not be too touchy. I do not wish to be offensive towards him. He was not the target of my remarks. But the fact is that the noble Lord made it perfectly plain that there is equivalence in the Bill: that
1080
both the guardsmen and the terrorists were guilty of scheduled offences and the guardsmen could take advantage of the Bill in order to be released. I am merely making sure that they will be released under the provisions of the Bill by insisting that no one else is released before they are.
I entirely accept that the Government have now shifted radically from the view, expressed not many months ago, that six years was too little for these men to the view that they should be let out, as I understand it, either by a judicial process or by a political process. I repeat that I do not care which it is. However, I know that the judicial process is uncertain and that, once the Bill has passed through this House, we shall have no leverage to insist that the men be released. Until the Bill goes through this House, we have some leverage. I do not propose to relent from my determination that that leverage should be used.
Tonight is not the occasion to take that decision, but we shall come back to this matter on Report, when noble Lords throughout the House will have had ample time to consider the issues and when there will have been further time for the Secretary of State to read these papers—of course, not hurriedly; of course, very carefully; but perhaps with a sense that time is not necessarily on her side. If I correctly detect the mood of this Chamber and of a number of noble Members to whom I have spoken, it is far from impossible that this amendment should be carried on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Commissioners]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
("Chairman
A1. The Secretary of State shall appoint a chairman, or joint chairmen, from among the Commissioners.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 10, line 28, after ("chairman") insert ("(or joint chairmen)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 10, line 35, leave out ("with the second") and insert ("on").
The noble Lord said: The amendment sounds a little complicated but is in fact an extremely simple amendment which refers to the date of the first annual report of the commissioners. The expectation is that the first commissioners will be appointed soon after the Bill comes into force. Clearly, there will be intense interest in their work. As the Bill stands, no annual report is proposed until some time after 31st March 2000. The paper says that the board of commissioners is expected to have completed its assessments by the end of June 1999. By that time, if all goes well, the commissioners' work will be almost over. It seems right, therefore, that

1081
the first annual report should be on 31st March next year and not postponed until the year 2000. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Chelitenham: I rise to support this amendment. I am amazed that the Treasury let the Government get away without having financial costs reported annually forthwith.
Lord Dubs: I hear the arguments put forward. Of course there will be interest in the work of the commissioners and it would be helpful if the publication date of the first report was earlier. For that reason the Government accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Commissioners' Procedure]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 11, line 17, at end insert—
("(b) confer functions on the chairman (or on joint chairmen, jointly or concurrently).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: With regard to the last amendment, I should like to say thank you. With regard to this amendment, this part of the Bill is concerned with the order-making powers of the Secretary of State and this particular bit gives the Secretary of State power to lay down that prisoners cannot represent prisoners in matters concerning the Bill.
It seems to me wholly wise that prisoners should not represent other prisoners in their dealings with the board and with the authorities. That is why I do not want to see this left as a question of "may"—as a power which the Secretary of State may or may not use. That leaves the Secretary of State open to political lobbying and to the expectation of lobbying about it. Given the devious nature of negotiations with terrorist authorities—of which some of us have had experience—this sort of thing can easily be used as some sort of bargaining counter. It is much better to settle the matter now. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: This amendment relates to the rules of procedure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may make. Those rules are still in preparation.
I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. At the same time, the circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that in some cases a prisoner may wish to be represented by someone he considers to be a colleague. For that reason the provision was intended to allow the Secretary of State to make rules that would prevent such representation but which did not require her to do so.
I can give an undertaking to the Committee that, if the rules do not prevent a prisoner being represented by another prisoner, the intention would be to require that the prisoner had the agreement of the commissioners that he might be so represented. We consider that if that course were to taken it would provide the necessary
1082
safeguard. For those reasons I believe that the amendment is not necessary and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not sure that I entirely accept that the amendment is not necessary because the Minister used the word "if" in the middle of all that. Nevertheless, I shall take time to consider what he said and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 11, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51.
The purpose of this amendment is illustrated by this weekend. If commissioners make a decision in Northern Ireland, whichever way they make it—I do not question the decision—the chances are that half the Province or a hefty percentage of it, will be upset by it. If a decision has to be made as to the order of applications, the commissioners will be put in the same situation as were the commissioners of parades this weekend. If they are left to deal with them in order of receipt, that would be fairer and lead to fewer problems.
I need not extend my arguments further as the Minister used them at the opening of this Committee stage to move the amendment for a joint chairman on the basis that in presenting to Northern Ireland it is better that we have a situation where there is seen to be fairness and understanding rather than argument at the point of decision. I am sure that those arguments apply as much to the amendment about joint chairmen as to moving that Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 mean that decisions are made according to the Bill and not the emotions of the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Despite the lateness of the hour, I rise to support the amendment. I do not know in what other order the applications could be treated which would produce an impression of fairness. This is an acutely sensitive matter, as we have discussed all through the evening, in which sensibilities will be quivering and people will be waiting to see whether one community is favoured over the other and whether particular prisoners are favoured over others. I recommend to the Government that they think seriously about the amendment as being the best way to demonstrate that there is no fix and that this is being done properly and in sequence.
Viscount Brookeborough: I rise to support the amendment because I believe that it is there for the protection of the commissioners. I am sure that not many people envy the job of the parades commissioners. Neither will they probably do so in the case of these

1083
commissioners. They should have all the protection possible by our making the decisions here within which they work.
Lord Dubs: The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, has identified an important part of the work of the commissioners; that is, the management of the process of considering applications. The Government expect that the commissioners are likely to receive in excess of 400 applications shortly after the Bill comes into force. Those applications are likely to be received over a relatively short period of time but it will take time to consider each application separately. As such, it will be important that the applications are dealt with in a coherent manner by the commissioners to ensure that prisoners are dealt with fairly.
While the commissioners may wish to take account of when an application is received, they may also decide to take account of matters such as when the prisoner would be released if he received a declaration. The Government would not want to prevent the commissioners from making such provision and so cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It would mean, in effect, that almost the random factor of when applications are received in the post would determine when they had to be decided. Clearly, if the commissioners believe that some prisoners would be released quickly because they had reached that point in their eligibility while others would not, it would surely make sense to have a system of
1084
priority rather than simply to deal with them in the order in which they are received. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the Minister for his answer. At this stage in the evening I will not pursue the amendment. However, I find his answer unsatisfactory because unless this decision-making has an openness and transparency we will head for further problems and further disputes, as we saw this weekend. I shall withdraw the amendment but I wish to return to the matter at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Pesticides Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  Uganda: Debt Relief
  Uganda: Debt Relief
  European Union: Forthcoming Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Business
  General Affairs Council, 29 June
  General Affairs Council, 29 June
  Nuclear Weapons: Elimination
  Nuclear Weapons: Elimination
  Chiapas, Mexico: Church Closures
  Chiapas, Mexico: Church Closures
  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  Kurdish Refugees: Council of Europe Report
  Kurdish Refugees: Council of Europe Report
  Dangerous Dogs
  Dangerous Dogs
  Essex Fire Authority: Redeployment Application
  Essex Fire Authority: Redeployment Application
  NHS: GP Computer Systems
  NHS: GP Computer Systems
  Antibiotics and Human Gut Flora
  Antibiotics and Human Gut Flora
  E.coli 0157
  E.coli 0157
  Gastrointestinal Disease
  Gastrointestinal Disease
  Duckett's Cheese Incident: Control Order
  Duckett's Cheese Incident: Control Order
  Food Businesses: Safety Controls
  Food Businesses: Safety Controls
  Minimum Wage
  Minimum Wage
  Breastfeeding
  Breastfeeding
  Pension Schemes: Tax Relief
  Pension Schemes: Tax Relief
  Electricity from Renewables
  Electricity from Renewables
  Northern Ireland Agreement
  Northern Ireland Agreement
  Organophosphorus Products
  Organophosphorus Products
  Quangos
  Quangos
  Asia: Private Sector Debt
  Asia: Private Sector Debt
  Airline Passengers: Disruptive Behaviour
  Airline Passengers: Disruptive Behaviour
  Track Access and Freight Facilities Grants
  Track Access and Freight Facilities Grants
  CTRL: Freight Capacity
  CTRL: Freight Capacity
  Transport and Works Act: Outstanding Applications
  Transport and Works Act: Outstanding Applications