Sitting of 10 July 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day

  Landmines Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  9.34 am
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In the time that it will take us to complete the Second Reading of the Bill, five people, somewhere in the world, will become casualties of landmines. Two of them will be killed; the other three are likely to be maimed for life. It is likely that they will be civilian and poor, and they will have already endured the terror and the destruction of war. One among them may well be a child, who will never run again because of a moment of tragedy at play. Their story is told across the world hundreds of times every week. About 60 million landmines lie scattered in 70 countries. They remain long after the fighting has stopped, and cause suffering out of all proportion to their possible military value. Hundreds of thousands of refugees cannot return to their homes because of landmines, and people cannot farm their land without risking death. Many are forced to take that risk simply to feed their families or to gather water and firewood to keep their families alive. After the trauma of war, landmines pollute the peace.
  When the Government came to power, one of our first acts was to ban landmines unilaterally. We said that there was to be no more trade, no more transfer or production of landmines and a moratorium on their use. We said that stocks of landmines held by the British military would be destroyed and that we would do everything that we could to work for a wider ban. We have kept those promises: we have destroyed half the stockpile of the 1 million landmines that we inherited from the previous Government. By the end of this year, we shall have destroyed three quarters of that stockpile.
  As far as we are aware, no other nation has done as much to destroy its stock of landmines. We played a leading role in the negotiations that led to the Ottawa convention, and we signed it at the first opportunity. Britain helped to draft the Ottawa convention, so it is entirely fitting that we should help to bring it into force. That is why the House is sitting today: if we pass the Bill, Britain will be among the first 40 countries to ratify the convention and to bring it into legal force.
  I say to the House and to the Opposition that the Bill gives full effect to the terms of the Ottawa convention. Clause 2 prohibits British service men, or any other
  1348
  British citizen, from using, developing, producing, possessing or exporting a landmine. It also prevents them from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone else to do those things. Nor is this a token offence; conviction under clause 2 brings with it liability to a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has been expressing concern about the provisions of clause 5. Let me help him by explaining its limited purpose. Clause 5 does not provide British service men with any loophole to take part in the deployment of landmines. British forces will be instructed in their rules of engagement for any exercise or operation that they must not use, possess, transport or handle landmines. Clause 5 provides British service men with a shield against unreasonable prosecution because they took part in a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercise in which American forces deployed landmines. Without clause 5, any British Army officer present at a NATO planning meeting who heard that American forces taking part may possess landmines would be obliged to say that he must leave the meeting, or would render himself liable to a prison sentence of 14 years. I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to put our service men in that position. If he presses that point, he will effectively be arguing that it is impossible for Britain to implement the Ottawa convention without withdrawing from the NATO integrated command.
  Mr. Michael Howard: To avoid any doubt, let me make it clear that that is not the Opposition's position. We are saying that clause 5 is inconsistent with the convention. If the Foreign Secretary had woken up earlier to the need for provisions such as clause 5, he would have amended the convention accordingly. Did he make any attempt to do so?
  Mr. Cook: Clause 5 is wholly consistent with the Ottawa convention. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants proof, I can tell him that our provision for British service men is similar to that made by the Government of Canada, who were the driving force behind the convention and who would certainly do nothing to undermine it. It is humbug that the Conservatives who, in power, kept their distance from the convention, should now complain that the Bill does not go far enough. If, in government, they had taken the line that we took at the general election, the Ottawa convention might have been completed earlier. The Opposition have promised us their help in passing the Bill. It would be warmly welcomed if we could fulfil what we understood to be an agreement between both Front Benches to achieve our shared commitment that Britain should be among the first 40 countries to ratify the convention.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Government will have the help of the Liberal Democrats in ensuring that the Bill passes all necessary stages today.
  The Attorney-General, who often intervenes on matters of this sort, not for the Government, but for the guidance of the whole House, is present today. Is the Secretary of State telling us that the Attorney-General advised him that the mere presence of a British officer at a NATO planning meeting could be a contravention of the Bill's criminal law provisions?
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's assistance. I can assure him that the

  1349
  Law Officers concurred with everything in the Bill. The particular point to which he referred has had considerable discussion. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will make his own position clear if he wishes to do so, but I speak with the full authority of the Government, and with the full support of the Law Officers.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend—[Laughter.] My hon. Friends encourage me to give way more often to such interventions.
  Our discussion of clause 5 highlights the serious problem of ensuring that every country bans landmines. The convention is not yet a global ban. There are countries that have not signed it, including some of the largest producers and exporters of landmines. We are working hard to bring those countries on board. A global ban must be exactly that. We are working in forums such as the conference on disarmament in Geneva to bring in others step by step. A limited, but useful, first step would be to have every country sign up to a ban on the export of landmines.
  By passing the Bill today, the House will send a clear message from Britain to countries yet to join the international crusade against landmines. The House will send a clear message, too, to all who live with the threat of landmines. The Ottawa convention does not just ban production and use of landmines, but mandates signatories to help remove landmines, and to look after victims of landmines not removed in time.
  A landmine costs only a few pounds to produce, but on average, the same landmine will cost several hundred pounds to clear. Britain is helping the worst-affected countries to clear landmines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has committed Britain to doubling its annual expenditure on demining. The British Army's mine and training information centre has trained more than 2,000 workers from countries in which landmines have been laid. It has also trained workers from British non-governmental organisations that work in those countries. The House will wish to record its appreciation of the courage and dedication of our soldiers, and of the staff of NGOs, such as the Red Cross, who have worked hard so that the people of other countries may be freed from fear of landmines.
  Our century has taught us many lessons. We have learnt that humanity can be capable of the most evil and cruel acts. We have learnt, too, that humanity can look away from suffering. However, we have also learnt that humanity can rise above cruelty and blindness. Sometimes, humanity can decide that something is wrong, and can demand action to stop it. It has done so in the case of landmines.
  Many people and many organisations have played a part in awakening the conscience of the world to the casualties of landmines. The Nobel peace prize given to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines was a well-deserved recognition of its determination. All hon. Members will be aware from their postbags of the immense contribution made by Diana, Princess of Wales
  1350
  to bringing home to many of our constituents the human costs of landmines. The best way in which to record our appreciation of her work, and the work of NGOs that have campaigned against landmines, is to pass the Bill, and to pave the way towards a global ban on landmines.
  9.46 am
  Mr. Michael Howard: I join the Secretary of State in his condemnation of indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines and the suffering that they cause around the world. We have all been moved by the plight of the victims, and we are all aware of the arbitrary and cruel manner in which innocent civilians have been killed or maimed. We are all conscious of the horror of weapons that remain in the ground long after the conflict that caused them to be put there has ceased.
  I also join the Secretary of State in praising the work done by many campaigners and non-governmental organisations to raise the issue of a total ban in the public consciousness. They include the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. Each has made a unique and important contribution. I should mention in particular the Nobel prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which brought together more than 100 different organisations.
  Individuals, too, have played a crucial role. The Foreign Secretary rightly paid tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales, whose work was invaluable. In many ways, the progress made on a landmines ban is a worthier memorial to her than some of the other projects that have received so much recent attention. I want to pay particular tribute, too, to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Deedes, who has campaigned on the matter for many years and who took it up long before it became a fashionable cause. His work merits special acknowledgement.
  The role of British forces in providing mine clearance advice and support should not be underestimated. The Royal Engineers and the Royal Ordnance Corps have been crucial to the success of demining operations. Retired members of the British armed forces have continued their work by joining such groups as the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group, to teach people in countries littered with anti-personnel mines how to remove them safely. Their work is not over. In areas such as Bosnia, demining remains a task vital to helping the country to return to something resembling what we call normality. We should pay tribute to the many people who do that dangerous job across the world, and to the companies—often British based—that are at the forefront of the demining effort.
  I assure the Secretary of State that the official Opposition are committed to a meaningful ban on the sale and use of landmines. We support the spirit of the Ottawa convention, and made it clear as long ago as February that we would not obstruct the legislation, which was needed to allow the convention to be ratified. Like the Government, we look forward to the eradication of existing mines and the threat to life that they represent.
  The road to the abolition of landmines is long, and we have not yet reached its end. It is also a road down which the United Kingdom had travelled a great distance before 1 May 1997. In April 1996, the previous Government announced that the United Kingdom would work actively

  1351
  towards a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines. They made it clear that, should such a ban be agreed, the United Kingdom would give up our anti-personnel landmine capability, and would destroy our stocks accordingly. The previous Government introduced an export moratorium and invested in mine clearance measures around the world. They announced their intention to destroy half our existing stocks of mines as soon as practicable, and to destroy the remainder when the international ban was agreed or viable alternatives became available. Severe restrictions on their deployment were also announced.
  The Lyon G8 summit in 1996 included a declaration calling on all countries to make every effort to secure a global ban on the proliferation and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines. The declaration also welcomed the bans already adopted by some countries, including the United Kingdom, on the production, use and export of those weapons.
  By October 1996, the European Union was ready, with British backing, to declare a common moratorium on the export of anti-personnel landmines. The European Union also took action to prevent the issuing of licences for the transfer of mine technology. That initiative was presented to the Ottawa conference and the United Nations General Assembly.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: As always, I have listened carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. It is academic now, but why did the previous Government refuse to introduce legislation on the matter?
  Mr. Howard: Simply because the Ottawa convention had not been agreed or signed. This legislation is designed to implement that convention, and this is the appropriate time to bring it forward.
  By January 1997, Britain was ready to table a mandate to set up a committee at the conference on disarmament in Geneva to negotiate a global ban on anti-personnel landmines. During that time, some £22 million had been spent by the previous Government on mine clearance programmes across the world. The previous Government lived up to their promises, and did not promise what they could not deliver.
  When the present Government came to office after the election, the Foreign Secretary made an early statement about their policy on landmines. Characteristically, it was accompanied by the usual hype—he has been at it again today. It was presented as an early example of the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy. It was presented as if it were a great change from the policy of the previous Government. In fact, the two were virtually indistinguishable. In an article in the February edition of the journal of the Royal United Services Institute, Dr. Paul Bowers and Mr. Tom Dodd said:
  "A possible irony is that until the Ottawa Convention enters force or 2005, whichever comes earlier, the essence of the Labour Government's policy on APMs, an export ban and use only in exceptional circumstances, is not altogether different from that reached by the Conservative Government in April 1996."
  It is true that, since then, matters have moved on somewhat. [Interruption.] Of course, that is true. In December 1997, the Government signed the Ottawa convention, which the legislation before the House today
  1352
  is designed to implement. We should concentrate on the convention, the legislation and the relationship between the two.
  The Opposition support the spirit of the convention, which is why we shall not oppose the Bill. However, the limitations of the convention should be recognised. The United States of America, Russia, China and many other powerful and significant countries are not signatories. The convention will not introduce a worldwide ban.
  The legislation raises many important issues, which we shall not be able to explore fully today. So reluctant are the Government to allow proper debate to take place—[Interruption.]—so nervous are they of proper scrutiny, that they have made it clear that they are not prepared to move a business motion to extend today's sitting beyond its normal time. I want to put on record the fact that the official Opposition asked for that extension. [Interruption.] We wanted to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that it deserves. The Government's attitude was that, unless we finish at 2.30 pm today, the Bill will fall. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be heard.
  Mr. Howard: That is the extent to which the Government hold this place in contempt. We were not prepared to see the Bill fall.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you allow the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to look round and see how many of his hon. Friends are present to support him?
  Hon. Members: Three.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) thinks that numbers are the sole criterion by which to judge the proper scrutiny of a Bill, he has a great deal to learn about the way in which legislation can be scrutinised.
  We were not prepared to see the Bill fall today, so we have reluctantly accepted the timetable imposed on us by the Government. I strongly hope that the Bill will receive in the other place the careful scrutiny that we shall inevitably be unable to give it here.
  In particular, we shall be unable to explore in sufficient detail the many questions that arise on the scope of the convention.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): May I ask the shadow Foreign Secretary two brief questions? Yesterday, he was offered a briefing on the technical details of the Bill. Why did he turn down that offer? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is noticeably not present for the Second Reading, were given the Bill last week, why, in all that time and given his legal training, has be tabled only one amendment?
  Mr. Howard: Because the amendment is sufficient to enable me to make the points that I can make within the

  1353
  time that the Government are prepared to make available today. [Interruption.] I am answering the Secretary of State's question. I am concerned to use the time available to me to deal with the relationship between the convention and the legislation. The particular point that I want to make is about the scope of clause 5. The briefing was not by the Foreign Office, which is responsible for the convention, but by the Secretary of State for Defence, and it did not deal with that matter. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who represents the Liberal Democrat party, and I did not accept that offer of a briefing yesterday. [Interruption.] That is the reason. Perhaps we can continue the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not right for the right hon. and learned Member to be interrupted. He must be heard. The House must come to order.
  Mr. Howard: I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will deal with some of the questions that are raised. Will he confirm—not in some private briefing, but on the Floor of the House—that the convention does not prohibit the use of anti-tank mines, even if anti-personnel mines are attached to them? Is it true that some of the most advanced anti-tank mines—such as the US Gator—are prohibited by the treaty, because the explosives contained in the anti-personnel mines associated with them are not attached to the main mine?
  What is the position on the use of anti-personnel mines in association with anti-airfield weapons, such as the JP233? What are the Government's intentions on the many thousands of landmines that remain in position in the Falklands? Those are obviously very important questions, and I hope that Ministers will be able to answer them during the debate.
  The history of this legislation is, to put it mildly, somewhat murky. The convention was signed last December. The Government made a commitment to ratify it as soon as possible. That was immediately modified to a commitment to ratify it as soon as the parliamentary timetable allowed. By February, no action had been taken to fulfil that major commitment.
  In February, in response to a request from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), I told him that the Opposition would not obstruct the legislation. We are told that work on the text of the Bill then began, but that it was not until 9 June, after comprehensive consultation with interested Whitehall Departments, that instructions were sent to parliamentary counsel. Even then, there was confusion, which was typified by unedifying reports that the blame for the failure to present legislation to ratify the convention was being passed between the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House.
  At that stage, the Government did what they always do when they are to blame—they tried to transfer the blame to the Opposition. The Leader of the House said that the Government had heard only "very recently" that the Opposition would be willing to help with the progress of the legislation. The Secretary of State for Defence said that one of the reasons for lack of progress was that the Government had been waiting to hear from the Opposition. All that is totally untrue. The Government
  1354
  were told as long ago as February that the Opposition would co-operate with the passage of the Bill and would not seek to obstruct it. The delay is entirely the Government's fault.
  The legislation is now before the House and for the first time we can compare the Bill with the treaty that it is supposed to put into effect. I remind the House that the treaty was signed by the United Kingdom without reservation or amendment. The Foreign Secretary characteristically boasted that the Government were able to play a major part in drafting the treaty. The Prime Minister said:
  "the land mines treaty has done a superb job and we on this side support it thoroughly. Furthermore, it is another initiative in which the new Government played a leading role."—[Official Report, 10 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 1010.]
  In that case, why does the legislation not implement the convention? Why does it permit conduct that the convention expressly prohibits? Why is there such a huge gap between the Bill's provisions and those of the convention, and why are the Government once again saying one thing and doing another? I shall explain. The terms of article 1.1 of the convention are clear:
  "Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances:

  (a) To use anti-personnel mines;

  (b) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;

  (c) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention."

  There is no doubt or ambiguity in that paragraph. It expressly prohibits assisting anyone to engage in any activity that is prohibited by the convention. What does the legislation contain? The relevant part is clause 5, which provides a defence for someone who is otherwise guilty of conduct that is prohibited by the legislation. That defence applies to joint operations conducted overseas with the armed forces of another Government in the course of which
  "there is or may be some deployment of anti-personnel mines"
  by the forces of the other Government who are not signatories to the convention. In those circumstances, according to clause 5, British forces are permitted to do anything other than actually lay anti-personnel mines. They can procure, transfer, modify, adapt or even prime landmines as long as they do not actually lay them.
  That is not an academic point, because the other Government with whose forces we are perhaps most likely to enter into joint operations are the Government of the United States, who are not signatories to the Ottawa convention. The effect of clause 5 is that when British forces are engaged in joint operations with the United States or the forces of any country that is not a signatory to the convention, they are given full licence by the legislation to breach the Ottawa convention.
  Mr. Robin Cook rose—
  Mr. Howard: I shall finish the passage and then give way to the Secretary of State.
  We may be told that it is important and essential for British troops to be able to operate in that way. That may be true, but it is absolutely and explicitly contrary to the provisions of the Ottawa convention. That has been pointed out not only by me but by numerous spokesmen

  1355
  on behalf of the campaigning groups that have paid careful attention to the provisions of the legislation and the way in which they differ from the convention.
  The Government could have sought to amend the convention. Perhaps they will say whether they attempted to amend it and failed. If that is the case, they are guilty of extreme duplicity. Alternatively, did they simply not notice what the convention would mean? Was it perhaps not until after comprehensive consultations with interested Whitehall Departments, when the legislation was beginning to be drafted, that the difficulty came to light? If that is the case, the Government stand convicted of extreme incompetence. Either way, the Government are asking Parliament to legislate to permit conduct that would be completely contrary to a convention that they signed as recently as December.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I plead with the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to attribute to everybody else the conspiracy under which he operates. Clause 2 faithfully and fully puts the Ottawa convention into British legislation. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear me the first time, I say again that it prohibits British troops from using, developing, producing, possessing or transferring landmines or assisting, encouraging or inducing any other person to do so. That provision will be clearly expressed in the rules of engagement for British forces. There will be no licence for British troops.
  Clause 5 is purely prudential. It will protect British troops from being criminalised by the actions of American troops who may be taking part in the same operation. I shall put again the example that I gave earlier of a sapper sergeant who builds a bridge in a NATO exercise and, unknown to him, the Americans drive across it a truck containing landmines. We want to make it clear beyond doubt that such a man is not liable to conviction and 14 years in prison. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not willing to remove that doubt, I am beginning to understand why the Conservative party's senior defence spokesman has not turned up for the debate.
  Mr. Howard: It is most unlikely that the conduct that the Foreign Secretary mentions would amount to a breach of the convention in the first place.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: No. I am dealing with the Foreign Secretary's point. Clause 5 is not needed to give effect to that situation.
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way when I have finished. Irrespective of whether it is needed to cover that situation, the point to be answered by the Foreign Secretary is that the terms of clause 5 are extremely wide. The only activity that it expressly prohibits in joint operations is the actual laying of a landmine. That is contained in clause 5(2). If what the Foreign Secretary seeks to achieve is his only concern, he could amend clause 5 here or in another place to meet that concern, but clause 5 is widely drawn and is contrary to the convention's language.
  Mr. Cook: Of course clause 5 is widely drawn because its purpose is not to prohibit activities but to provide
  1356
  protection for British forces. The word "unlikely" will not do. The sapper sergeant may ask, "If I build this bridge, will I be liable to 14 years' imprisonment?" The answer that that is "unlikely" will not be sufficient. We want to put the matter beyond doubt. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now put it beyond doubt?
  Mr. Howard: That is precisely why I say that if that is the Foreign Secretary's concern—I think that it is an unnecessary concern—it could be met by drafting the Bill narrowly, specifically to cover that point. The Foreign Secretary says that clause 5 does not prohibit activity. Of course he is right; clause 5 permits activity. The point is that clause 5 permits a wide range of activity—everything except laying a landmine—in contravention of the convention itself. We shall press the Government hard for explanations of that in Committee.
  I hope that we shall hear more from the Government about the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill. Can the Government offer any estimate of the costs that they expect to arise from the need to examine and procure alternative technologies to meet the military capability previously provided by anti-personnel mines? Have they any idea of the costs of destroying the stocks of anti-personnel mines? If so, why are they not included in the memorandum? Is there any estimate of the costs of cancelling any support contracts, which are referred to in the memorandum? Those are important matters.
  In February, the Opposition gave an undertaking not to obstruct the passage of the legislation. We shall honour that undertaking. We shall not in any sense seek to obstruct the Bill's passage, but the Bill is an imperfect animal. It merits the closest scrutiny. As a result of the Government's contemptuous attitude to the time to be made available for its scrutiny in the House, there is very little that we shall be able to do, but I hope that those deficiencies will, at least to some extent, be remedied when the Bill reaches another place.
  10.11 am
  Mr. David Marshall: I am delighted that, today, in one fell swoop, the Bill will complete all its House of Commons stages and be passed unanimously by the House. There is no conceivable reason why any hon. Member should vote against it.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for International Development and all their ministerial colleagues on all their efforts in the campaign against landmines and on their desire to ratify the Ottawa convention. It is another manifesto promise on which the Labour Government have delivered and will continue to deliver as we destroy the United Kingdom's stockpile of landmines.
  Compare the record of the Labour Government with that of the last Tory Government and the miserable, shabby, weasel words of the shadow Foreign Secretary this morning. My only slight regret is that we did not introduce this legislation some weeks ago while the UK still held the presidency of the European Union, because it would have been one of the highlights of that presidency.
  As chairman of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I am proud of the role that the IPU and our group have played in the international campaign over the past four years. I pay tribute to my predecessor,

  1357
  Dame Jill Knight, now Baroness Knight, who campaigned vigorously in support of the resolution that was eventually carried unanimously by the IPU conference of some 130 nations, which called for a global ban on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines. I am proud to have played a part in supporting that campaign at successive IPU conferences.
  The Government have been one of the world leaders in the campaign, and the UK was one of the first nations to sign the Ottawa convention last December. We must all honour Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his Government for their initiative in introducing the Ottawa convention. I also thank all my colleagues who have signed my early-day motion 1387, which calls for this very legislation.
  The Bill enables our Government to ratify the Ottawa convention, which comes into effect only when 40 nations have done so. Why do we need to ratify the convention? We need to do so because there can be no more flagrant example of man's inhumanity to man in the modern world than the barbaric practice of planting anti-personnel mines, which kill 800 people and maim another 1,200 every month of every year. Since 1975, more than 1 million people have been killed or injured and, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, many of them were women and children, the most vulnerable members of society.
  Estimates may vary, but one is that more than 100 million landmines are scattered indiscriminately throughout 62 countries, adversely affecting the economies of many of the poorest nations; preventing or delaying the development of agriculture and industry, the growing of food and much needed construction of good clean water supplies; and killing valuable livestock.
  Expensive and scarce medical supplies are used up, and all civilians, including volunteer aid workers, are at risk. They will continue to be so as long as one landmine exists anywhere in the world. Those weapons will be capable of destruction for as long as they are there. Enormous sums of aid money that could be used for much more positive purposes have to be diverted to mine clearance. That is another worrying aspect of the situation.
  I strongly suggest that all hon. Members read the report by the International Committee of the Red Cross entitled "The Worldwide Epidemic of Landmine Injuries", which graphically describes the horrific effect of blast and fragment mines. They will then realise only too well why we need this Bill. It is not only limbs that are blown off. Genitalia are destroyed and people are horrifically maimed. Reading that report would bring tears to hon. Members' eyes. I commend it to the House. Again, I praise the Government for all the humanitarian aid and assistance that they provide to people in need. I appeal to the Government to do more as soon as they can.
  The Ottawa convention is not the end of the matter—nor is it perfect. It is only one step forward. Ratifying it and bringing it into the national law of each country as soon as possible is essential. Our Government have a vital role to play in persuading China, India, Russia and the United States to sign and ratify the convention.
  Other nations such as Turkey and several African states refuse to support the convention. Perhaps the giving of political co-operation and aid should be linked to the
  1358
  recipient ratifying the convention. I ask my right hon. Friends to consider adopting such a policy, so taking another step forward.
  Mr. John Smith: Does my hon. Friend recognise the valuable role played by the North Atlantic Assembly in trying to convince some of those member states of the need to ratify the Ottawa convention?
  Mr. Marshall: I am only too happy to do so, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his activities in the campaign.
  I congratulate all those countries, organisations and individuals who are making financial and physical contributions to the anti-landmines effort. An especially welcome new initiative is the movement towards partnership arrangements between Governments, private companies, organisations and wealthy individuals to raise extra funds for the campaign. I hope that those will be given every encouragement.
  The treaty will need to be rigidly enforced and must be properly monitored. In addition, it will need to be reviewed from time to time to tighten any loopholes, to expand its aims, and to persuade even more countries to sign and ratify it.
  It is not possible to have such a debate without paying tribute to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. More than anyone else in the world, she raised the profile of the campaign against landmines. It was fitting that the Prime Minister announced the legislation on 1 July, which would have been her 37th birthday, and I hope that it will become law before the first anniversary of her death on 31 August. There can be no greater tribute to her memory than that we all work together to ensure that there is a concentrated, co-ordinated and cohesive worldwide campaign, involving the utmost co-operation between Governments, aid agencies and citizens, to achieve an effective and total global ban on landmines. That must be our ultimate aim. If we do that, we can look forward to the day when people can live without fear of their next step being their last.
  10.18 am
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I commend the Government for having found the means and time by which to offer the House the opportunity to ratify the Ottawa convention—or, perhaps more correctly, to pass the legislation that is necessary in order that the Government may ratify it. Although I share some of the reservations that have been expressed by the shadow Foreign Secretary about the consequences of clause 5—to which we shall come in due course—I do not share his view that there is inadequate time. If the House approaches this matter sensibly and reasonably, the Bill can pass all its stages in this House today and can be sent post haste to the other place, in the hope that it can then pass quickly into our law.
  I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I like to think that the consistent pressure and support that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have directed towards the Government has encouraged them to proceed. Although I do not subscribe to the "We thought of it first" school of politics—well, not much—it is right to put it on record that it was at a Liberal Democrat

  1359
  conference on 20 December 1995 that we first passed a motion calling for a ban in almost exactly the same terms as those of the convention.
  The purpose of the legislation is clear and unambiguous, and it has the overwhelming support of the House. It allows us to play our part in the elimination of a scourge on the lives of innocent civilians, who are often among the poorest people in the world, by prohibiting a military procedure that is now largely discredited.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) referred to the late Princess of Wales. One could say that she lent the campaign her humanity and even her style to great effect, but others must be mentioned, too. I am thinking of, for example, Colonel Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, one of the guiding lights behind the Halo Trust. He was responsible for an occasion in Aden which demonstrated the robustness of the Scottish regiments, but, in later life, he appreciated the horror of landmines and spent a great deal of time and effort seeking to advance the cause with which the Bill is associated. Also, as the shadow Foreign Secretary said, long before this was a fashionable issue, Lord Deedes had taken it up and sought to prosecute it with great vigour and robustness.
  Someone else who must be mentioned, but who has not yet been referred to, is the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). He is not in his place today, but I believe he is absent on parliamentary business. For hon. Members who do not know this—although they should—over the past three or four years at the North Atlantic Assembly the hon. Gentleman has been a consistent advocate of the need to ratify the Ottawa convention. His contribution to the debate and his efforts to persuade politicians of other countries, not necessarily as sympathetic as those Members of the House here today, have been very considerable. It is right and proper that we should recognise his contribution on this occasion.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is spraying compliments around, he might like to mention Peter Truscott, a Member of the European Parliament, whom many of us remember holding a landmine at the Labour party conference four years ago and urging that the ban be part of Labour policy as soon as we formed a Government.
  Mr. Campbell: I am really willing to offer congratulations only to those people I know personally. As the hon. Gentleman is in congratulatory mode, he may seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  As the purpose of the Bill is clear, and is one for which there is universal support, the public will expect the House to proceed with dispatch. In a moment or two, I should like to remind the House of the scale of the problem, but let me deal first with clause 5, about which there is a genuine difference of legal interpretation. It might be the Attorney-General's view that mere presence at a discussion about the possibility of laying landmines might constitute an offence, but, in my legal experience, that is a somewhat novel proposition. I do not want to explore this issue in too much detail before we reach the appropriate stage of our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but mere presence has never previously been regarded as sufficient to constitute a criminal offence.
  The Foreign Secretary gave the example of the sapper. Someone who does not display what is called mens rea—a guilty intention—cannot be guilty of a crime. In the
  1360
  example that the right hon. Gentleman gave, the sapper clearly could not be guilty of a crime. The right hon. Gentleman said that the rules of engagement would be clear, and that British forces would know what was expected of them through the chain of command. What concerns us is that clause 5 provides a defence—that is its purpose—but that that defence is too wide. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been holding a conversation since he entered the Chamber. It is extremely unfair on any hon. Member who is speaking.
  Mr. Campbell: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is something that most of us have become used to.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about a sapper building a bridge, and referring to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said about the possibility of that sapper being involved in damages or court action arising out of his involvement with another country that was laying mines. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about mens rea and so on. Is he trying to tell the House that in the middle of those activities, the sapper is going to have a copy of mens rea in his back pocket so that he knows what the law is? Get a life—join the real world! What my right hon. Friend is trying to do—although the hon. and learned Gentleman is a failed lawyer and cannot understand it—is to ensure that people are protected in law. That is the reason for clause 5.
  Mr. Campbell: I was always taught that the personal attack was pretty well an admission of the inadequacy of the merits of the case being made. There is a serious foreign affairs issue here. The Foreign Secretary referred to the possibility of British troops engaged in operations with United States troops. The only place where the United States deploys large numbers of landmines at present is the Korean peninsula. That leads to the interesting question whether we are seeking to pass the Bill as proposed in order to ensure that British troops might be protected, as the Government urge, in relation to operations on the Korean peninsula. That would be a very interesting foreign policy development which the Government have not made plain.
  I said that I should like to deal to some extent with the scale of the problem. There are 100 million landmines currently deployed in 70 of the poorest countries. For every mine cleared, it is estimated that another 20 are laid. There is one landmine for every 16 children in the world, and one for every 48 adults. Angola and Cambodia have more than one mine per member of the population, and British-laid mines dating from the second world war still pose a problem in Saharan Africa.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: No, I must make progress.
  In Angola, one in every 334 people is a mine-related amputee. World wide, there are approximately 250,000 landmine amputees. The cost of treatment for such people is prohibitive. A child's prosthetic limb must be replaced every six months, and an adult's every three to five years. Over a 50-year lifespan, that equates to about

  1361
  25 new prostheses. At around $125 each, that means a lifetime cost of well over $3,000. In countries where the monthly per capita income is about $20, that is unaffordable. Most victims face a lifetime on crutches.
  The hon. Member for Shettleston referred to the economic cost. Livestock is killed as readily as people; agricultural land is rendered unusable, which leads to malnutrition and starvation; and the development of roads, railways, bridges and other elements of infrastructure is inhibited. It has been estimated that, without landmines, Afghanistan and Cambodia could increase agricultural production by up to 200 per cent.
  I understand that the United Kingdom is to double its contribution to the demining effort. Our present level of support for that is of the order of £10 million a year; £20 million a year is clearly progress, but when we consider that Canada provides £45 million, Japan £50 million and Norway £75 million, it seems that we could try to be a little more generous.
  I come to the Government's attitude on whether the laying of landmines should be a war crime. I agree that that is an issue, and would not readily leap to the position, as some have, of suggesting that the Government are behaving inappropriately or unreasonably in questioning the issue, which is clearly one of some importance. I hope that the Government will soon be able to tell us their thinking on the matter.
  I have some reservations about the notion of extending the category of war crime on what is almost a request basis. War crimes are special and terrible crimes, and should be dealt with in a specific and serious manner. If we make every activity of which we disapprove a war crime, the consequence may be to reduce the significance of war crimes and the special way in which they should be dealt with.
  As I said, I have some reservations about clause 5, which I hope to explore in due course. However, I have no doubt about the need for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty. I have no doubt also that it is essential that the Bill should today pass through all its stages in our House.
  10.30 am
  Ann Clwyd: I am very proud that a Labour Government are acting so swiftly to rid the world of landmines. Years before the Ottawa convention, people in the Labour party were always in the front-line of the battle to get rid of landmines. It is not a new issue for us. Even before it was party policy, many Labour Members who are today in the Chamber were fighting hard to rid the world of those horrible weapons. I started taking a special interest in the subject when I went to Cambodia, in 1987, and saw for myself the victims of landmines planted there.
  I noted with interest the shadow Foreign Secretary's quibbling about various of the Bill's provisions, which he thinks do not quite hold together. It was interesting also that he did not mention one of the Ottawa's convention's most important flaws—that only a quarter of the world's states have signed up to it. The fact that three quarters of countries have not signed up to the convention is one of the biggest flaws in the whole process. I hope that, now
  1362
  that the United Kingdom is to ratify the convention, we will encourage many Commonwealth members also to ratify it.
  Mr. Howard: I assure the hon. Lady that I share her concerns on that point. I mentioned those concerns in my speech.
  Ann Clwyd: I should like to take as an example Cambodia, with which I have been very involved over the years. It has 41,000 landmine victims—the highest ratio of mine amputees to population in the entire world. An estimated 5 million to 7 million mines were planted in Cambodia, which is about the same size as Britain.
  Although I am sorry to introduce this note into the debate, I think that we should examine the history. In the 1980s, to our eternal shame, the United Kingdom Government were partly responsible for training the non-communist resistance in Cambodia—which included the Khmer Rouge—to lay landmines. We should not forget that, between 1983 and 1987, Britain's forces assisted in showing those forces how to maim innocent men, women and children. We therefore have a special responsibility in investing more money in demining, and also in leading the world in banning landmine use.
  Ms Tess Kingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government's policy was not as stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who said that it was very similar to the current Government's policy? For several years, I worked on a landmines campaign with a non-governmental organisation—Oxfam—and remember very distinctly that the previous Government's policy was very much one of trying to ban the export rather than the production and stockpiling of landmines. Neither was their policy one of trying to ban the training or paraphernalia associated with landmine use. The previous Government's landmine policy was neither in line with the current Government's actions nor something on which they should be congratulated.
  Ann Clwyd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who gained considerable experience when she worked with an aid agency on those very matters.
  In 1989, I saw for myself the children, women and men who were injured by landmines in Cambodia. Some of them were begging pathetically in the dirty streets of Phnom Penh; others hobbled on one limb in dusty lanes in villages.
  Some years later, a young Cambodian man called Tun Channareth, who was a civilian, spoke movingly at a London press conference—at which I am sure some of my hon. Friends were present. He spoke of the threat to his own people posed by the legacy of landmines in Cambodia left in the 1980s and before. He did not stand up to speak, as both his legs had been blown off by a landmine some years before. He said:
  "Cambodia has no factories producing landmines, yet my country is full of them. How many more people have to lose limbs or their lives before the world wakes up to the need to ban landmines? I beg you again to ban these mines."
  Whether a device was "dumb" or "smart" would have been completely irrelevant to Tun Channareth, as it would to the many hundreds of thousands of other landmine

  1363
  amputees in the world's former battle zones. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, landmines are grotesque weapons. In all those countries, innocent victims—often small children—and not the military are principally the ones who are hurt by landmines.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned Lord Deedes, and I am pleased to do the same. He said:
  "I take the view that anti-personnel mines are a crime against humanity, which civilised nations should not touch with a barge pole."
  John Pilger, in his book "Distant Voices", described some of the landmine victims he met:
  "They are usually civilians, such as 23 year old Rong, a beautiful young woman lying in the hospital at Kompang Spen with her 3 year old infant beside her. When she stepped on a mine she fell into water and lay for three hours bleeding. When her father found her, he applied a tourniquet, carried her to the road and flagged down a motorcycle taxi. He took her to a 1st aid post; it was 7 hours before she got to hospital.
  The mine that Rong stepped on had driven dirt and bacteria deep into the wound, causing infection to spread fast. The blood vessels had coagulated, and there was thrombosis high up in her leg. Had she been able to get into hospital quickly, her leg might have been saved.
  'I knew there were mines around', she said. 'Every day I was in fear of them. But the work has to be done.'"
  Her story is like so many others in countries infested with landmines.
  Asia Watch described the after effects of amputation:
  "Nearly every aspect of a Cambodian's life is set to the rhythm of rice cultivation—the flooding, the planting, the re-planting and harvesting. It is very labour intensive—and a person who is physically disabled can become a burden.
  Female amputees are less desirable as wives because they cannot work in the fields and male amputees are now allowed to become Buddhist monks. Many amputees drift to Phnom Penh and become beggars or petty criminals."
  In September 1991, Asia Watch, in its report "Land Mines in Cambodia—the Coward's War", noted that Cambodia has
  "the highest percentage of mine amputees of any country—the highest percentage of physically disabled inhabitants of any country in the world…for every victim who makes it to hospital another will die in the fields.
  These grim statistics mean that the Cambodian war may be the first in history in which landmines have gained more victims than any other weapon."
  The Red Cross recently said that landmines are
  "fighters that never miss, strike blindly, do not carry weapons openly and go on killing long after hostilities are ended."
  In short, mines are the greatest violators of international humanitarian law. They are the most ruthless terrorists.
  When Diana, Princess of Wales went to Angola last January, she gave the Red Cross campaign an enormous boost. The pictures of the princess wearing body armour and a helmet with a visor learning how to demine caught the world's attention. While she was in Angola, she was criticised by certain Conservative Members. I have been campaigning against the use of landmines for many years and I have written three reports on the subject. I was so angry that the princess was being criticised for making a humanitarian gesture that I tabled the following early-day motion:
  "That this House congratulates Diana, Princess of Wales, for effectively highlighting the tragic humanitarian consequences of Her Majesty's Government's refusal to completely ban the production and use of landmines; and notes with dismay the reported churlish response from Government Ministers on her efforts."
  1364
  It was signed by 73 right hon. and hon. Members in the previous Parliament.
  I sent the princess a copy of the early-day motion and one day I was sitting in my office when I received a telephone call from Kensington palace inviting me to have coffee with her. I spent an hour and a half with her at Kensington palace. She said how pleased she was that so many hon. Members had signed the early-day motion. When I said that she had done more than anyone else to highlight the importance of the landmines issue, she smiled shyly and said, "I will go anywhere if I can do some good." She was self-deprecating as she laughed at herself and said, "Have passport, will travel."
  Originally, the princess had wanted to go to Cambodia, but the Foreign Office had told her that it was unsafe. I said that I had been there twice with Oxfam and she said that she was keen to go there as soon as possible. We discussed the role that Britain had played in planting some of the mines in Cambodia and the attitude of various countries towards landmines. She said with some disgust that our ambassador in Angola did not even know what a landmine looked like and that she thought that the briefing she had been given was not very good. I was impressed by her knowledge, intelligence, friendliness and capacity for self-deprecation. We talked about going to northern Iraq and the possibility of her coming to the House to meet hon. Members with a common interest in landmines. Hon. Members will be aware that she made an attempt to come here and talk about landmines, but, because of the attitude of the Conservative party, she cancelled her visit. That was a great pity, and Conservative Members should feel extremely guilty about it.
  Finally, many of us who have campaigned for a long time on the issue feel that we are making an important start. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and all his ministerial colleagues who have been so active in achieving agreement on the Ottawa convention and have been at the forefront of the campaign. I hope that they will continue to do so until the scourge of landmines, which has claimed the lives of so many ordinary people throughout the world, is finally eliminated.
  10.43 am
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). We agree on a surprising number of issues and I pay tribute to the way in which she highlighted many atrocities throughout the world. Today, she has highlighted the atrocities that landmines indiscriminately inflict on innocent civilians.
  The House is united in that none of us likes anti-personnel mines. I would be astonished if anyone did, as it would be rather like saying that one liked the devil. However, when the House is united, logic does not come into play as much as it might. I should like to give something of a soldier's perspective on landmines and the Bill.
  I remember sitting in a vehicle in a minefield in the Gulf. Indeed, a successor of mine as company commander in the Coldstream Guards had the wheel of his trailer blown off by an anti-personnel mine. Someone sitting in a minefield is not tempted to get out and walk and if they are in a vehicle they must follow very closely in the tracks of the vehicle in front. It is very unpleasant—it is designed to be.

  1365
  At least two of the 16 fatalities in the Gulf resulted from anti-personnel mines. They did not involve front-line soldiers but lorry drivers who got out of their lorries and trod on mines. In Bosnia, about six soldiers have been killed by anti-personnel mines.
  I have seen the effects elsewhere. I remember seeing a mujaheddin on a pony coming down a pass from the Afghan border. I was with a Swiss doctor from the International Committee of the Red Cross. It was amazing that the victim managed to survive and travel by pony to the nearest hospital, which was about 50 miles away. I hope that he survived when he got there. I visited a refugee camp in Peshawar and saw the poor civilians who had escaped from Afghanistan without limbs. When I was with the Swiss doctor I attended an operation on a landmine victim who had gangrene. It was extremely unpleasant.
  In the Falklands, I was the staff officer responsible for the small Royal Engineers detachment that supervises the mines left over from the war of 1982. They gave up clearing the mines in about 1984 because several soldiers had lost their legs. The Falklands are pretty empty and it was thought better to let the mines drift around in the peat and sand rather than risk people's lives by clearing them—and that is quite right. A device has been developed that I think is called the Red Eye. It is a little wheelbarrow-type machine that is operated by remote control and burns the plastic mines that are undetectable with mine detectors. They go puff as the explosive burns. Some areas in the Falkland islands will be closed for ever unless they have to be cleared because we have ratified the convention.
  In the Army, I was trained in the tactical use of anti-personnel mines. It is important for the House to understand why many soldiers value them. Quite simply, they protect the forces. Most armies use them only in defensive positions, when they are extremely useful, especially when they are outnumbered. We have heard about the the Americans in Korea. If the Soviet hordes had crossed the inner German border we would have used anti-personnel mines extensively. They are a valued weapon and, until now, they have always been considered legitimate. The British doctrine is always to cover obstacles such as anti-personnel mines; otherwise, someone can quite easily breach them. They have been part of our defensive armoury and our tactics. The Secretary of State for Defence may say that senior Army officers now say that they can survive quite happily without them, but, if there were to be another major conflict, we might feel the lack of them.
  Landmines certainly have drawbacks from a military point of view. They deny the ground not only to the enemy but to one's own troops. If they get thrown off a position, they can end up stuck in their own minefield, which is pretty unpleasant. Furthermore, landmines are not failsafe. In 1945, in the dash to Berlin, the Soviet Union marched its penal battalions in front of its other troops and I believe that it lost 10,000 people to landmines in the month before reaching Berlin.
  I have also seen the inner German border and the Berlin wall before the iron curtain was lifted. It was covered with landmines—not to keep us out, but to keep people who did not like socialism in. We should remember that.
  1366
  We have heard about the problem, so I will not dwell on it, but it is not a British problem, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said. The problem is the indiscriminate use of landmines. The United Kingdom has not exported landmines since 1982. They do not threaten civilians in Angola and elsewhere if they are sitting in a bunker somewhere in Aldershot. No British anti-personnel mines are sitting in the ground threatening civilians anywhere.
  The hon. and learned Member who spoke for the Liberals referred to landmines in the Sahara. I think that they are all anti-tank mines, although I may be wrong. They are certainly metal mines. Furthermore, British troops have been taught, as I was, to mark minefields. That is part of international law. We want to clear them because we want the land back if we are in a defensive position.
  The Halo Trust has been mentioned by several hon. Members. One should remember that it was formed by a former Conservative Member of Parliament, Colin Mitchell.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I mentioned him.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention his party. I once had an interview with Colin Mitchell about going out to Kabul to work for the Halo Trust, where it has done immensely good work. I have many friends who have worked for it. However, we should be under no doubt that the Halo Trust—I have spoken to it—has never found one British anti-personnel mine in its clearing of hundreds of thousands. It may have missed them, but not one has been found.
  As hon. Members may know, in the Afghan conflict the Soviet Union went up and down the border with Pakistan to stop the mujaheddin getting in. It threw out from helicopters between 4 million and 5 million butterfly mines, which arm as they go down. They are all plastic, so they cannot be found. They look rather pretty, so children like them. Not many can have been cleared, so 4 million to 5 million must be left. I should point out that it is not possible to mark a minefield from a helicopter.
  In Cambodia, Bosnia and Angola, millions of mines have been laid indiscriminately. The vast majority come from Russia, the former eastern bloc and China. Russia and China are not ratifying the convention. Furthermore, many landmines, especially in Bosnia, are home made, as hon. Members may have seen. One can make landmines in a workshop in the garden or in the kitchen. All that is needed is a string, a trigger, a box and a bit of plastic explosive.
  Laying landmines is a favourite tactic of what some people call freedom fighters. The Viet Cong specialised in the use of booby traps, as does the IRA. I have had friends killed by home-made anti-personnel devices in Northern Ireland. So how will the Bill enforce the ban in, for example, Northern Ireland? I would love to see IRA criminals put on war crimes trials, but the House has just passed a measure that will let people convicted of such crimes out of prison within the next couple of years. We should look at that dichotomy.
  Mr. Skinner: Well, the hon. Gentleman voted for it.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman, voluble as always, bangs on saying that I voted for it. I did not.
  Mr. Skinner: Everyone did.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Robathan: So what is the point of the Bill? Is it to set a good example? We are all for that, but who will follow our example? Not, I suspect, UNITA or the Khmer Rouge, if it still exists, or the Taliban or the IRA. So what are we doing in the Bill? In my opinion, we shall be withdrawing a legitimate means of protecting our soldiers, who, to my knowledge, have not misused anti-personnel mines within my lifetime in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] We hear a lot of barracking from the Labour Benches, but three quarters of countries do not consider that the Bill is a sensible move because they have not ratified the convention. If everyone ratified the convention, it would be marvellous, but many other countries are not considering doing so at the moment. Perhaps they will, following our example.
  I fear that we may expose our public servants to danger. In every defence debate, Labour Members extol our public servants in the armed forces and say how well they work for us. One day, our public servants may value anti-personnel mines to protect them.
  Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman raises from his military experience some interesting points. Clearly this is a matter of great relevance to the armed forces. How does he react to the fact that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence has not even bothered to turn up today?
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend must speak for himself, but I can only assume that he has a long-standing constituency engagement that he was unable to break. The Secretary of State will note that the House is not packed on either side. Out of 400-odd Labour Members, only about 20 are present, so the Secretary of State's argument is not particularly good.
  I should say to the Secretary of State, as he intervened, that I just hope that there is never an occasion on which British soldiers are left exposed and die because they do not have anti-personnel mines in their armoury. Only on Wednesday, the Secretary of State made a very good riposte to one of his hon. Friends who argued that Britain should ban nuclear weapons to set a good example. He said that it was fine to set good examples, but not much good following them. It seems to me that that argument could be used in this debate.
  Hon. Members may have read a letter from the director of the Halo Trust in The Daily Telegraph. He said that it was marvellous that anti-personnel mines might be banned. He said that there were conferences here, there and everywhere, but he wished that, instead of spending money on air tickets, people would spend it on mine clearance. I pay tribute to the Government for increasing the amount of money that is being spent on clearance. Money is the core of the problem.
  I am not against the Bill, but some things need to be aired. We need to look at the matter from all angles. It is worrying when the House is united. If there is not
  1368
  discussion of all the arguments, we sometimes pass extraordinary measures. In my limited experience of six years, I have seen one or two, and I know that others who have been here longer have seen one or two others. The Child Support Agency floats immediately to the top of the pile.
  The problem that the world faces is clearing the mines. The hon. and learned Member for Invernesshire—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: North-East Fife. Inverness is about two hundred miles away.
  Mr. Robathan: Geography was never my strong point. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that 20 mines were laid for every mine that was cleared. Yes, we have to stop mines being laid, but we have to do more clearance.
  I do not believe that the Bill will help civilians throughout the world who are being killed. I do not believe that it will encourage China, Russia or others whose mines are being used to stop producing them. I would welcome a world without landmines and nuclear weapons, but I am not entirely sure that the Bill will further that aim.
  10.57 am
  Mr. Howard: With the leave of the House, I should like simply to say how sorry I am that we have not had time for more Second Reading speeches from the Back Benches. We have had two notable speeches—from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—and it is a shame that there was not time for more. I make it plain again that the official Opposition support the spirit of the Ottawa convention and will not obstruct the passage of the Bill, but we will continue to explore, during the Committee stage, the inconsistency between the Bill and the convention.
  10.58 am
  Mr. Robin Cook: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the debate. To respond to the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has just made, I am sure that, in the remaining three and a half hours, there will be adequate time for the three Conservative Back Benchers in the Chamber to speak.
  Perhaps I may respond to the questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked in his opening speech to which I have not already responded in our exchanges. It is the case that the Ottawa convention and therefore the Bill bans all anti-personnel mines, whether or not they are associated with anti-tank mines. The JP233 and the Gator mine are caught by the Ottawa convention.
  The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) touched on the serious problems of lifting mines that we face in the Falklands. Work was suspended because it was judged that the casualties were too high for the game. Nevertheless, we are seeking a feasibility study on how we can proceed with the best available technology to lift those mines.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we have an agreement to finish by four minutes past 11, and I have a few points to make.

  1369
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe asked about the cost of destroying our stockpile. The Government, as a matter of policy, are carrying that out in any case, so it is not a cost that arises directly from the Bill. However, for the record, the cost of destroying Britain's stockpile of landmines will be some £5 million. I hope that that helps to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I could of course say that if he had accepted our offer of a technical briefing yesterday, some of his questions could have been answered then.
  The House has already heard extensive arguments about clause 5, but what I have listened to leads me to expect that it is about to hear them again. The only point that I now make in response to that debate is that several hon. Members have rightly mentioned the extreme courage and dedication shown by members of the British Army when they carry out operations to lift landmines. I do not think that we can praise them for showing that courage and dedication and then leave them in any doubt about whether they may be liable for a prison sentence, not because they have deployed landmines but because they have taken part in an exercise in which someone else has deployed landmines. The least that we owe to those whom we ask to put their lives at risk is that we will not put their liberty at risk.
  Mr. Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: Very briefly.
  Mr. Colvin: If a British soldier comes before a court for being in breach of the convention, will it be a civil court, a criminal court, a court martial or an international court?
  Mr. Cook: I am advised by my right hon. and hon. Friends that in the event of British soldiers being brought to trial for any offence under the statute, there would be a court martial.
  A number of hon. Members have taken part in the debate, but I cannot say with immense confidence that every one them supported the Bill; I have reservations about making such an assertion simply because I was not quite clear on which side the hon. Member for Blaby came down at the end of his speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman managed to persuade himself to support the Bill.
  The others who took part in the debate fully and strongly supported the Bill. I entirely accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) about the fact that the most urgent priority now is to widen the signatories and those who have ratified the Ottawa convention so that it embraces not only the 126 countries that have already signed but the remaining countries, especially those who are large producers and exporters of landmines.
  I agreed with many of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
  1370
  Among other things, he asked whether the laying of landmines should be included as a war crime within the scope of the international criminal court. I understand why some people argue for that. In principle, it would not necessarily cause Britain great problems—but Britain is also one of the leading advocates of the international criminal court and is in the front rank of those trying to secure progress towards that court at the current conference in Rome. I do not think that it would be helpful in persuading other countries, especially America, to sign up to the international criminal court if we wrapped that up with this controversy too.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman on this occasion, as I have mentioned him, but this must be the last time I give way.
  Mr. Campbell: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for responding so positively to my point. In the same context, may I say that I support and greatly admire the robust stance that the Government are taking with regard to the independence of the prosecutor for an international criminal court?
  Mr. Cook: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. and learned Gentleman so that he could put that point on the record.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) spoke eloquently and movingly, and rightly drew attention to the immense contribution made on this issue, and to the campaigns associated with it, by Diana, Princess of Wales. Like my hon. Friend, I wish that Princess Diana's bold statements had been as welcome on both sides of the House while she was alive, and not only when she died.
  We can all be proud of Britain's record on this issue. In one year, we have halved our stockpile of landmines and doubled the contribution that we make to lifting landmines throughout the world. Britain played a leading part in the negotiations on the Ottawa convention: we signed it on the first day it was open for signature and we now have the opportunity to be among the first 40 countries to bring it into legal force. The way to do that is to give the Bill a Second Reading and to complete its remaining stages today. I commend that task to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [3 July].

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

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act;

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. Pope.]

  Question agreed to.

  Landmines Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Landmines Bill
    Clause 1

      MINES AND COMPONENTS TO WHICH ACT APPLIES
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      11.4 am
      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: As we have now moved into Committee, we shall have some opportunity to scrutinise the Bill more closely, although, in the restricted time available, it may not be possible to explore exhaustively matters that deserve detailed attention. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has expressed the wish, which I endorse, that those matters be pursued in greater depth in another place—not least because of the significance of what we are doing today, not only to those who have campaigned so vigorously for the abolition of anti-personnel mines, but for our own forces, who rely on weapons to preserve both life and liberty.
      It would not be a fitting tribute to those campaigners, including Diana, Princess of Wales, if we produced poor legislation in an attempt, however well intentioned, to rush the Bill through.
      Mr. Colvin: If ever there was a case for a pre-legislative hearing, this Bill presents one. As a member of the Defence Select Committee, I regret that that Committee did not have time to examine the minutiae—although I take the opportunity to congratulate the Library on the speed with which it managed to produce a briefing note on the subject. With a measure such as this, where there is a conflict between the heart and the head, it is vital to consider the military implications, so I regret the fact that the Defence Select Committee did not have the opportunity to consider the matter before the Bill was brought forward.
      Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend's remarks speak for themselves, and I support what he said about the Library. I hope that when I raise issues under clause 1, the Minister will not tell me that things would be better if I had attended the briefing session. Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that it is important for such matters to be discussed as a matter of record, in the open, rather than dealt with behind closed doors.
      The Minister will appreciate the fact that we have not tabled amendments to the clause, but in the stand part debate I hope to give him the opportunity to explore a little of the thinking behind the definitions in the clause and to clarify what is included within the parameters of the legislation. It is important to everyone who is closely observing the passage of the Bill that we establish beyond doubt what is covered and what is not. That need has been illustrated by some of the discussions on Second Reading.
      The definitions in the clause draw on the definitions in article 2 of the Ottawa convention, but they are not identical, and go beyond the convention. Will the Minister

      1373
      tell us why he considered it necessary to improve on the provisions of the convention, and whether these improvements are likely to be incorporated by other signatories to the convention?
      I understand that the Government are not proceeding with the future anti-personnel scatterable mine project; I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the case. However, given that the Government are supposed to be procuring 29 vehicle-launched scatterable anti-tank mine systems known as Shielder, manufactured by Alliant Techsystems, will the Minister first confirm that procurement, and secondly, clarify the status of those systems in relation to the Bill?
      The variety of scatterable mines produced by Alliant Techsystems is comprehensive, and includes those used in the Gator system, which has already been referred to, the m128 vehicle-towed mine dispenser—the GEMSS system—the Volcano multiple delivery system and several others. Those mines contain similar fusing, arming and functioning mechanisms and have interchangeable and compatible components. They all belong to the family of scatterable mines or FASCAM.
      The same company that produces those mines also produces the Shielder mine, and the technology is obviously similar. Can the Minister confirm the status of the Shielder mines under the Bill, and tell me whether any components could fall foul of the provisions, or whether he is satisfied that nothing in the Bill prohibits the use of those mines? Can the Minister further clarify the issue and say whether an anti-disturbance fuse will be fitted to those mines? If an anti-handling device is fitted, surely that achieves the effect of turning the device into an anti-personnel mine? An explanation would assist me, the House and those who have raised the matter with me.
      Command-detonated mines such as the M18A1 Claymore mine are currently exempt from the landmine ban, as they are command-detonated by electrical means. However, I understand that the Army, under ministerial clearance, could fit those mines with trip-wire booby trap switches. That could be authorised at a time of war by Government and almost any booby trap switch could be fitted to those mines.
      Can the Minister tell me how he perceives the Claymore mines and whether he intends to alter the discretionary ministerial powers in any way, or to retain them for the sake of the efficacy of our armed services? In other words, can he confirm that nothing in the Bill will prevent a Minister from authorising the conversion of those mines into anti-personnel mines?
      I do not want to detain the House, but it would be helpful to observers if the Minister could answer those questions. Perhaps he would also consider producing for the House a list of mines currently held in the United Kingdom or in the process of being procured, and identify whether they are banned by the legislation or excluded and, if the latter, the reason for that exclusion. That would go some way towards clarifying the definitions in clause 1.
      I add my support for the Bill to the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I hope that the Minister will amplify those points, which will help with the interpretation of the Bill.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I was a little surprised at the mean-spirited way in which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) introduced her remarks. In view of the consensus on the need to introduce the Bill, it is a shame that an offer to brief the shadow Foreign and Defence Secretaries and their teams should be treated as an attempt to lull the Opposition into a false sense of security.
      Mrs. Gillan: My voice is failing, as I have a very sore throat, but I have never been called mean-spirited from the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons. I was being extremely open. I welcome the provisions of the Bill, but, like every observer of the Bill, including Labour Members, I believe that the details deserve proper and open discussion in the forum of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark, as I am not being mean-spirited in any sense.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. My concern is that the Committee should concentrate on clause 1.
      Mr. Lloyd: Urged by you to make haste, Mr. Martin, I shall pass beyond the hon. Lady's exhortations.
      Matters of definition are of the utmost importance, and there is an explicit distinction in the Ottawa convention between anti-personnel landmines and anti-tank mines. That is also clear in the Government's approach.
      Some of the hon. Lady's questions about definition could properly have been answered at the technical briefing. It is equally proper to raise technical questions on the Floor of the House. There is no contradiction, as I hope the House will accept.
      The Shielder system is not caught by the provisions of the treaty or of our own legislation, so it is effectively exempt. Inevitably, component parts would also be exempt under the Bill, as they would be components not of an anti-personnel landmine, but of an anti-tank mine. I hope that provides the reassurance that the hon. Lady seeks.
      11.15 am
      The United Kingdom does not have, and will not acquire, the Gator system. The Gator system is not part of the Shielder system, so the question does not arise whether Gator is a component part and whether it is legal under the Bill.
      Mr. Colvin: That illustrates the problems that the House faces. The Shielder system may be designed to blow up vehicles, but in practice it will blow up people. It has a highly sensitive magnetic fuse, which can easily be set off by a person walking close to it. If the Government are to spend £62 million buying those weapons, we should be clear that they will not suddenly be deemed to be illegal under the convention.
      Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is technically wrong. Anti-handling devices—anti-tamper devices—are not operable in the same way as an anti-personnel landmine, by simple contact. Significantly more than that is required. It is not the sensitive device that the hon. Gentleman describes, but a much more robust system,

      1375
      which gives a different type of protection. It is important for the House to understand that there is not just a clear conceptual distinction, but a clear practical difference between the two. For those reasons, anti-handling devices on anti-tank mines do not fall within the remit of the Bill or the Ottawa convention.
      I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady if I have not responded to all her questions, but I hope that I have demonstrated that technical queries can be fully answered on the Floor of the House. There is no reason to suggest that we are making slow progress, although we may be about to enter such a phase.
      Mr. Robert Key: One of the reasons why we are anxious to take the matter on the Floor of the House is that many technical experts who are involved in charities, such as the Mines Advisory Group, have asked the Ministry of Defence for technical details of the fusing mechanisms, to ascertain whether an anti-disturbance fuse is fitted, and that information has been denied to them on the ground that it is classified.
      Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should make classified information available. Consistent with the need to protect our defence systems, the Ministry of Defence will make technical information available to the various interest groups, and has already done so.
      Mr. George Robertson indicated assent.
      Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend confirms that, so there can be no suggestion of an attempt to obstruct the progress of the Bill or to stifle national debate by failing to provide such information.
      Mr. Colvin: The Ministry of Defence makes classified material available to the Defence Select Committee, which reinforces the argument for a pre-legislative inquiry into the matter. When the measure reaches the other place, I hope that a Select Committee will take evidence from experts—particularly regarding the military matters mentioned in the discussion—rather than plunging headlong into debates on the Floor of the Chamber without the necessary technical back-up.
      Mr. Lloyd: I have sought confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence who, like all members of the Cabinet, is more than willing to attend meetings of the various Select Committees. Hon. Members may recall that that was a matter of debate across the House when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear the pleasure that he derives from appearing before Select Committees. The Secretary of State for Defence is happy to make information available to the Select Committee, but he informs me that no such invitation has been received.
      We are now many months into the debate on anti-personnel landmines. It is not a new issue, and the types of systems that we are discussing this morning are not new. These technical questions could have been asked, but they were not. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary offered to give precisely that sort of technical briefing to the Opposition. That would have been a sensible way to proceed, but I record once again the fact that that invitation was not accepted.
      Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister confirm that he is now offering to provide an answer to my question about the
      1376
      anti-disturbance fuse on the Shielder mines and will give such information to the Select Committee? The Mines Advisory Group has not received a reply to that question, and the Minister has not clarified the issue in his remarks this morning.
      Mr. Lloyd: I have answered the hon. Lady already. However, for the sake of simplicity and so that there is no misunderstanding on her part, I shall try again.
      The Shielder system will not detonate if merely touched inadvertently. That information is available to the Committee this morning. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence sent two long letters about that issue to precisely the sort of groups that the hon. Lady claims have not received any answers. The information is already in the public domain, but I shall put it on the record again this morning. Far from the Government's attempting to hide information from the Committee or the public, there has been a remarkable lack of interest on the part of Opposition Members regarding those technical questions. Nevertheless, we are happy to have spent 11 minutes answering the full range of technical questions posed by Opposition Members.
      Mrs. Gillan: I cannot believe that the Minister has sat down; I fully expected him to speak for longer. He has singularly failed to answer my questions. He has not even mentioned Claymore mines or booby traps, and he has not responded to my request as to whether a list could be produced in order to clarify the situation for outside organisations. It is one of the most unsatisfactory responses that I have received from a Minister at the Dispatch Box. The Minister has failed to brief himself about this issue. He has been taking copious verbal briefings from his colleagues on the Front Bench, and the record will show that he has failed to answer the questions posed very reasonably from this side of the Chamber.
      I am seeking information, not just for myself and the Committee, but for observers outside who will be disappointed by the Minister's reply. I shall give the Minister an opportunity to study my remarks and to write to me before the Bill reaches the other place.
      Mr. MacShane: Mean-spirited.
      Mrs. Gillan: I am not being mean-spirited; it is not in my nature. However, those matters must be answered fully and I hope that the Minister will write to me. He may not be fully briefed in these areas and the matters are technical and complex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) pointed out. However, we owe the observers of these proceedings the details that I have requested.
      On 9 July, the Mines Advisory Group wrote to the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and said:
      "MAG has asked the MOD for technical details of the fusing mechanism to ascertain whether an Anti-Disturbance fuse is fitted. This has been denied to us under the title of 'classified information'. We have assurances that no Anti-Personnel mines will be procured with the new Shielder System but an Anti-Handling device will achieve that effect anyway."

      1377
      I am only as good as the briefings that I get, but that is pretty unambiguous. I hope that the Minister will address that issue in a letter to me, as he could not do so verbally on the Floor of the Chamber.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: Some moments ago, I invited the hon. Lady to intervene if she believed that I had not answered her questions. As she did not take up my offer at the time, I was rather surprised when she rose to say that I had not answered her questions.
      It is important to establish several points exactly. The Defence Select Committee sent a list of detailed questions to the Ministry of Defence, and it received proper answers. The Mines Advisory Group received two long and detailed replies from the Ministry of Defence in answer to its questions. As the hon. Lady said, she is only as good as the briefings that she receives. However, if she had accepted the briefing offered by my hon. Friends, she would have received the information that is already in the public domain and which was provided to the Mines Advisory Group.
      The Claymore system—this seems to be the last of the hon. Lady's preoccupations—is exempt because it is a command control system, and therefore is not detonated by physical contact. I shall undertake to examine the record and, if any questions have not been answered, I shall almost certainly write to the hon. Lady well before proceedings in another place. If the hon. Lady prefers to put down parliamentary questions, I or my hon. Friends will ensure that the information is available. The hon. Lady seems to be preoccupied with the private briefing that she has already rejected, but most of the information is already in the public domain.
      Mr. Colvin: I have a certain sympathy with the Minister, and I direct this question to him and the Foreign Secretary. Is it not about time that arms control matters were handled by the Ministry of Defence rather than by the Foreign Office, because the Minister is receiving all his answers this morning from the Secretary of State for Defence?
      Mr. Lloyd: That is a quite astonishing proposition for several reasons.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That matter is far too wide of the clause that we are considering.
      Mr. Lloyd: I shall not explain my astonishment, but it may assist the Committee if I were to assure hon. Members that Ministers in the Defence team will participate in the Committee's proceedings. I assure hon. Members that they have been closely involved in the deliberations in the run-up to Britain's acceptance of the Ottawa convention and in the detailed work that has been done since then. The idea that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence should work separately on such issues would command little support elsewhere. With that, I trust that I have answered the questions. It has taken a little longer than I originally suggested. It has now taken about 18 minutes to answer the Opposition's detailed
      1378
      questions on all the technical aspects of these matters. I think that that shows that the detailed examination of the Bill that they want has now been achieved.
      Mrs. Gillan: What about the matter of ministerial clearance for booby trapping the mines that I raised?
      Mr. Lloyd: I have already undertaken to ensure that all outstanding matters will be answered either by myself or by Defence Ministers. Those answers can be placed in the public domain. That is a perfectly reasonable answer to the hon. Lady, to the House of Commons and to the wider world. I trust that with that we can now make progress.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      PROHIBITED CONDUCT
      11.30 am
      Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'to' and insert ', 4 and'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 3, in clause 5, page 4, line 31, leave out from 'to' to 'the' in line 32 and insert
      'active assistance in any activity prohibited under'.
      Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 37, leave out
      'was not the laying of an anti-personnel mine'
      and insert
      'did not involve active assistance in any activity prohibited under the Ottawa Convention'.
      Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 7, leave out from 'Convention' to end of line 8.
      Clause 5 stand part.
      Mr. Howard: I shall begin by disposing of one of the red herrings which the Foreign Secretary, who I am sorry to say has left us, attempted to put into our path during our earlier discussions. It is an instructive red herring. The right hon. Gentleman sought to imply that clause 5 was in some way associated with the ability of British service men to undertake operations that would have the effect of destroying, clearing or dismantling landmines. Clause 5 has absolutely nothing to do with that. There is a separate exemption in the Bill for those operations, which is to be found in clause 4. We have absolutely no problem with clause 4. Indeed, that clause matches and mirrors article 3 of the Ottawa convention. That is precisely what one would expect to find in this legislation—a match between the provisions of the Bill and the provisions of the convention.
      The trouble with clause 5 is that it is not matched or mirrored in any way by anything in the convention. I shall make it clear for the avoidance of any doubt that the amendment, together with amendment No. 3 to clause 5, has been tabled so that we can debate the hole at the heart of the legislation. We do not say that there is no military argument to justify the exemption from the provisions of the convention that clause 5 seeks to provide. It may be interesting and illustrative that the impression I gain from

      1379
      those on the Government Front Bench is that the debate will be replied to by a Defence Minister and not a Foreign Office Minister.
      We say, and our charge is, that it has always been the practice of Her Majesty's Government to honour the provisions of treaties and conventions that they have signed. We say that if the Government now find compelling the military arguments that we shall no doubt hear from the Secretary of State for Defence or the Minister for the Armed Forces, which have led them to insert clause 5, they should have found them compelling when they came to sign up to the convention in December 1997. It is the contradictions between the convention and the Bill's provisions on which we seek to focus attention, and they are the thrust of the debate.
      On Second Reading, I read out the provisions of the convention. I do not intend to read out article 1.1 again. The effect of article 1.1 is absolutely clear, unequivocal and explicit. It permits no assistance to be given to any party that is not a signatory to the convention when the forces of that country are taking part in activities that are prohibited by the convention. According to article 1.1, if troops of Britain find themselves together in military operations with troops of the United States or of Turkey—a fellow member of NATO—or any other country that is not a signatory to the convention, they are not permitted to assist those forces in the activities that are prohibited by the convention—that is, anything to do with the laying of landmines. That is what the convention provides.
      Clause 5 seeks to permit certain activities that would otherwise constitute an offence. In other words, it purports to permit activities that are contrary to the convention. Let us consider the relevant provisions in clause 5. The relevant part of the clause is subsection (2), which reads:
      "In proceedings for a section 2 offence in respect of any conduct"—
      that is, any conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by this legislation—
      "it is a defence for the accused to prove that…the conduct was in the course of, or for the purposes of, a military operation or the planning of a military operation".
      We have no problem with that. The subsection continues by providing that
      "the conduct was not the laying of an anti-personnel mine".
      That is the only specific conduct that is prohibited by the clause. The subsection continues by providing that
      "at the time of the conduct he believed, on reasonable grounds, that the operation was or would be an operation to which this section applies; and he did not suspect, and had no grounds for suspecting, that the conduct related to the laying of anti-personnel mines in contravention of the Ottawa convention."
      That is what subsection (2) states. It is made clear elsewhere in the clause that if the activity is by forces of a country that is not a signatory to the convention, according to the Bill, that is not activity in contravention of the convention.
      What does all that mean? It means that a range of activity expressly prohibited under the Ottawa convention is permitted under the terms of the Bill. It means that if British forces were engaged in joint operations with a non-signatory state such as the United States, clause 5 would enable British service men to procure a landmine, to transfer it to the battlefield, to transport it to the precise spot where they thought that it should be laid and to point to that very spot before handing the object over to
      1380
      the Americans and asking them to place the object in the ground. British forces could then modify or adapt the landmine. They could even prime it. That is what clause 5 would permit. The only activity that is prohibited in the course of those joint operations by clause 5 is the actual laying of the landmine itself, which is identified in clause 5(2).
      There may be military justification to permit such activities. However, it is absolutely clear that those acts would be in complete contravention of article 1 of the Ottawa convention. It is—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Secretary of State for Defence talks about rules of engagement. That is completely beside the point. We are talking not about rules of engagement but about legislation. It may well be that the Government will issue rules of engagement that will prohibit the activities to which I have referred. The point is that the legislation before us would permit them to make entirely different rules of engagement. It is no answer to my argument that the Government intend to make rules of engagement that have a different effect. We must consider the legislation that is before the House of Commons, and that legislation would enable all the activities to which I have referred to take place.
      It is no use Ministers saying either that they will not permit those activities according to rules of engagement or that there is a powerful military justification for those activities. If that is the case, they should have thought of that military justification when the convention was negotiated and should, if they felt it necessary, have put forward amendments to the convention. I hope that we shall be told during the debate whether the Government sought to table any amendments to the convention to give effect to clause 5, which would permit activity that is completely in breach of the convention.
      The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): British forces throughout the world will be listening with great interest to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. The rules of engagement, which this or any other Government would lay down, do not force soldiers to do anything; they permit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is implying that, despite the Government's signing the convention, passing the Bill and laying down rules of engagement, the honour of British forces would be impugned by activities in which they would be willing to engage in breach of all those things. That is a scurrilous and disgraceful implication and I hope that he withdraws it immediately.
      Mr. Howard: That is a disgraceful intervention. It is the honour of the Government that is at stake, not the honour of British forces. I would never do anything to impugn the honour of British forces.
      Dr. Reid: It is a disgraceful allegation—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must calm down. We have the ability to debate these matters in a reasonable manner. I cannot allow arguments across the Floor of the Committee.
      Mr. Howard: The Minister's intervention shows how little he understands about the Bill's provisions. We are concerned about the legislation.

      1381
      If the Government say that they would never issue rules of engagement that would take advantage of clause 5, why is it in the Bill? Why on earth do the provisions in the Bill not match what the Government say they will set out in the rules of engagement? The Government cannot have it all ways. They must match the provisions of the Bill to those of the convention.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the Bill is passed unamended, what would be the nature of the instrument of ratification lodged by the British Government in respect of the convention? Would that instrument of ratification have to contain some reservation or condition in the light of clause 5?
      Mr. Howard: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point. I intended to raise it later in my remarks, but I am content to adopt it because I do not want to prolong my speech. It is a pertinent question and I hope that it will be answered during the debate.
      I remind the Committee of the provisions of article 9 of the convention, which states:
      "Each State Party shall take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures, including the imposition of penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control."
      I assume that the Bill is the means by which the Government seek to give effect to article 9. It is the way in which the Government seek to prohibit by British forces activity that is prohibited by the convention. That is why the Government are in breach of their duties under the convention and are putting before the House legislation that is at variance with the terms of the convention.
      11.45 am
      When did the Government first become aware of the arguments that led them to insert clause 5? Was the Ministry of Defence consulted before the Government signed the convention? Did not the Ministry of Defence then make clear its reservations about joint operations with countries that did not sign the convention? Were those reservations simply ignored by the Foreign Office when it came to negotiate the convention, or did it try to amend the convention to reflect the concerns of the Ministry of Defence? Did it fail? Those questions lie at the heart of the inconsistency with which the Government are approaching the matter, and we must have answers to them.
      It is a matter of deep regret that the Attorney-General is no longer with us—
      Mr. George Robertson: Where is the shadow Attorney-General?
      Mr. Howard: The shadow Attorney-General is undertaking a series of long-standing engagements today. His deputy is in the House and will actively participate in our scrutiny of the Bill.
      Let us get down to the issues that really matter. The Attorney-General intervened earlier in the debate, but in a most general and unhelpful way. He expressed himself
      1382
      in agreement with a proposition put by the Foreign Secretary, but did so in the most general terms and did not approach the detailed interpretation of the Bill, which is relevant to the consideration of these matters. If the Attorney-General were here now, I am confident that he would be able to confirm that clause 5 will permit all the activities that I identified earlier in my remarks.
      The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked how the Government seek to ratify the Bill and whether they intend to propose a declaration when the time comes. I hope that we shall be told in what circumstances it may be possible for the Government to be taken to the International Court of Human Rights at The Hague, so that its interpretation of the convention may be put to the test.
      Reference was made in the debate on Second Reading to the precedent adopted by the Government of Canada. The Foreign Secretary said, if my recollection is correct, that the Government's attitude was similar to that taken by the Government of Canada, but that is far from the case. I have the legislation passed by the Canadian Government before me and it is in very different terms from those of the Bill. It contains an express distinction between what is termed "active assistance" and passive assistance. It is accompanied by a declaration of understanding, which the Canadian Government have entered to the Ottawa convention. The Canadian legislation provides that participation in military operations is to be regarded as permissible so long as that does not amount to active assistance with prohibited activity.
      The Secretary of State nods. There are no words to that effect in the Bill. The Government are not following the precedent set by the Canadian Government. The Bill is miles away from the Canadian precedent.
      Dr. Reid: It is not.
      Mr. Howard: Perhaps the Minister of State could refer me to the language in the Bill that mirrors the language to which I have just pointed in the Canadian legislation. It simply is not there.
      Dr. Reid: It is the same pattern and process, not the same subject of detail. The interpretive declaration was put in at the time of ratification.
      Mr. Howard: I have no idea what that intervention means and I doubt whether any other hon. Member does—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Ministers and others on the Government Front Bench must be quiet. I have called the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to speak, and he is the only person who should be speaking.
      Mr. Howard: This is not a matter that requires a technical briefing from the Ministry of Defence. It is a matter for the Foreign Office. It is not the Ministry of Defence's view with which we take issue; we take issue with the Foreign Office's view. If the Ministry of Defence, for good reason, wanted to insert something like clause 5 in the Bill—there may be good reason for doing so—we have no argument with that. However, if that is

      1383
      the view taken by the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office should have reflected that view when it negotiated the convention. The problem is not whether clause 5 is needed; it is that it is absolutely inconsistent with the convention. Nothing in the convention would give rise to an exception that comes anywhere near the provisions of the clause. That is the mess that the Government have got into, and, because they have got into that mess, they are asking hon. Members to agree to a Bill that would contravene the Ottawa convention, put this country in breach of its obligations under that convention and make our country depart from its long-standing tradition of honouring, ratifying and implementing in every detail the treaties and conventions that it has signed.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I promise not to get too exercised if my old friend the Minister for the Armed Forces displays his customary zeal in defending the armed services. He has a long tradition of doing that, as a shadow Minister and from the Treasury Bench, and I understand his anxiety to ensure that they are properly protected. He will know that I do not seek to reflect on the honour of the armed services; I never served, but at least one member of my wife's family did, with great distinction. I am as conscious as he is of the importance of ensuring that the armed services are properly instructed and are not laid open unnecessarily to the possibility of conviction, and that we provide a proper legislative framework.
      If clause 5 is, as the Minister for the Armed Forces describes it, the "heat of the battle" clause, I should make this point to him. He had reservations about my introduction of the concept of mens rea, or guilty intention, although they were not quite as robust as those of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has left the Chamber. Every soldier who fights on the battlefield has to obey the Geneva convention. So long as his actions are in accordance with it—or even if they are not, and he has not displayed any guilty intention—he would not be guilty of an offence. The notion of guilty intent is already in the international legal framework by which we determine the actions of soldiers, sailors and airmen when they are engaged in operations on our behalf.
      The shadow Foreign Secretary and I share a view about clause 5, but we do not share precisely the same view about the solution. If he were to press clause 5 stand part to a vote, the clause could be taken out of the Bill altogether
      Mr. Howard: I sought to make it clear at the outset that I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote and that I do not seek to remove clause 5 from the Bill. The purpose of our amendment is to demonstrate the inconsistency between clause 5 and the convention, so there is nothing between the hon. and learned Gentleman and me on that point.
      Mr. Campbell: It may be that I can persuade the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the merits of our amendments. There is need for a form of what is in clause 5 and for a defence for soldiers engaged on the battlefield. There is not only a need; they are entitled to such a defence. He and I join forces on the fact that that defence should be consistent with the Ottawa convention and not apparently contradictory of it.
      1384
      It is important to remind ourselves that article 1 of the convention contains a blanket prohibition, the terms of which we are all now familiar with, but only one exception to that is allowed—article 3, which allows for
      "the retention…of a number of anti-personnel mines for the development of and training in mine detection, mine clearance, or mine destruction".
      There is an issue there, because I understand that Italy has said that it intends to maintain 200,000 anti-personnel landmines for those purposes. Some people might think that 200,000 was a rather generous margin, and there may be a question about the strength of the language in respect of numbers.
      It is understandable, and even desirable, that there should be a defence of the kind that clause 5 creates, but the difficulty is that clause 5(1) further defines the offence created by clause 2. It goes on to provide what is essentially a defence, at subsection (2). The effect of taking the two together is that a person charged with contravention of clause 2 could not be convicted if the conduct that had been complained of did not relate to the laying of anti-personnel mines in contravention of the Ottawa convention.
      Likewise, under subsection (2), if proceedings were taken against such a person, it would be a valid defence to say that the conduct took place in the course of, or was for the purposes of, a military operation or the planning of such an operation, and was not the laying of any anti-personnel mines. The effect of that is that conduct up to, but not including, the laying of anti-personnel mines would not be struck at by the criminal provisions.
      Our amendments are designed to make the position even clearer than it would be under clause 5 as it stands. We propose in amendment No. 3 the deletion of the words:
      "the laying of anti-personnel mines in contravention of the Ottawa Convention"
      and the substitution of the words:
      "active assistance in any activity prohibited under"
      the Ottawa convention. In amendment No. 4, we propose the deletion of the words:
      "was not the laying of an anti-personnel mine"
      and the substitution of the words:
      "did not involve active assistance in any activity prohibited under the Ottawa Convention".
      For my money, that is much more specific than the current provisions, which operate as much by implication as by express provision. It is right that any British soldier engaged in an international operation should have a valid defence, so long as he or she did not actively assist in any activity prohibited under the Ottawa convention, as those are defined in article 1 of the convention, and so long as his or her conduct did not involve active assistance in any activity prohibited under the convention.
      By adopting a formula such as that which I have suggested, one would make the terms of the convention and of the statutory provision virtually identical; indeed, one would be adopting by reference the terms of the convention into the statutory provision. That deals with the point that we should have legislation consistent with the convention; it also has the advantage that it spells out in the clearest possible detail to the soldier in the heat of the battlefield that, so long as he or she does not do something amounting to active assistance, he or she

      1385
      cannot be the subject of criminal proceedings. If such people became the subject of criminal proceedings, they would be entitled to pray in aid the defence in subsection (2).
      Mr. Colvin: I am trying to follow the gist of what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, and what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), our Front-Bench spokesman. When two lawyers get to work, it is sometimes difficult for the rest of us to keep up. I was under the impression that clause 5, which allows for exemptions and reservations, could not be law under the convention. I understood that article 19 of the Ottawa convention ruled out any reservations, so how can we pass the Bill as it stands and honour the convention?
      Mr. Campbell: We can pass the Bill in any form we choose. The House is not bound to pass the Bill in a form prescribed by the convention, although the form in which we pass it may have consequences for whether we are able to ratify the convention, and whether the instrument of ratification is credible and valid. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about article 19, but my amendments would meet it by making it plain that so long as the individual concerned was not giving active assistance in any activity prohibited under the convention, he or she would have a valid defence. That would be a much clearer statement of affairs.
      Because the laying of anti-personnel mines is specifically referred to, conduct up to, but not including, the laying of mines, would, by implication, be excused. It would be better, and it would be consistent with the convention, to adopt the formula of active assistance. That would make clause 5 consistent with the convention while avoiding any need to enter any reservation when the Government lodge the instrument of ratification. That can only be in our interests, and I hope that the Committee will consider the amendment sympathetically.
      Ms Oona King: Clause 5(2)(d) provides a defence for British military personnel whose conduct is
      "related to the laying of anti-personnel mines".
      If the defence is that laying an anti-personnel mine requires the other prerequisites given for the transfer or transport of landmines, how widely can the net be thrown? It is obvious that we need a defence for British personnel, but British forces will not be allowed to use, possess, transfer or transport mines, or to assist others in doing so. Is this not an adequate defence?
      12 noon
      If, in the parallel universe occasionally raised by the Opposition today—I mean no disrespect by that, but I worked in Nicaragua in 1986 and saw the effects of landmines—clause 5 allowed any loophole, which I do not believe it does, will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary undertake to review the legislation? Clause 5 hinges on the need for members of NATO and international allies to sign the Ottawa convention,
      1386
      particularly the United States. It is often said that we are five years behind the USA; let us hope that America will not be five years behind us in this case.
      Sir Robert Smith: I did not intend to speak today, but the opening speeches left me concerned that political divisions sometimes prevent us from scrutinising the details of criminal legislation. At times, people are forced away from accepting reasonable words, such as those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on how to improve clause 5. We should seek consistency, particularly in criminal legislation. When we dealt with the Crime and Disorder Bill, the Government felt it right to draw the criminal net widely, saying that we need not worry about its drawing in people who should not be drawn in because those who implement the law will use regulations to avoid that. Today, they have flipped that logic the other way, arguing that exceptions should be drawn widely, so that people will not be brought into the net who should be drawn in under the convention.
      The purpose of the House is to draft Bills and scrutinise them. It is perfectly in order for a Committee to amend a Bill, or to say that amendments can be made in the other place to tighten and improve the Bill. That is the purpose of the Committee stage. I hope that the Government will consider the arguments carefully and seek to bring the Bill more closely in line with the treaty.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome the Bill and the fact that we have set aside special time in which to pass it. However, whenever the House passes legislation relatively quickly, there is a risk that we may inadvertently draft the Bill badly and end up with something that is not quite what we intended. There may be such a risk in the drafting of clause 5.
      There is another way of looking at clause 5. It seems odd that people who thought that during the election I was completely outrageous to campaign for the Labour party's position on anti-personnel mines have hinted that clause 5 is designed to enable Britain enthusiastically to participate in joint operations with countries, such as the USA, which are not signatories to the convention, and that we want to slide under the wire the fact that that may involve us in doing things that are wrong, immoral and are prohibited by the convention. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention.
      During the progress of the Bill, it may be necessary to consider ways in which we can refine the wording to ensure that it is clear that we are on all fours with the convention, but that, in the circumstances described by the Foreign Secretary and others that are, as it were, closer to the border, the ordinary soldier is not criminalised by the Bill. That is not the intention, and it is absolutely essential that we should make that clear. I am sure that it is possible to draft the Bill in such a way as to achieve that.
      I hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces will be able to assure me that the drafting in no way puts us at risk of being outside parts of the convention, as I am worried that it may do so. I am also anxious that, as we have so much business in the other place, if we spend ages considering this matter, other important Government business will disappear. Many of us who have been enthusiastic to get the Bill through have faced that argument. We are in a cleft stick.

      1387
      I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the intention of clause 5 is merely to ensure that we do not criminalise officers of Her Majesty's forces who are doing their duty, who are working beside other forces that do not have our same international commitments and who unknowingly—that word is significant—participate in activities that may contravene the convention. I am confident that any necessary detailed wording changes can be considered after this debate. I should be grateful for some assurance about the fundamental intention of the clause.
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on making that point. Many people are worried about clause 5, because they feel that it allows us to cop out of the Ottawa treaty. It enables us to say, "Oh well, it wasn't us. It was the Americans in NATO who said that we were to participate in this action. We weren't there at the time, guv." I hope that that element of clause 5 was not intended, but the feeling is that it provides an excuse.
      I am not a military person, and I know nothing of military matters. If we are operating as part of NATO and an American NATO commander gives an order to lay landmines, what is the position of our troops? How does this legislation work in a military exercise? Do our troops become conscientious objectors, and are they sent to peel the spuds? Perhaps the Minister will answer those questions.
      Mr. Colvin: It is too late to table further amendments, but I cannot understand why the body of the clause cannot be more explicit. Clause 5 is entitled, "International military operations", but its wording throughout omits the word "international". I hope that the Bill will get its Third Reading, but, in the time between the proceedings in this House and in the other place, the Government should consider inserting in clause 5 the word "international", which would make the meaning of the body of the clause far easier for people like me and the world outside to understand.
      Dr. Reid: I shall start, I hope usefully, by dealing with the issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). She spoke about the Government's motivation; the armed forces, presumably as instruments of the Government's will; and her fears about clause 5 and our troops being given orders within alliances by a commander of a state that had not ratified the convention. I shall deal with those matters in turn.
      The hon. Member recognised the balance that we had to consider when we were framing clause 5. Our troops would not carry out such an order because, for them, it would be an illegal order. On motivation, the hon. Lady need not fear that a Government who were prepared to ratify the convention, pass law, take a lead on these matters and lead the world in many ways within days of coming to office should somehow all along have wished to avoid the consequences of their actions. That would be a bizarre interpretation of motivation. I impugn the honour of no hon. Member, and for anyone to imply that not only the Government but British troops would wish to conduct themselves in that way impugns the honour of our troops. That was one of the reasons that I gave, perhaps too robustly, for rejecting the claims made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
      1388
      I am surprised that many who have spoken in the debates, not only on clause 5 but on the Bill as a whole, seemed to question the Government's commitment to the Ottawa principles and the global elimination of anti-personnel landmines. Clause 5 has been portrayed as some kind of betrayal of the Ottawa convention. Such a claim is extraordinary, especially in view of the identity of some of the accusers: the previous Government were hardly distinguished by the urgency of their commitment to abolish anti-personnel landmines.
      I had hoped that, whatever the past contained, the Government and the Opposition would be able to proceed, in the name of the nation, on one of the great humane moves of the 1990s and possibly of the century while protecting the honour and lives of British troops and reducing the practical risks to them. Motivation has featured in the debate. The Government took the lead on this issue, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. Within days of the new Government's coming to office, I was called to the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, whose prime responsibility is to balance the great issues of humanity, civilisation, law and liberty. The unique tasks that we discharge through our troops means asking them to act not in rooms in which liberal lawyers have discussions but on the world's battlefields where life and limb are put at risk. On the issue of landmines, there was no question about the side of the fence on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence came down. The same applies to the Chief of the Defence Staff. The British troops were involved in that discussion, as was the Foreign Office.
      Apart from taking that lead, and apart from early ratification, we have already introduced an export ban. A moratorium on use has been in place almost since the day that we came into office. Our stockpiles are being destroyed even more rapidly than we anticipated in that first week that they would. We have destroyed 46 per cent. of them—almost 500,000 landmines—since we came into office.
      In addition, of the many thousands of mines in the Falkland Islands that have now been located, only one is British. Even though they are not our mines, however, demining of the Falklands is actively being considered. Work on putting appropriate verification arrangements in place is well advanced and we are assisting others in meeting their obligations under the convention.
      In addition, we have created the humanitarian mine action section of the Ministry of Defence, as well as the mine information and training centre, which is run by the Royal Engineers with the specific aim of helping non-governmental organisations and others to deal with the blight of anti-personnel landmines that have already been laid throughout the world.
      12.15 pm
      Before today, I did not think that even the Government's worst enemy would suggest that, rather than leading the campaign to eliminate global landmines,

      1389
      we had somehow been devoting our energies all along to thwarting the campaign—I counted without the shadow Foreign Secretary.
      Sir Robert Smith: I hope that the Minister will recognise that many of us do not doubt the motivation. We are trying to ensure that the wording is accurately drafted in Committee.
      Dr. Reid: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded me of part of my job. Another part of it is to respond to the points that have been raised by hon. Members, and one of them was the motivation question, raised by his colleague, the hon. Member for Richmond Park. It deserved a response because it underlies some of the suspicions, fears and implied criticisms that are being engendered by the shadow Foreign Secretary. However, I maintain that the Government's commitment is not in doubt.
      Our motivation is not in question because, in contrast to the previous Government, our actions and practical moves have spoken louder than our words—and the people of Britain know that—but we did not and do not interpret the Ottawa convention to mean that coherent and effective joint operations that are carried out alongside non-signatory, non-ratifying allies should risk criminalising United Kingdom service men and women; our service personnel should not risk prison because of the acts of others. We did not and will not countenance putting our service men and women in that position.
      That reading would not only call into question the future cohesion and effectiveness of NATO but would have serious implications for coalition action anywhere in the world, as well as for our service men and women. The important distinctions and nuances of legal interpretation that we are discussing are important, but nothing would give Saddam Hussein, or future Saddam Husseins, greater pleasure than the realisation that the Ottawa convention could be taken to prevent this country from playing an effective role in coalitions that might otherwise repel aggression or enforce peace. I will explain the practical implications of some of that.
      Mr. David Heath: I am listening to the Minister's arguments carefully and I agree entirely: we must ensure that our troops are in no doubt whatever about their ability to participate in joint operations. However, will he reflect on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)? On the hypothetical position of a non-ratifying country commander giving an order to a British soldier, the Minister said that the soldier could rightly say that it was illegal to lay a mine, but does he not accept that, under clause 5, that soldier could not give the same reply if he were ordered to assist in laying a mine? As a protection for our troops, would it not be better if the Bill were absolutely explicit, so that no ambiguity existed?
      Dr. Reid: I am coming to that very point and to the Liberal Democrat amendments. At the moment, I am dealing with the more general objection enshrined in the amendment tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary, which would delete the whole of clause 5 and leave our
      1390
      troops without any legal defence whatever. That is different from the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Howard: I repeat what I have said at least twice today. The amendment was tabled as a peg for a debate on a very important question about which disquiet has been expressed in all quarters of the House—the relationship between clause 5 and the Ottawa convention. I made it plain from the outset that I was not going to press the amendment to a vote, and that it was simply a peg for debate.
      Dr. Reid: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a learned and prestigious Queen's counsel, I think; I am just a common 5' 8". He has had a week in which to table a reasoned amendment and to offer a different legal interpretation, but he has chosen to table an amendment that would delete the whole of clause 5 which provides a defence for British troops. I was merely observing that that is somewhat different from the amendments tabled by the other Queen's counsel, the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I made that distinction in response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
      Mr. Howard: It may help the hon. Gentleman to deal with the points that I have raised if I say why I tabled the amendment in the form that I did. The problem that the Minister has to address is whether it is possible to retain clause 5 in any form and still adhere to the Ottawa convention. The view that I reached—which is why I did not table a different amendment—is that it was not possible to retain any part of clause 5 and subscribe to the convention. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. The solution may not be to get rid of clause 5, which he may well seek to justify for good military reasons, but to amend the Ottawa convention. That is at the heart of the dilemma.
      Dr. Reid: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now going to extraordinary lengths. I think he is saying that, as it is not possible to amend the convention, we should not ratify it. Not only does he wish us to remove the clause that protects British troops, on the basis that it is incompatible with the convention but he is now urging us not to ratify the convention, which I find even more extraordinary. Added to the fact that he keeps assuring us that he wants the Bill passed quickly so that the convention can be ratified, I think it shows that the confusion lies not with the Government but with the Opposition.
      Mr. Howard: It is the Government who have caused the confusion. They drafted the Bill and they signed the convention. It is for them to explain, but so far we have not heard a word of explanation in response to the disquiet expressed in all quarters about to how clause 5 can be reconciled with the convention. That is the dilemma at the heart of the debate, and it is what the Government have to explain.
      Dr. Reid: It has already been explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill is consistent with the convention. He heard it this morning, not only from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary but from the

      1391
      Attorney-General, who expressed his full agreement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that we cannot amend the convention, but he had the opportunity to try to amend clause 5. If he is so keen to protect our service men and women—as we are doing in the clause—he had a chance over the past week, either in a private briefing by the Ministry of Defence or by publicly tabling an amendment, to make proposals on protecting our troops. However, at the end of that week—with all his learning and experience, and with his obviously strong views on the matter—his suggestion is that we delete clause 5, thereby taking away any protection for our troops.
      I should move on, as I wonder whether Opposition Members who so loudly criticise the Bill really intend either that we should leave our troops defenceless if the activities of others are deemed to be criminal or that we should have to avoid multinational operations. Is the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe aware, for example, that it is a fact—it is regrettable, but nevertheless a fact—that neither Kuwait nor Saudi Arabia has so far signed the convention? Does he think that that strategic reality should simply be ignored if the United Kingdom has again to take up arms against a dictator?
      Clause 5 is the Government's reconciliation of our duty of care to our troops and our adherence to Ottawa principles. We take both those matters very seriously indeed. We balance—as the hon. Member for Richmond Park asked us to do—those two considerations. Moreover, we will not be the first to enter an interpretive declaration—which is not an amendment or reservation, as the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife suggested—making it clear that the convention was not intended to make coalition operations with non-signatories impossible. The Canadians led the way on such a provision.
      We have given a great deal of thought to the wording of clause 5. Its purpose is to ensure that members of our armed forces cannot be prosecuted for the circumstances of planning and operating alongside troops from states for which the use of anti-personnel landmines remains legal. The clause provides a defence for personnel involved in an international operation alongside troops of a state not party to the Ottawa convention which may use anti-personnel mines.
      United Kingdom personnel could not themselves use such mines or give any assistance whatever to a state party to the convention which planned to use such mines in contravention of its international obligations. The clause enables United Kingdom service men and women to engage closely in the planning and conduct of an operation with those who may, lawfully for them, use anti-personnel mines. Without such a provision, United Kingdom service men and women, if they were in some way indirectly implicated in use of anti-personnel mines by the forces of a state that is not party to the convention, would potentially be at risk of prosecution and imprisonment for up to 14 years. We cannot place the men and women of our armed forces in that invidious position.
      It has been said that the clause is a licence. It is not a licence but a shield. It is a shield that has to be large enough to protect the men and women of our services in serving a country that has led the world in banning landmines and has absolutely no intention—in ratifying
      1392
      the convention, in passing the Bill or in the action of our troops—of doing anything other than adhering to the principles in which we have led the way.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
      Dr. Reid: I am coming to the hon. and learned Gentleman's main point.
      In the practical circumstances—far from the comfortable surroundings in which we debate the matter—in the fog and heat of battle, in the planning and conduct of hostilities, we will be asking young men and women to make decisions. Their lives already depend on those decisions and, should they survive, we should not ask them to countenance the possibility of unwittingly facing criminal proceedings and penalties despite their sacrifices and the courage they have shown.
      Let me give one or two practical examples. Without the clause, if non-ratifying states' vehicles, which could contain anti-personnel landmines, refuelled during hostilities at a United Kingdom refuelling facility, our service men and women could be laid open to criminalisation, criminal charges and penal servitude. Other examples were given earlier. Suppose that a non-ratifying state's forces equipped with anti-personnel landmines crossed United Kingdom-controlled areas of the battlefield, or that our forces were deemed to have benefited in some way from the activities involved in landmine laying by a non-ratifying state or, to use the example given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that a non-ratifying state's forces were to run a lorry full of anti-personnel landmines across a bridge built by our engineers. Without clause 5, all those possibilities could lay our service men and women open to criminal charges. I do not believe that is the will of the House and, more important, I cannot believe that it is the will of the British people. They want landmines removed from the globe and they do not want the reputation or the careers of our service men and women impugned in the course of achieving that aim.
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do I understand from what the Minister has said with some passion in the past four or five minutes that, on the battlefield, in the circumstances that he has described, clause 5 would permit British service men and women to do things that they would not be able to do if the operation were being conducted only by the United Kingdom or within the United Kingdom?
      Dr. Reid: No. That is not the understanding. There is a balance to be struck. We believe that we have it right, and that is why I am asking the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his amendment.
      I now come to the hon. and learned Member's main point, which relates to active and passive assistance. He could reasonably say that none of my examples would be considered active assistance and that they would all be passive or unknowing assistance.
      Mr. Howard: I wonder whether the Minister can help me, because I am confused by the answer that he has just given the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Clause 5(3)(a)makes it clear that the

      1393
      clause applies only to military operations outside the United Kingdom; paragraph (b) makes it clear that it applies only if
      "it involves the participation both of members of Her Majesty's armed forces and of members of the armed forces of a State other than the United Kingdom";
      and paragraph (c) makes it clear that it applies only if that other state is not a signatory to the convention. Therefore, is not the position exactly as the hon. and learned Gentleman put it to the Minister—that the clause permits actions to be taken under circumstances that would be illegal if they were taken in the United Kingdom and not in the context of such joint operations? If that is not right, why not?
      Dr. Reid: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and not a military man. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asked not whether the clause permitted something, but whether troops would be permitted to act in a different fashion. That was the question I was asked, as we will find if we check Hansard. The clause and the Bill cannot be taken as if we were discussing the matter in the abstract; it applies in the context of the rules of engagement, which are part of what a soldier, in the activity on a battlefield, will have to curtail his operations. The rules of engagement will be partly informed by the Bill. Thus, the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is no, there will not be different circumstances. He has raised a more important point, which is the question of active and passive assistance. The Government take the view that the distinction is an unsafe and imprecise basis for United Kingdom legislation.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used the example of a British sapper building a bridge. What could be more active than building a bridge? The building of a bridge might assist a United States unit deploying landmines over the bridge. The sapper would not be able to rely on any mine rea defence under the Bill if he was capable of suspecting that the bridge might be used by a United States mine-laying unit. To put people in the position in the heat of battle of having to make those decisions would be a dereliction of our duty to protect our troops. So we have another defence that clearly covers that conduct, and it is enshrined in clause 5. We do that because we do not believe that we should put our soldiers, especially in a life-and-death situation, through the further agonies of worrying whether the action that they take will later be argued by lawyers to constitute a violation of the convention, for which they could face up to 14 years in prison.
      The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife made the point that the Geneva convention already implies that soldiers' actions can constitute a violation. I am sure that he accepts that the Geneva convention is of long standing and is not, like the Bill, a new piece of legislation, which we in the House of Commons, with legal minds surrounding us, have disputed. The Geneva convention has clarity, and we have experience of it which is of such long standing that it cannot be compared to the questions posed by the Bill for soldiers in the battlefield. We do not want them to be faced with those awful prospects. It would be a dereliction of duty to allow them to be so.
      1394
      I do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I do not suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman quaintly depicts British soldiers wandering through battlefields with a gun in one hand and "Archbold" criminal pleadings in the other, but it is reasonable to say to him under these circumstances that the Government have an obligation to clarify matters with regard to the soldiers' intent. The one thing that they can be absolutely clear about is when they are or are not laying mines. For that reason, that is all that we expressly cover in the offence. Beyond that, beyond the Bill, beyond our intentions and beyond our public statements, we have ways other than the criminal law of controlling the actions of our troops.
      We have the most professional Army in the world. The House can be assured that Her Majesty's armed forces will fully comply with the spirit of the convention, but they should not be subjected to the suspicion that there may be legal nit-picking after the event in addition to the other burdens that we place upon them.
      I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife will see the merit in what I am saying and the sense of not pressing amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I am sure that it was never his intention that amendment No. 5 should remove an effective part of the implementation of the convention, but the purpose of the words that he seeks to remove is to ensure that if a military operation involving co-signatories to the convention included in its formal plans the use of anti-personnel landmines, the legal defence provided by the Bill would no longer be available to our personnel.
      We would not want to condone any breach of the convention, even by allies who are also signatories. That is the purpose of the words that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to remove. If I understand him correctly, that would do the opposite of what he intends to do, and I am sure that he would not wish that to be the result, so I beg him not to press amendment No. 5.
      The Government have taken a lead in the campaign for a global ban on landmines. We have done so through every instrument at the disposal of the state—through diplomacy, through government, through our contacts in the wider community and through our informal representations. We have also done so through our armed forces, which are an enduring source of national pride to this country.
      Our armed forces undertake duties far beyond those required for the defence of the nation. They not only defend our rights: they are an instrument for the discharge of our wider moral responsibilities in the world, and they carry out that role not only in the interests of this country but in the wider interests of humanity. They work alongside parties from all over the planet, some of whom have not signed and will not ratify the Ottawa convention.
      As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear on Wednesday, such overseas deployments will be an increasing feature of life for our armed forces. It would be morally wrong for them to be exposed to the risk of prosecution simply for carrying out their duties in trying to meet military objectives, often in the most horrendous conditions, and as a result of anti-personnel mines laid by the forces of a state that is not party to the Ottawa convention.
      The people of this country would expect the Government and the House to have a duty of care to our forces and to ensure that they are not exposed to such

      1395
      risks—just as we have a duty to discharge in terms of wider international obligations, to rid the world of landmines. We take both those duties seriously, and we will discharge both of them.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: With the leave of the Committee, Mr. Martin, I shall return briefly to the question and answer that we heard a moment or two ago about the scope of the defence. As the Minister knows, and as I went out of my way to say, I think it desirable that there should be a defence to deal with the heat of the battlefield.
      However, as I understand the position, the defence available applies when operations take place wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom, involve the participation of the armed forces of a state other than the United Kingdom, and may involve some deployment of anti-personnel landmines.
      If the defence is available in those defined circumstances, that must mean that it would not be available if those circumstances were not present. That therefore means that we are giving a defence in certain circumstances, which would not be available if the United Kingdom were acting alone—as in the Falklands war, for example—or if the United Kingdom were conducting a defence of the mainland of the United Kingdom against any invader.
      We are giving a defence in relation to actions that would otherwise be illegal in either of the alternative scenarios that I have depicted. It is important to test the extent of the defence against those factors.
      I hope that the Minister will not regard me as unduly facetious if I say that if his exemplary sapper were ever charged, I would volunteer to defend him myself, for nothing.
      Mr. George Robertson: That is quite a good offer.
      Mr. Campbell: Indeed it is—but subject to the qualification that the trial would have to be north of the border.
      The example of the sapper is not one in which a prosecution would ever arise—or if one did, the defence that my amendments seek to add to the Bill would, in my view, be more than adequate.
      The Minister said that when there was even a reason to suspect the use of the bridge, that might constitute a contravention of the criminal law. In my respectful view, a reason to suspect could not in any circumstances constitute the necessary guilty intention in relation to a defence that proceeded on the need to establish that there had been active assistance in activities prohibited under the Ottawa convention.
      I do not propose to press my amendments to a Division. Technically, I should have to ask your permission, Mr. Lord, for a separate vote. However, I am not yet satisfied by the Government's responses. If they are worried about a plethora of lawyers in this place, they had better get their tin hats on before they go to the other place, where there are legions of lawyers who are much more experienced than me or the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I predict that clause 5 will be as much a focus of attention there as it has been in our proceedings so far.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Howard: I agree with the points made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I do not agree with the terms of his amendments—which he invited me to support, before he said that he would not press them to a Division—because I am not persuaded that those amendments provide a satisfactory way of solving the dilemma at the heart of the debate: how to reconcile the terms of the convention with the entirely legitimate and understandable desire, expressed at some length by the Minister of State, to provide proper protection for British troops in the heat of battle.
      I am waiting for an explanation of how that dilemma can be resolved, consistent with the terms of the convention. I am not persuaded that the route provided by the Liberal Democrat amendments would work, but we have not yet had an answer to the dilemma from the Government. Disquiet has been expressed about the dilemma in all quarters of the Committee, and it is the function of this place to subject legislation to proper scrutiny. It will not do for Ministers to try to deflect that scrutiny by talking about distinctions and nuances of legal interpretation and to contrast them with real-life situations.
      The purpose of our consideration of the Bill is to try to ensure that, in its detailed provisions, it matches real-life circumstances, provides a defence where it should do so and yet matches the obligations to which the Government have signed up by way of treaty and convention. That is the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny, which involves detailed examination of the clauses.
      No immunity from that examination is provided by the high moral tone adopted by the Minister of State in the early part of his speech. We have become accustomed to the Government's attempts to wrap themselves in a cloak of moral sententiousness, telling us that they are so pure and impeccable that we do not need to look at the details of what they are doing, and that if we do look at those details we are impugning their high moral tone and standards of virtue. We will not be deflected from our duty of scrutinising the Bill by such considerations.
      Fiona Mactaggart: There seems to be a contradiction between what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about scrutinising the Bill and getting the detail right, and the aim of his amendment. He said that the amendment did not seek to correct the detail, but was a general, explosive, amendment. That runs side by side with the hypocrisy that he has shown in the matter.
      Mr. Howard: As I have made plain on at least three occasions so far, the purpose of the amendment is to provide a peg on which to hang precisely the kind of detailed scrutiny, analysis and consideration that it is the duty of Parliament to undertake.
      The Minister said a good deal about the military justification for clause 5. As I have said, I have some sympathy with his comments, but he touched on the heart of the dilemma when he said that the purpose of the clause is to provide a defence for British forces when they might be at risk of committing a criminal offence. British forces would be at risk of committing a criminal offence only if their conduct were in breach of the convention. That is the point at the heart of the dilemma. If British service men were to find themselves at risk of committing a

      1397
      criminal offence in circumstances when the Secretary of State for Defence thinks they should not be, the fault would lie with the convention. If that is so—that is the dilemma about which we have been seeking enlightenment, but we have yet to find it—proper representations should have been made when the convention was signed.
      The Minister of State devoted a good deal of time to clause 5 and to his attempts to justify it. He spent a great deal less time on the provisions of the convention. That is not surprising, and I sympathise with him on that count also. The Foreign Office negotiated the convention, and a Foreign Office Minister should have replied to this group of amendments. However, a simple question must be answered. It relates to article 1.1 of the Ottawa convention, which makes clear that never, under any circumstances, is any assistance to be given to anyone—whether or not they are a party to the convention—who engages in any activity that is prohibited to a state party under the convention.
      The thrust of the Minister's contribution is that there may be all sorts of circumstances in which British forces might want to provide some assistance to parties who are not signatories to the convention. British forces might want to engage in activities that are in breach of the convention. That is the dilemma, and that is the problem facing the Committee today. We have not only not received an answer to that question; we have not come within miles of receiving such an answer.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) was absolutely correct to draw attention to article 19 of the convention, which provides that the convention should not be subject to any reservations. The Minister told us—for the first time, as far as I am aware—that the Government intend to make some kind of declaration of interpretation when they ratify the convention. If that is the case, it would assist the Committee greatly if we could see the text of any such declaration so that we can consider it and determine whether it amounts to a reservation from the convention—which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, would be contrary to article 19—or constitutes some ingenious way of resolving this dilemma.
      We have not seen the text of any such declaration and, if we do not see it today, I certainly hope that it will be available before the Bill is considered in another place, where those to whom the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred—and I concur in every detail with his description of them—will put it under close scrutiny.
      I hope that, before we conclude our consideration of the amendments, we shall have an answer from the Minister to the simple point that I have made. The conduct for which, understandably, he wants to provide a protection for British troops would constitute a criminal offence only if it were contrary to the convention. If the Minister seeks to escape the provisions of the convention through clause 5, will he please show the Committee where in the convention there is any authority for that course?
      I put to the Minister article 1.1 of the convention. It is unequivocal, explicit and clear. I put to him also article 19, which says that there should be no reservations. Will
      1398
      he please identify where in the convention there is any authority for the course of action that the Government are taking, as embodied in clause 5?
      Dr. Reid: I shall respond, first, to the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who asked about international and national operations. Clause 5 applies only to international military operations. I think that we are clear on that. The hon. and learned Gentleman contrasted that with other operations. We do not need a defence when acting alone. We do not need the clause when acting alone because the problem of anti-personnel landmines does not arise when we are acting alone. Therefore, we need a defence only in terms of multinational operations.
      The difference between active and passive has been discussed. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us his interpretation. I am grateful for his offer but I do not think that I would be thanked by the massed ranks of the British armed forces if I were to say, "We decided to ditch clause 5, which relates to your defence, but I know a guy who will do your defence for nothing." However, I am entirely grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's offer. Two great moves forward have been taken today in the context of world events. One of them, I hope, is a move forward on landmines; the second is finding a lawyer who is prepared to offer his services for nothing. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that.
      I do not know how to respond to the shadow Foreign Secretary without repeating the points that I have already made—because the right hon. and learned Gentleman merely repeated his points. He has been told by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, by the Ministry of Defence and by the Law Officers today that the Bill is completely consistent with the convention; the right hon. and learned Gentleman's asserting that it is not does not make it otherwise. However, we listen to what he says.
      Secondly, clause 5 is not in the Bill as a licence or as a prompt to action but as a shield for our service men and women lest they be at any stage after the event deemed to be subject to criminality—deemed to be or potentially subject to criminality—because of the actions of others. We believe that the clause is completely compatible with the convention and essential if we are to ask our service men and women to engage in multinational operations where there may be alongside them a party or a state that is not a signatory or ratifying state to the convention.
      The United Kingdom Government do not believe that the convention was intended to make international co-operation impossible. Article 1 must be read in that context and not in a vacuum. We have been as clear as anyone could possibly wish in clauses 1 and 2, and we are also clear in our intention in the practical application of the Bill and in the signal that we send to service men and women: that in seeking one great goal, as we do—indeed, in leading in the pursuit of one great goal, as the Government have done—we shall not inadvertently fail to discharge our duty to protect our service men and women from the possibility of being accused of criminality because of the acts of others. These are duties that we shall discharge.
      Mr. Howard: The Minister says that he has explained why clause 5 is not inconsistent with the convention and that I have merely asserted why it is. The precise opposite

      1399
      is the truth. I have explained at length and in detail precisely why clause 5 is inconsistent with the convention, whereas the Government have simply repeated assertions that that is not the case and offered no explanation to support those assertions. The situation remains as unsatisfactory as it was when we started the debate.
      As I have repeatedly said, I tabled the amendments to provide a peg on which the debate could be hung. I made it plain from the outset that I would not press them to a vote. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      1 pm
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 37, leave out from `for' to end of line 38 and insert 'life'.
      The amendment provides for the maximum penalty for the laying of landmines to become life imprisonment. I want the use of anti-personnel mines to be punishable on the same level as war crimes. Negotiations for an international criminal court are currently going on in Rome and have included a discussion on whether the use of indiscriminate weapons such as landmines should be classed as a war crime. I think that it should, and I should like to discover the Government's view on that and on the setting up of an international criminal court.
      I listened to the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in a debate earlier today. I have great respect for him. He talks a lot of sense in the House and in the Defence Committee, of which I am also a member, but on this issue I disagree with him. I think that the laying of a landmine should be classed as a war crime. It is an indiscriminate act and, as we have seen, the target is invariably civilians. Indeed, it makes normal civilian life, long after a war is over, near impossible. The former UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, called landmines weapons of mass destruction in slow motion.
      One has only to look at countries such as Bosnia or Cambodia, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) spoke earlier, to see that landmines are laid by war criminals. That is part and parcel of their genocide.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to have the impression that I have closed my mind entirely to whether the indiscriminate laying of landmines should become a war crime. However, I have a number of reservations. For example, would one have to lay 5,000 landmines or just one or two before the act qualifies as a war crime? There are problems of definition, and I am anxious to ensure that the importance of the category of war crime is not diminished by the addition of actions that do not appear naturally to fall within the definition. I repeat that my mind is not closed on the topic.
      Mr. Cohen: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention. My view is that laying any landmines should be deemed to be a war crime and should be punishable by life imprisonment.
      The laying of these weapons is abhorrent behaviour and by providing life imprisonment—the greatest punishment under British law—as a maximum, this country would
      1400
      send a clear signal that such behaviour is unacceptable. Life imprisonment is a maximum sentence, at the discretion of a judge. As with punishments for war crimes and other crimes, judges are likely to set a lower sentence, but the amendment is about signalling what is the maximum.
      The laying of anti-personnel mines is an intention to murder. A minefield is nothing more or less than a death trap, and it must be clear in the mind of a British subject who uses anti-personnel mines that deaths may well be the result. Can we allow, under British law, a conviction for arson to be punished with a life sentence when the use of anti-personnel mines carries a maximum of only 14 years' imprisonment? Under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, which is still in force, the making or keeping of explosives with an intent to endanger life is punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment—and possession of explosives includes possession of landmines. Under the Genocide Act 1969, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
      My amendment would place the penalties for laying landmines on a par with those for arson, for possession of explosive substances, for genocide and for war crimes. My strong view is that the laying of landmines is a war crime. I hope that the Government will endorse that position in the negotiations to agree the remit of the international criminal court.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend has raised two separable issues and I shall treat them as separate, if he will allow me. The first is the penalty available under the Bill for those who are found guilty. Let us establish at the outset that, whether 14 years in prison or life, the penalty will be severe and exemplary, which is right and proper for the crimes prescribed under the Bill. We must give clear signals: in what I hope would prove to be the unlikely event of people being prosecuted under our national legislation for such crimes, they would be dealt with in the most serious fashion by the courts. There is no dispute among hon. Members about the need for tough and exemplary sentences to be available and put into operation, should that be necessary.
      We could argue almost endlessly about what precise level of penalty would be sufficient to act as a deterrent and to show the full gravity with which our society condemns such crimes. Precisely because the Bill does not seek to erode other parts of the criminal law, some activities consequent on the placing of landmines could, of themselves, attract higher penalties. Murder is murder, irrespective of how it is caused, so there can be no suggestion that we are not on all fours with some of the other heinous crimes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen).
      Under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, the making or possession of explosives in suspicious circumstances carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. That was a reference point for the Bill. The Committee could have an interesting debate about the penalty that should apply to making or possessing explosives, but, after the terrorist outrages in London and Manchester, the location of one of the last IRA bombs, none of us treats those crimes as trivial. We are not being inconsistent by using as a reference point a crime that we judge to be heinous and requiring exemplary sentences.
      While we can always argue about what precise measures should apply, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that in the event of contravention of the Bill

      1401
      leading to death or serious injury, other criminal offences would apply, along with the relevant penalties. The reference point is consistent with the 1883 Act, so we are not far from making serious and exemplary sentences available to the courts. We are telling the world and our own people that exemplary punishments would be available if the Bill were contravened.
      The more important part of my hon. Friend's remarks concerned whether use or possession of landmines should be a war crime. There is a serious debate about the nature of war crimes. As we speak, the conference in Rome on an international criminal court continues. I hope that the Committee supports the Government's wish to see that conference succeed. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife graciously said that he supports us; I hope that I can welcome his consistent support with just as much grace.
      We are determined to help to bring the Rome conference to a successful conclusion. Agreement must not affect only a narrow group of states. We need an international court that can bear down on the serious and horrendous crimes that have disfigured the planet in recent times. In Europe, we have the example of Yugoslavia, and there is the prospect that the spectre of war crimes will haunt that region again. I have been to Arusha, where the tribunal on Rwanda is taking place, and to Rwanda itself where war crimes certainly happened. We must have an international criminal court that can deal with matters that need international sanctions or where the weight of international opinion is needed to ratify not just justice, but justice as part of reconciliation.
      We can achieve wide agreement around the world on the need to criminalise activities such as genocide. It is easy to say, as Britain does strongly, that activities such as forcing children or young people into armed forces should be criminalised internationally. The crime of rape as part of the prosecution of war—I use that phrase although it is a contradiction—should be made a criminal offence under the statutes of the international criminal court.
      Those matters are so important that we are insisting on a workable court that can bear down on those who commit such offences and can give a signal to the whole world that the international community is not prepared to allow them to go unpunished. The would-be perpetrators should know that their actions will lead to prosecution. The mechanism of the international criminal court would provide justice.
      1.15 pm
      My hon. Friend wants the use of landmines to be a war crime. My right hon. Friend said that he, as an individual, and, more important, as the Foreign Secretary, would have no difficulty accepting that the use of landmines and the other activities referred to in the Bill should be included in the definition of a war crime. However, I give my hon. Friend an important warning. Significant members of the international community have not signed up to the Ottawa process and are not yet ready to sign up to an alternative agreement, possibly through the conference on disarmament or wherever we pursue the establishment of a universal ban on landmines. In that climate, the setting up of an international criminal court is not more, but less, certain.
      1402
      I caution my hon. Friend that, although I can offer him genuine sympathy for his ambitions and can reassure him that this matter does not cause the Government any problems, it would create real and practical problems if we were to pursue it at an international level. At least in the short term, it would make our ambition—which I know my hon. Friend shares—to establish the international criminal court less likely. In those circumstances, although I can offer him sympathy, I cannot offer him a way forward.
      I hope that I have responded to my hon. Friend's remarks and that he accepts that the intentions that he wants to serve are either not achievable through his amendment or have already been achieved. The need to give the court real power and the ability to pass exemplary sentences has already been accepted, so I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Cohen: I accept the points made by the Minister, although I am disappointed at the conclusion he reaches. He said that the Explosive Substances Act 1883 was the benchmark for the 14-year maximum sentence. He referred to the carrying of explosive substances, but other aspects of the 1883 Act carry a life sentence.
      My key point is about making the laying of landmines a war crime and for it to be within the international criminal court's remit. I favour the establishment of an international criminal court and I want it to deal with the issues to which the Minister referred. It clearly must cover genocide, rape of women as an act of war and the use of children in war. It must take action against the perpetrators of a holocaust. The use of landmines is a holocaust: it is a holocaust by drip. Individual after individual suffers. As Boutros Boutros Ghali said, landmines are a weapon of mass destruction in slow motion.
      I hope that the Government will not lose sight of that point. Although they feel the need to give the international criminal court a more limited remit, I hope that they will, in the future, reconsider this matter and make the laying of landmines a war crime, which is what I favour. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 3 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 13

      RIGHTS OF ENTRY ETC. FOR FACT-FINDING MISSIONS
      Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 11, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      Article 8.14 of the Ottawa convention states that any state party that is subject to a fact-finding mission "shall" grant access. However, the Bill states that the Secretary of State "may" authorise access for such a mission. That allows the possibility of may not, but "shall" allows no such negative. The implementing legislation should contain the same word as the convention. Can the Minister assure the House that there are no circumstances in which authorisation would not be given to a fact-finding mission in the United Kingdom?
      Fact-finding verification missions are important, and I would not want the Government to block them or to encourage a formula that would enable other

      1403
      Governments to block them by claiming a UK precedent. The amendment is simple and I hope that it will be accepted.
      Mr. Key: I should like to raise a point on behalf of the Halo Trust. It was approached by a Canadian human rights organisation which demanded minefield information on current tactical minefields between two countries. When the trust suggested that that was not an appropriate inquiry, the organisation quoted the Ottawa convention with veiled threats. The Halo Trust is not sure whether the rules for fact-finding missions and information and records apply only to fact-finding missions between states under article 8 of the convention or whether it also applies to humanitarian organisations. Furthermore, the trust is not sure whether the rules also apply to missions whose representatives speak to UK nationals working overseas. Some paragraphs suggest that that applies only in the United Kingdom.
      The Halo Trust has raised the point because if missions visit humanitarian mine-clearance programmes overseas and demand minefield information, UK demining staff—for example those working for the Halo Trust—would perhaps by law have to hand over the information, even if it were privileged. For example, it could have come from local military commanders as a result of trust being built up between Halo Trust staff and local commanders in countries that had not signed up to the ban. If those commanders thought that non-governmental organisation workers were passing privileged information to the UK, they might not allow any access by international humanitarian staff. Therefore, the Bill's effect might be to reduce humanitarian mine clearance, which I am sure is not the intention. In some mined countries that are emerging from civil war, the distribution of privileged information about mines by international NGO workers could be considered even as espionage.
      This is a slightly difficult area and the Minister of State may not be able to respond to it immediately, but I should be grateful if he could perhaps respond by letter, so that we can pursue the matter—[Interruption.] I am delighted that he says that he can do it now.
      Mr. David Heath: I support the amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for—
      Mr. Cohen: Leyton and Wanstead.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was thinking Leytonstone. I listened carefully to him, as I always do, particularly with the news that his lineage has been carefully researched over the past few weeks and the news of the bearers of his surname. He demands even greater respect.
      It seems an odd anomaly that the word "may" is used in this context. Surely, Britain would always wish, under any circumstances, to co-operate with a fact-finding mission under the convention. When I say that, I do not question the Government's motives, and I do not want to hear the claim that we had earlier that we are undermining a positive move towards ratification of the Ottawa convention and everything that goes with it. However, the fact remains that a future Government may not be so well disposed. A future Secretary of State may have some scintilla of doubt about the application of the convention. In drafting the legislation, we must leave no area of ambiguity.
      1404
      Curiously, reading further on in the clause, the word "shall" is used on a number of occasions. Once the Secretary of State, under subsection (1), has decided to issue an authorisation, the content of that authorisation is no longer a matter for his consideration, because the word "shall" appears in subsequent subsections, including, incidentally, the subsection on the overriding of the control functions of constables, which provides that they shall provide assistance. That is wholly welcome.
      I am curious—perhaps the Minister of State can help me on this—whether the same provision applies to Customs and Excise officers and to the security services. I assume that, when he responds, he will say that the provision is analagous to that of other Acts that provide similar international obligations. However, perhaps he will explain why this word "may" is used, or do something better than that: accept the amendment, so that we have no doubt as to the position of not only this Government, but any future British Government in respect of the Ottawa convention.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: I have no intention of rushing to the defence that this is an attempt to subvert the Bill. The amendment is a different proposition from the clear wrecking amendment that the Opposition tabled under clause 5. I accept that the motivation of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and the hon. Member for Frome—
      Mr. Heath: Somerton and Frome.
      Mr. Lloyd: I want to give the hon. Gentleman the Frome and not the Somerton. I accept that he, the hon. Member for Salisbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) genuinely want to serve the purpose of the Bill.
      The clause provides the power under which the Secretary of State can allow fact-finding missions to take place; it is not the manner in which the Secretary of State finds himself placed under a duty to make facilities available for such a fact-finding mission. The distinction is not unimportant. Under domestic law, clearly, it is necessary to give the Secretary of State the power by which he can facilitate fact-finding missions. That is sensible, and it is right and proper that it should be in the Bill. Once we ratify the convention, under international law, there will be a duty on the Secretary of State to allow for those fact-finding missions to enter this country. There is therefore no ambiguity about the intent. The duty will exist at the point of ratification and when the convention comes into force.
      Mr. David Heath: I understand the Minister's point, but if he were to change the word "may" to "shall", he would combine the duty with the power and incorporate both into British law, which seems a more satisfactory solution.
      1.30 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: I am certainly not a lawyer—indeed, it is many years since I ceased to pretend to be a logician—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that although I understand what he says, it simply is not necessary to do as he suggests. The shadow Foreign Secretary failed to grasp the fact that the Bill is not the

      1405
      only way in which the Ottawa convention will be brought into operation. His inability to grasp the simple arguments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces was the source of his confusion. The law and the other procedures that bring the convention into operation already exist in other fields, or will exist under international law on ratification of the treaty.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly asked about parallels. The convention on chemical weapons, for example, uses exactly the same form of words in respect of fact-finding missions. In respect of the convention on chemical weapons or the landmine legislation, it is inconceivable that any British Secretary of State would seek to place himself outwith the spirit or, more important, the letter of international law. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that what is in the Bill is sufficient. We could go beyond that, but I assure the Committee that it is not necessary.
      I refer the hon. Member for Salisbury to clause 27, which defines a fact-finding mission as
      "a fact-finding mission under Article 8 of the Ottawa Convention".
      That is important because a fact-finding mission under this part of the Bill is restricted to the Ottawa convention definition, which is agreed by states that are party to the convention. It could not lead to the problems mentioned today. I hope that I have managed to reassure the hon. Gentleman and those who asked him to express their concerns. If that reassurance is not adequate—although it seems that the hon. Member for Salisbury is indicating that it is—I invite him and those who raised matters with him to come back to me. I shall then attempt to set their minds at rest. However, I assure the Committee that it is not necessary to pursue the amendment, and that all the concerns expressed are covered in the Bill.
      Mr. Cohen: The Minister says that what is in the Bill is sufficient. Verification is important, and there must be freedom of access if the treaty is to work and if there is to be confidence that it will work.
      I note what the Minister said about the Bill's provisions being in addition to a duty to allow access under the Ottawa convention. In that case, I do not understand why he cannot accept the amendment. However. I assume from his comments that there would be no circumstances in which a Secretary of State would not allow access under the treaty—I see that he is nodding. He used the word "inconceivable" in that context so, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
      Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 14 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      1.34 pm
      Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Last year, one of the first visits I made as the new Secretary of State for Defence was to Bosnia, to visit our troops in multinational division south-west. I do not think
      1406
      that it was an accident that my Ministry decided that that should be my first visit. I have graphic memories not only of the service men and women who were serving there and of the dedicated and risky job that they do for us, but of Bosnia's physical and political scenery. That scenery has improved considerably since my visit, providing great testimony of the necessity both of that intervention and of the subsequent role played by our armed services—in stopping the fighting, killing, concentration camps, mass rape and torture occurring on our own continent, in rebuilding shattered communities and in allowing the Bosnian people the breathing space to grow their own new democratic institutions.
      Flying over some parts of Bosnia in a British Army helicopter, one's breath was taken away by the physical beauty of the countryside. Flying over Glamoc, for example, one saw dazzling scenery of green spaces and tiny villages. One could not help being attracted to that country. However, one could not land in a helicopter or walk round Glamoc, as it had been riddled and contaminated by the thousands of anti-personnel landmines that were left behind by the warring factions as a legacy—which will continue for many years—to the conflict.
      Seeing Glamoc brought home to me the depth of the problem, even more so than when I stood in a minefield outside Mostar, dressed in the cumbersome equipment—of which I am continually reminded by the replay of embarrassing pictures—that is required to enter a minefield. People continue to live and daily to risk their lives and limbs in Glamoc, as its surrounding countryside is covered with undetected mines.
      There is therefore an unfinished mission that—for people living in Bosnia and in so many other countries around the world—is not only political or visionary but real and practical. That is why this debate, the Bill and our ratification of the convention are all so important, not only for us and the United Kingdom's credibility but for all humanity. I feel a burning sense of duty to ensure that the campaign continues, not only to ratify the Ottawa convention ourselves but to persuade countries that have not yet signed it and are still manufacturing, exporting and sowing anti-personnel landmines to stop those activities.
      Although the House will pass the Landmines Bill in only one day, we have had a full and vigorous debate. The Opposition have highlighted some points of interest, contention and debate. However, they have taken themselves to a logically ludicrous position, essentially telling us that we should not ratify the treaty. They appear to be saying that only by amending the treaty—and that is impossible—can we give our armed forces safety and security. I do not find that a particularly practical position, but they have retreated from opposing the Bill, and I welcome their co-operation in taking the Bill so quickly and at such short notice.
      Our success in dealing with the measure in one day demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue in the House, and that must be welcome. It is also a fitting tribute to the enduring memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the work that she did, more than so many others, to draw attention to the evil effect of anti-personnel landmines.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a moving speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead

      1407
      (Mr. Cohen). My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) referred to the parallel universe that the Opposition appear to inhabit in respect of this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) also made powerful speeches. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who is not in his place, used his Army experience to some effect. He articulated a practical view that will be recognised by many soldiers, including the vast majority who now believe that anti-personnel landmines are a form of warfare which must be abandoned and outlawed for ever.
      The debate has underlined the fact that the Government's policy on anti-personnel landmines that we adopted last year has been the right one. I am glad that we have been able to fulfil the pledge that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I made 13 months ago when we came to power and took instant action on the issue. When it comes into force, the Bill will ensure that no British soldier will ever use an anti-personnel landmine again; no British company will be allowed to manufacture anti-personnel landmines; no one anywhere will ever be able to acquire anti-personnel landmines from a British source; and our operational stockpiles of anti-personnel landmines will be eliminated.
      We have also ensured that members of our armed forces cannot be prosecuted for planning and operating alongside those from states for which the use of anti-personnel landmines remains legal. That is the right thing to do, and I welcome the recognition that the House has now given that today. Of course, any such protection for our armed forces will become increasingly unnecessary as more states sign and ratify the Ottawa convention. In that context, I welcome the announcement by the United States Government of their intention, at least in principle, to sign the Ottawa convention by 2006. That will provide a big boost towards our final goal. It also shows the inexorable public pressure that is now rightly exerted on all Governments.
      There is still a long way to go. No country can measure its achievements merely by reference to its own efforts. The problem of anti-personnel landmines is a global one which requires a global effort. Achieving complete elimination of anti-personnel landmines remains a key objective for the Government, and we will use all our influence and endeavours in the international scene to exactly that effort.
      Regrettably, some states do not feel ready or able to sign the convention. For those that have not, the quoted reasons are primarily connected with national security and the need to develop alternative capabilities. However, a comprehensive ban must be exactly that; the Ottawa convention provides a goal to which we have to encourage all states in the world to aspire. That means working closely with those states, recognising their security concerns while persuading them not to rely on such weapons, but to seek alternative and better means of providing their security. It may cost money; it may cause apprehension; but what is that compared with the human costs that are otherwise involved?
      We must continue our efforts to demine the world. My Department will continue to play a significant role in that. I am pleased to inform the House that the mine information and training centre that I announced last October is now fully operational. As my right hon. Friend
      1408
      the Foreign Secretary said, it is running mine awareness courses on a large scale. Some 2,000 students have already completed its expert courses. It continues to look for ways to help NGOs with mine clearance. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency also plays a valuable role in developing new techniques, and will continue to do so.
      So our work does not end here today with this legislation. There is still much to do, and we will do it. I commend the Bill to the House, and wish it a smooth passage through the Lords.
      1.44 pm
      Mr. Key: Last October, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and I, on behalf of the Opposition, welcomed the signing of the Oslo agreement. We pointed out that it was severely weakened because it did not include major manufacturers of landmines such as China, Russia and Pakistan. We said that the debate on landmines had rightly focused on negotiations for a future ban, but that the problem required a dual approach—working towards a ban and removing existing mines. We offered consensus on the issue of anti-personnel landmines. We recognised that mines had had a military purpose, and that we should work to encourage the development of alternatives that could achieve that purpose without the appalling risk to civilians. We continue to support the Government's resourcing of mine clearance operations whether directly or through agencies as the Halo Trust.
      Television pictures bring into our homes the horrors of wars in far-off lands and the horrendous impact that indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines have on innocent civilians. We all remember the scenes of the visit to Angola by Diana, Princess of Wales, which gave such global momentum to the cause of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Within our own continent, some of us here have visited Bosnia and seen the devastating impact of mines on that country and its people.
      On Friday 13 May 1955, which happened to be in the middle of a general election campaign, when I was just 10 years old, a British anti-personnel landmine laid on Swanage beach to defend against wartime invaders was uncovered by a party of schoolchildren of whom I was one. By a stroke of fate, I and a friend got bored and returned to our sandcastle at the water's edge. A few minutes later, the explosion killed five of my friends. British children killed by a British mine. I believe that I am the luckiest man alive in the House today. I know how children and their parents feel in such traumatic circumstances, so it is with a real sense of pride that I stand at this Dispatch Box today giving a fair wind to the Bill.
      It is also true that my military constituency in Salisbury has ensured that I understand why our service men continue to feel the need for battlefield protection by anti-personnel landmines. They are usually the very same people who are motivated to extremes of bravery when they put their lives at risk in mining operations both during their service and when they have retired. We must all recognise that ratification of the Ottawa convention will mean that our armed forces lose a significant military capacity, and that defensive landmines are effective in redressing the balance in favour of the user in the face of an assault by superior forces.

      1409
      I agree with the Secretary of State that this is not the end. Today is the beginning of a new era. The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues will, I know, address the question of how British soldiers will continue to have effective defensive protection. In 1996, the previous Government asked DERA to conduct studies of non-lethal obstacles for peacekeeping operations. I look forward to hearing what progress has been made.
      There are viable alternatives to anti-personnel landmines. They may make static defence systems such as minefields increasingly irrelevant. I wonder how far the Ministry of Defence has got with remote surveillance methods such as electronic sensory devices, real-time satellite intelligence, drone aircraft with infra red and photographic capabilities and so on. How advanced are replacement technologies, ranging from non-lethal devices such as entanglement nets, slippery agents, foam and obscurants to Claymore-type mines that are activated by command through remote surveillance methods that automatically activate other forms of ordnance?
      As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, the Bill is a very imperfect animal. There is much unfinished business here. It must receive close scrutiny in another place, but we have made a start today and we give the Bill a fair wind.
      1.48 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the cockpit of frenetic exchange today, it has sometimes been easy to forget the purpose for which we are here. We pass lots of legislation in the House, but there can rarely have been—
      It being a quarter of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [9 July], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Asylum Seekers
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  1.49 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on the specific issue of asylum seekers and the role of local authorities in the associated funding. I see that the Minister has not yet arrived to respond to my debate, so I shall make my remarks as slowly as possible, to give her a chance to catch up—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Will hon. Members leaving please do so quickly and quietly?
  Dr. Cable: I shall preface my remarks with a couple of introductory comments explaining the context within which I chose the debate. Most Adjournment debates stem from essentially local problems, and this one is no exception. My borough, like many other London boroughs, has had to cope with the financial and practical implications of an influx of asylum seekers, including, in our case, unaccompanied children.
  I state at the outset my recognition that although we have genuine problems, they are not on the same scale as those of other London boroughs, especially those in the inner city. The Minister—I am glad to say that she has now arrived—represents an inner-city London borough, and I know that she is well aware of the magnitude of the problem. I would not want to exaggerate the difficulties that we have in our corner of London.
  However, the fact that a borough with a relatively small number of asylum seekers still has a serious problem illustrates the magnitude of the problem in general. To put the numbers in context, we have about 242 asylum seekers at present, among whom particular problems surround a group of either 17 or 22—depending on how the numbers are measured—unaccompanied children. Hillingdon has almost 150 unaccompanied children, and, in terms of aggregate numbers, we are talking in terms of 2,000 or 3,000 in areas such as Southwark, Haringey and elsewhere. Although my borough's problems are relatively minor, they illustrate the broader issues.
  Secondly, I realise that the Government inherited extremely offensive and unsatisfactory legislation, and that they have been battling with the problem ever since they came into office. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the Housing Act 1996 created a morass of problems, which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who is, I believe, the lead Minister in the matter, called a "shambles within a shambles". That is an accurate description. We have a combination of highly defective and pernicious legislation and subsequent court action; that has created the problem that the Government now have.
  I also recognise that the Government have given assurances that they will introduce new measures soon, and that the Minister may be inhibited by the spending announcements due next week. None the less, I feel that there are ways in which we could take matters a little further forward in this discussion. A particular question

  1411
  that I wish to pursue—we can pursue it in qualitative terms even if the numbers are not open for discussion—is whether there will be a role for local authorities in the new measures that the Government envisage, and if so, what kind of role that will be. I hope that I shall be able to press the Minister on that question.
  My third introductory point is the fact that, when we talk about asylum seekers, Members of Parliament have a responsibility not to whip up xenophobia, racism and other such feelings in their areas. It is easy for such matters to get out of control. In my borough, which I emphasise is not one of the most affected areas, there were reports a few weeks ago of "floods of asylum seekers", but, when the story was investigated, it turned out to involve only seven people. By then, however, local opinions had become thoroughly inflamed. We have a duty to represent our areas and to express their concerns, but also a duty not to inflame public opinion.
  Long before I became a Member of Parliament, I was involved in immigration issues, and fought and argued hard for the rights of people to have access to the United Kingdom—for example, in the context of the problems associated with the Asians from east Africa. I strongly support the position taken by my party leader on the rights of people from Hong Kong. I support a liberal and humane approach to asylum and immigration. If we are to sustain that argument, we must deal with the problems faced by local authorities. That is the spirit in which I present this debate.
  As most of us know, a substantial number of asylum seekers remain ineligible for benefits under the legislation introduced by the previous Government. Three categories present problems in different degrees for local authorities.
  First, there are the single people, of whom there are about 10,000 in London, according to the Hammersmith figures, which are the common statistical basis. Those 10,000 people are all pushing for bed-and-breakfast accommodation, in a city where such accommodation is extremely difficult to get. Because of recent court rulings, they cannot share with other families, so the problem has been fragmented and the demand for accommodation is even greater than it otherwise would be. There is a disparity between the funding that the Government are making available for single people once costs are deducted, and the costs that local authorities have to pay. The estimate that I have been given is that London boroughs as a whole are paying out of their own resources £6 million for this category.
  The second group are the families. Under the Government's complicated funding structure, local authorities must pass a threshold of spending—£80,000, I think—before they can begin to claim back some of those expenses. In order to accommodate about 13,000 people, London boroughs must pay out of their own resources about £13 million.
  The third category is unaccompanied children. I shall speak in more detail about this group because, although it is relatively small in number, it presents particular problems under the asylum rules and procedures. There are 890 unaccompanied children in London as a whole. Hillingdon is the worst-affected borough, and possibly also Westminster. My borough has a smaller number. Estimates over the past week have risen from 17 to 22.
  Accommodating children is extremely expensive, at £1,000 a week. It is very difficult for the local authorities to access the funding that is available from Government.
  1412
  They must spend £200,000 before they can claim anything back. The restrictive nature of the procedures in the Children Act 1989, under which local authorities are acting, means that services for vulnerable children in the local area are being cut to finance those costs.
  I am told that if my local council had been more imaginative in the use of creative accounting, the problem would not have arisen, but councils should not be forced into that position. A literal interpretation of the Children Act 1989 would imply that the interests of vulnerable children are being placed against those of asylum seekers. That is wrong.
  We often hear that many asylum seekers are bogus. I tend to take such stories with a pinch of salt. No doubt some are bogus, but surely no one would argue that children were bogus asylum seekers. Most of them are entirely genuine and incapable of dissimulating, as fraudsters would. The current influx of children is from Kosovo, and no one would dispute that that is a war-torn area where ethnic cleansing is being practised, and that there are genuine victims. The particular needs of children and the way in which those impact on local authorities is an issue to which we should give specific attention.
  Why is the current practice fundamentally unacceptable? I should not need to speak at length about this point, as Labour, in government and in opposition, has acknowledged why the present situation is fundamentally unsound and unsatisfactory. It is unsound for local authorities because they must pick up a large bill—I believe that the figure is about £26 million for the whole of London. That burden is imposed on local authorities that have stretched financial services and capping limits. It appears to local residents that asylum seekers are being financed at the expense of other services.
  The current system is bad for asylum seekers because the payments in kind that they receive under national assistance legislation are barely adequate. Asylum seekers receive food, but cannot get money for travel, which they need in order to pursue asylum appeals. The current payment mechanisms are totally unsatisfactory, and asylum seekers are often introduced to a dependency trap from which they may never escape. The situation is bad for the authorities, for asylum seekers and, almost certainly, for the Government who, at the end of the day, must pay large sums to supply asylum seekers through inefficient mechanisms. That would not occur if there were a properly integrated national programme. Worst of all, the present situation is bad for race relations. As a result of the immediate juxtaposition of asylum seekers and reduced Government services in local areas, people's feelings are inflamed unnecessarily.
  The present situation is thoroughly unsatisfactory, but what can the Government do about it? I recognise that announcements are imminent and that perhaps the Government cannot reveal the details of their proposals. However, if the Government are moving towards a national system of asylum benefits that is qualified by the provision of documentation—I believe that that is the proposal on offer—where will it leave local authorities? Will they still be responsible for undocumented cases, particularly children, who are most unlikely to be carrying documents? What role will local authorities play? How will they be reimbursed according to the new proposals under consideration?

  1413
  I hope that we can make some headway on the issue of transitional arrangements until the Government's new procedures come into effect. The situation is urgent in many cases, and local authorities must receive some relief—for example, we should remove the threshold regarding the amount of money that must be spent before local authorities qualify for reimbursement. Last year, the number of unaccompanied children reached double figures in 16 London authorities. However, only three local authorities had sufficient numbers of unaccompanied children to be able to claim Government money. That is the sort of anomaly for which the Minister's Department is responsible, and I hope that the Government will address that problem without prejudicing their overall expenditure targets, which will be announced next week.
  Although the Minister is not responsible for the Home Office, we must put in context the way in which the Home Office is managing the asylum seeker issue. Many Members of Parliament deal with asylum seekers' cases, some of which have been around for years. The delays are appalling. I understand that the problem was inherited from the previous Government, but it is totally unclear why a substantial number of civil servants have not been drafted in to deal with the problem much more expeditiously. That is very strange, and it is quite wrong that the solution to an enormous human and financial problem should be obstructed by bureaucratic difficulties in the Home Office. I hope that the Minister will provide an assurance that proper priority is being given to that issue.
  I hope that, in defining their approach to asylum seekers and local councils, the Government will adopt a much more holistic approach. At present, the response to the problem is fragmented: various Government Departments do different things, and local authorities do their own thing. Some of them act adequately and heroically, while others pass the buck to other local authorities. We need a co-ordinated approach that is led from the centre.
  There have been examples of when the Government of the day, Conservative or Labour, have faced up to the difficulties presented by immigration problems. The country's response to the Ugandan Asians crisis, for example, ultimately reflected credit on most of those concerned. We had a concerted national response to the problem of the boat people, which was led by the Government of the day. I realise that the asylum seekers issue is much more complex than either of those two examples. However, we need Government leadership, which must be integrated and co-ordinated. That is what most of us are seeking from the Government.
  2.4 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for raising this important issue. The House will know that asylum seekers who claim asylum at the point of arrival are entitled to social security benefits that cover their needs for housing, food and other necessities while their applications are considered. Local authorities have become responsible for supporting asylum seekers under the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989 as a consequence of the previous Government's removal of entitlement to benefit for people who claimed asylum after entering the country or whose initial application had been turned down.
  1414
  We recognise that the current arrangements have placed an undue burden on local authorities and, quite inappropriately, on social services departments. Local authorities are in a difficult position in having to meet an open-ended commitment without having any control over the number of people approaching them for assistance. The point was well made by the hon. Gentleman. Staff and other resources that should have been used for community care services are being diverted, to the detriment of other service users.
  The current support arrangements are a mess, and we are having to consider a way of relieving the burden on local authorities, but we still need them to play a role given their access to and expertise in this area. As a matter of priority we initiated a wide-ranging interdepartmental study to examine the asylum process from beginning to end, including the present arrangements for welfare support. It is unacceptable that any asylum seeker should be left destitute, but, equally, we are conscious that a balance must be struck between reducing the benefit incentive for economic migrants to make unfounded asylum applications and the need to support asylum seekers while their applications are considered.
  The study team has now completed its work, and we are considering its findings carefully across government. We shall carefully examine all the options before deciding what to do, and we shall announce the way ahead as soon as we are able to do so. I am fully aware of the sense of urgency with which our announcement is awaited. The Government's policy on asylum seekers is that we should deal with their cases quickly and fairly so that genuine refugees receive the protection to which they are entitled and those who seek to abuse the asylum process are given no opportunity to play the system by pursuing appeals that have no chance of success.
  Our aim is to put in place a strategy for dealing with asylum issues that is responsible, properly thought out, comprehensive and enduring. We intend to implement a clear, coherent and comprehensive policy across the board. In the meantime, it is our responsibility to operate the law as it stands. The removal of benefits in 1996 and subsequent court judgments have had severe consequences for many social services authorities, especially in London. The local authorities for the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, in which my constituents live, are facing precisely the sort of pressure that the hon. Gentleman referred to. I know that that pressure is shared by other hon. Members and by my hon. Friends, especially those who represent London constituencies.
  A new duty has been imposed on many social services authorities to support adults for whom they have never before had to provide services and for which they do not have funding. Although there is no new duty in respect of families with children and unaccompanied children, the numbers are very high and the burden on local authorities is therefore substantial.
  At 29 June, just over 10,000 adults were being accommodated by London authorities and a further 1,000 were being accommodated in the rest of Great Britain. In addition, almost 6,500 families and some 900 unaccompanied children were being accommodated by London authorities alone.
  Mr. John McDonnell: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency includes Heathrow. Other hon. Members present today will testify to the scale of the problem of unaccompanied children. Although it is a problem that we welcome because we want to stand by our humanitarian concerns and uphold people's right to live in peace and security, the scale of the problem is placing an increasing burden on our local authority and diverting resources from the local community.
  We have two desperate requirements: first, additional financial resources and, secondly, assistance with and a review of practice at ground level to ensure that the services that we provide are appropriate and adequately supported by both the local authority and the local voluntary sector. I urge the Government to deal with those issues as rapidly as possible.
  Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for the two important points that he has raised, which will no doubt be relevant to, and supported by, other hon. Members.
  One of the tests of the new measures that will be announced as a result of the review will be the capacity to deal with the pressures being faced by local authorities such as that of the hon. Member for Twickenham. I wish to underline the fact that some of the most distressing asylum cases involve unaccompanied children who have no source of support or nurture other than that provided by the local authority. In many cases, there is intolerable tension between meeting the demand in terms of cost and responding in a humanitarian way, which none of us would want local authorities to avoid. My hon. Friend has highlighted the tensions and I hope that the review will meet those points.
  We recognise that it is not right that a financial burden on the scale that this issue represents should be imposed on council tax payers, or that community care services for local people should suffer. We have continued to make available to local authorities three special grants to alleviate the burden imposed on them. Last year, the Department of Health paid local authorities almost £40 million to support adult asylum seekers. The majority of claims by local authorities for reimbursement of expenditure on adult asylum seekers was fully met in 1997–98. However, we have listened carefully to what local authorities and local authority associations have been saying about the costs of supporting asylum seekers and we have therefore undertaken to increase the adult grant by some 18 per cent., subject to parliamentary approval, to £165 a week per adult asylum seeker accommodated in 1998–99.
  With regard to local authority support for asylum seeking families, under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 local authorities have a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need within their area and, so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those needs. Section 17 duties are for children under the age of 18. The Government paid £28.4 million for that grant in 1997–98 to target compensatory funds to local authorities with significant numbers of asylum seekers with children.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Minister acknowledge that one of the difficulties for local authorities is that there is a threshold above which they receive compensation from the Government? They are juggling with a few tens of thousands of pounds within the tight finances that apply to local government to try to stretch the money over the services. That is causing huge difficulty, especially in areas where money to support asylum-seeking children has to come directly out of the children department.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), whose constituency shares a borough with mine, has pointed out that that is causing huge stresses and tensions in the boroughs, because parents of vulnerable children and children in need are being asked to give way for asylum-seeking children. We want to cater adequately for both categories, but the threshold often prevents us from doing that.
  Ms Jowell: I entirely accept that some local authorities have difficulties. The hon. Lady will be aware that the grant is not intended to meet the full costs of care for children, but is focused on local authorities that deal with the largest number of children. Whatever formula is settled on, it is extremely important that it is administratively simple and gets the resources to where they are most needed.
  The purpose of the children's grant is to provide compensation to local authorities for unforeseen additional expenditure in carrying out their duties under sections 17 and 18 of the Children Act 1989, rather than the reimbursement of the full costs. The grant is to support children in need, and their families, through support for the whole family, or to support children of 16 or 17 who are without a family and are not already being looked after by social services, which are affected by changes in social security benefits and housing legislation for asylum seekers. The grant is intended to keep the family together.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is seeking resources of a commensurate level for the current financial year. The number of families with children being supported by local authorities has been rising steadily, and the Government recognise that local authorities will need resources to reflect that increasing demand. For unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, we currently have a grant of up to £3 million a year, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, to help meet local authorities' costs in respect of them. As she suggested, authorities qualify for the grant if they spend more than 5 per cent. of the children block standard spending assessment on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
  We introduced that threshold because many authorities deal with only a handful of unaccompanied children seeking asylum and the amounts of money involved do not justify the administrative costs that would be incurred in paying grant to them. We are, however, reviewing the arrangements for the grant and have taken on board the views expressed by some local authorities about the threshold.
  We intend to continue to support local authorities for as long as the current arrangements exist. The courts imposed a new duty on local authorities for supporting

  1417
  adult asylum seekers for which there was no personal social services funding. The families with children grant and the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children grant recognise that local authorities already had a duty to those groups under the Children Act 1989, and they are considered to be a contribution to the increased costs that local authorities face. We have listened carefully to representations from local authorities and local authority associations about the conditions of various grants. We have undertaken to reconsider the grants and we will put proposals and special grant reports for 1998 and 1999 before the House in due course.
  1418
  The hon. Member for Twickenham made a very important point about the needs of asylum seekers. We need holistic solutions that transcend the boundaries between Departments, and that is a test of our capacity for joined-up government. The awful circumstances facing many asylum seekers are evident from our constituency surgeries every week. That experience underlines the importance of conducting procedures fairly, transparently and speedily. We must ensure that local authorities have the capacity to respond to difficult demands.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of the Isles
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that the Council of the Isles includes representation from all the English regions. [49750]

  The Prime Minister
  The Good Friday Agreement provides for the establishment of a British-Irish Council which reflects an earlier proposal for a Council of the Isles.

  The Agreement specifies that membership of the British-Irish Council will comprise representatives of the British and Irish Governments, devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, when established, and, if appropriate, elsewhere in the United Kingdom, together with representatives of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

  The Government are currently working to establish the Council later in the year, in transitional form, as the Agreement requires, and will be consulting interested parties as and when appropriate.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to vary the number of Welsh Office Ministers, and the remuneration of these Ministers, to reflect their reduced responsibilities when the Welsh Assembly is established. [50000]

  The Prime Minister
  This will be a matter for further consideration once the National Assembly has been established.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49768]

  The Prime Minister
  Any individual or group may suggest names for appointment to a non-departmental public body (NDPB), review body or task force. The Public Appointments Unit maintains a central list to which nominations can also be made.

  Appointments to NDPBs are made in line with the principles established by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. These require selection on merit and an independent element in the selection process. The Government have recently announced the extension of the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments to cover all advisory NDPBs as well as executive NDPBs.
  642
  Ministers appoint to review bodies and task forces individuals—whether Members of Parliament, civil servants or others—on the basis of their expertise and the contribution they will make to the particular review or task. In making appointments, Ministers' decisions are not improperly influenced by the views of any outside organisations. No systematic record is kept of the origin of nominations since it is usually not relevant to such decisions.

  Derek Draper
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions his Press Secretary has briefed Mr. Derek Draper on the Government's position on matters of current concern. [49961]

  The Prime Minister
  The role of Press Officers at No. 10 is to answer all calls from journalists and to explain Government policy to them in accordance with the rules that apply to the GICS. Mr. Draper has had no briefing from any Press Officer that was not available to any journalist calling the Press Office. No systematic record is kept of the details of the thousands of calls received each week, but any call from Mr. Draper would be dealt with routinely by a Press Officer, rather than the Chief Press Secretary.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Office Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the President of the Council how staff numbers in her Office have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48881]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The number of permanent staff in the Privy Council Office on both dates was 34.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Official Report
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans there are to publish the daily parts of the Official Report in formats amenable to people with sensory impairments. [50033]

  Mrs. Roe
  There are no plans to publish the Official Report in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has described. The Official Report is published free on the Internet and this service can be used by refreshable braille display or through speech synthesis, in order to provide access to visually impaired people.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Taxis (London)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce incentives to London taxi drivers to convert their vehicles to use natural gas or LPG as fuel. [48688]
  643
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government recognise the important air quality advantages of cleaner taxis, such as those using road fuel gases. We already provide an incentive for drivers to use gas fuel because the tax on LPG and natural gas is already much lower than the tax on diesel. The Energy Saving Trust Powershift Programme provides grants to support the purchases of alternatively fuelled vehicles. One such grant under consideration could include gas fuelled London taxis. The Public Carriage Office are working with manufacturers to encourage the development of alternative "greener" engines and fuels.

  Local Authority Transport Schemes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total amount of money made available in each of the past five years to local authorities under the Transport Policies and Programmes system. [48913]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  1,047

  1994–95

  894

  1995–96

  960

  1996–97

  830

  1997–98

  746

  Figures in all years include grant under the Industrial Development Act 1982. Figures for the latter four years include credit approvals available to match European Regional Development Fund grant.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the proportion of total TPP money made available to local authorities in each year for the past five years that was spent on on-going road building schemes; and if he will list the schemes. [48915]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have placed this information in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been allocated in each of the past five years to(a) road schemes and (b) other transport schemes under the Single Regeneration Budget; and which schemes have benefited. [48918]

  Angela Eagle
  The Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund offers support to Partnerships to help them to carry out comprehensive regeneration of their local areas. Partnerships decide local priorities and road and other transport projects may be an element of their schemes. Funding is normally provided for a package of activities and is not allocated by individual elements. Funding commenced on 1 April 1995 and is available for the lifetime of schemes (up to seven years).

  I have placed in the Library a list of the names of the schemes and the total lifetime Challenge Fund grant allocated which includes grant for road and other transport related activities.

  Flood Defences (Brentwood)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list for each of the financial years since 1983–84(a) the expenditure submitted by Brentwood Borough Council under the heading flood defences, for use in the Department's settlement SSA indicator data, (b) the increase in the SSA due to the inclusion of the flood defences estimates in these calculations, (c) the amount of additional Government grant received in that year by the Council solely as a result of the inclusion of the flood defences figures, if any, and (d) the increase in capping limits in each year solely as a result of the inclusion of the flood defence estimates in the calculations; [49012]

  (2) if he will calculate the effect on (a) the standard spending assessment, (b) the amount of Government grant and (c) the capping limit for Brentwood Borough Council for 1998–99 if the flood defence estimates had been nil for each year since 1983–84. [49013]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table shows(a) the expenditure submitted by Brentwood Borough Council for use in the calculation of the Flood Defence element of standard spending assessments (SSAs) for each year since 1990–91; and (b) the resulting increase in the SSA for Brentwood Borough Council:

  Year for which expenditure was budgeted1

  Year for which budgeted expenditure was used in the SSA calculation

  Budgeted expenditure (£000)2

  Increase in SSA due to use of budgeted flood defence expenditure in the calculation (£000)3

  1990–91

  1991–92

  27

  30

  1991–92

  1992–93

  84

  94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  29

  30

  1993–94

  1994–95

  923

  944

  1994–95

  1995–96

  911

  915

  1995–96

  1996–97

  933

  975

  1996–97

  1997–98

  957

  1,014

  1997–98

  1998–99

  955

  1,004

  1Figures submitted and used in earlier years are not readily available

  2Budgeted net current expenditure on flood defence

  3The figures given are for the Flood Defence SSA element for Brentwood Borough Council in each year. The overall increase in SSA due to the inclusion of figures for flood defence expenditure would have been slightly greater than the amounts quoted due to a consequent small decrease in the size of the reduction for interest receipts. The figures quoted do not take account of any indirect effect of changes in spending patterns which may have taken place as a result of not budgeting for expenditure on flood defence.

  Note:

  The reported budgeted expenditure for 1998–99 is £961,000.

  (c) The amount of additional Government grant received in each year by the Council solely as a result of the inclusion of the flood defence figures is approximately equal to the increase in SSA quoted in the table.

  (d) It is impossible to calculate the increase in capping limits for Brentwood Borough Council in each year solely as a result of the inclusion of the flood defence estimates in the calculations because they are likely to have been affected by any changes in budgeting decisions as a result of not budgeting to spend on flood defence.

  If the flood defence estimates for Brentwood Borough Council had been nil for each year since 1983–84, the SSA and the amount of Government grant received by the

  645
  Council for 1998–99 would have been reduced by approximately the size of the increases indicated previously. It is impossible to know what the Council's capping limit in 1998–99 would have been, since it would depend upon the budget it would have set in 1997–98 and earlier years.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation passed in the current session would affect women; what consultation he had with women's organisations; and if he will make a statement. [49086]

  Angela Eagle
  Guidance on policy appraisal has been available since 1992. DETR relaunched the initiative in May 1998.

  Within this Department we are making use of consultation, research projects and disaggregated statistics to identify the impact of policy on women.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision has been made in respect of payment of debts owed by Midland Expressway Ltd. in relation to the construction of the BNRR in the event that the company becomes bankrupt. [49349]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No financial provision has been made by the Government, since we do not consider it likely that the company will become bankrupt or that if it did liabilities would pass to the Government.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the report by Transport Planning Associates commissioned by his Department into the bids to construct the Birmingham Northern Relief Road submitted by BNRR Ltd., MEL and MPC. [49348]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None, since the document appears to be part of the material that previous ministers used in reaching their decision to award the BNRR concession. I understand MEL developed their traffic modelling very substantially during and after the bidding process so as to provide a sound basis for putting their scheme to the public inquiry.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total projected yearly cost of the operation and maintenance of the widened section of the M42 included in the Birmingham Northern Relief Road scheme which would be paid for by the Government if the scheme went ahead. [49287]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Reliable maintenance estimates will not be available until, following the resolution of the current High Court challenges, MEL have undertaken the detailed design of the carriageway. The reconstruction of the M42 to provide an entirely new carriageway should mean that, for the foreseeable future, maintenance costs should be very much lower than for the existing carriageway.
  646
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what percentage of the operation and maintenance cost of the section of the M42 included in the BNRR scheme would be paid for by the Government to MEL if the scheme went ahead; [49289]

  (2) what percentage of the construction cost of widening the section of the M42 included in the BNRR scheme is to be paid for by the Government if the MEL scheme goes ahead. [49288]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Forty per cent.

  Empty Government Properties
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a regional breakdown of the number of empty residential properties owned by Her Majesty's Government, indicating where those properties are located. [49244]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As requested, the following table shows the location of empty residential properties owned by those Departments from which my Department collects figures, using their own regional definitions. Figures for other Government Departments are not collected centrally.

  Location

  Number of properties

  Highways Agency:

  Northumberland, Cumbria, Durham, Tyne & Wear, Cleveland, North Yorkshire, North Humberside, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire

  112

  West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire, West Midlands, Warwickshire and Hereford and Worcester

  126

  Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and South Humberside

  148

  Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Avon and Wiltshire

  35

  Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire and Hampshire

  56

  London

  215

  Home Office:

  North Region

  59

  Midland Region

  50

  South East/West and Wales

  145

  Ministry of Defence:

  South West

  2,712

  South East North

  2,262

  South East South

  1,502

  London/Aldershot

  1,507

  Eastern

  3,023

  Western

  1,466

  Scotland

  1,252

  Northern Ireland

  302

  Second Homes
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 1998, Official Report, column 204, how many second homes are owned and rented in Gloucestershire by households having their main

  647
  residence in England, excluding second homes which are the main residence of another household and those which the owners are intending to sell. [49247]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is not available at the county level.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the average weekly rent during 1997 in(a) council, (b) housing association and (c) private rented housing. [49436]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Figures for England are set out in the table. The latest average weekly rents available for the private rented sector cover 1996–97 and therefore rents used for the council and housing association sectors are for as close to that date as possible.

  Average weekly rent—1996–97

  £

  Council

  40.17

  Housing association1

  46.74

  Privately rented

  76

  1At 31 March 1997

  Source:

  Council: DETR Housing Subsidy Claim Forms

  Housing association: annual Housing Corporation HAR10/1 return Privately rented: DETR Survey of English Housing

  House Prices
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data his Department collates on average house prices for(a) London and (b) other regions. [49415]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department produces two sets of statistics on regional house prices: a regional house price index and average house prices by region. The statistics are available for Government Office Regions and Standard Statistical Regions.

  Average house prices by region and the regional house price index are published in the annual volume of Housing and Construction Statistics. In addition, part 1 of the quarterly Housing and Construction Statistics contains regional average house prices and Economic Trends features the regional house price index. All are published by The Stationery Office and are available in the Library.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1998,Official Report, column 46, what contractual penalties will apply in the event of LCR failing to build the entire railway from the Channel Tunnel to St. Pancras. [49345]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The existing Development Agreement between the Government and London and Continental Railways (LCR), which will be updated to reflect the deal outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, is legally binding on LCR. It requires LCR to build all of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) as detailed in the CTRL Act 1996. Should LCR fail to
  648
  fulfil its obligation to provide the link in accordance with the Act, it would be in breach of that contract. This would allow the Secretary of State to terminate the Development Agreement.

  Moreover, under the revised arrangements, the bulk of the £1.8 billion (NPV) Public Sector Support will be reserved for Phase 2 and would start to be paid only when the majority of the construction costs of that phase had already been incurred.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the time scale of phase two of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link between Ebbsfleet and King's Cross to assess ways in which it might be advanced. [49468]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A review would serve no useful purpose. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, the revised arrangements are specifically designed to incentivise Railtrack to commit to acquire Section 2 as early as possible. Railtrack will have a lesser financial return on Section 1 than for Sections 1 and 2 combined. The sooner Railtrack commits to the second phase, the sooner it can expect to earn the higher return.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what savings are forecast from the proposed reduction in the number of administrative units for valuation tribunals. [49470]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We estimate that over a three to five year period the move to the new administrative structure should give net savings on current complements of around £1.3 million per annum or 12 per cent. of the VT budget for a one-off cost (spread over several years and financed out of savings) of around £2 million.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what savings were(a) projected and (b) achieved from the previous amalgamation of the administration of neighbouring valuation tribunals. [49471]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Four office mergers have taken place in recent years (as well as a collocation of two administrations earlier this year). Full savings can take a few years to come through because of initial one-off accommodation and staffing costs.

  It is difficult to quantify precisely savings due solely to rationalisation, because of changes in other circumstances. However, a comparison of the changes in costs of merged and non-merged offices between 1995–96 and 1997–98 indicate savings of over £240,000 (or 17 per cent.) per annum. This compares with projected savings of £220,000.

  Gipsies
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the response by local authorities to the guidance given in Department of the Environment Circular 1/94 requiring local planning authorities to assess the need for gipsy accommodation in their areas; and if he will make a statement. [49469]
  649
  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department part funded research by the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers (ACERT) which examined local authority development plans to assess the adequacy of Gipsy policies. Their report,A directory of planning for Gypsy site provisions in England, revealed some gaps in local authorities' compliance with Circular 1/94. My officials have written to all chief planning officers, on 27 May, reminding local planning authorities of the advice in Circular 1/94. Their attention was particularly drawn to the requirement to assess the need for Gipsy accommodation in their areas and to ensure that adequate Gipsy site provision was made in their development plans. A copy of the letter will be placed in the House Library.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what occasions(a) he, (b) ministers in his Department and (c) his special advisers have met representatives of (i) GPC Market Access, (ii) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (iii) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who these representatives were; and what was discussed at these meetings. [49550]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, and their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety; for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49771]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today,Official Report, columns 641–42.

  Vehicle Number Plates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will carry out a compliance cost assessment in respect of the proposed change in the format of vehicle number plates; and if he will make a statement. [49960]
  650
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The proposed change to the vehicle registration format is not due to be implemented until 2001. Interested parties, including industry, will be consulted on the draft regulation to effect the change before it is laid before Parliament nearer that time. It is Government policy that all such changes are accompanied by a Regulatory Impact Assessment.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 1998,Official Report, column 575, regarding building regulations, what measures his Department has taken to identify building control notices which may have been obtained to circumvent the new requirements for access and facilities for disabled people. [49762]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Officials are in contact with the NHBC, which is the only approved inspector currently able to give Building Act initial notices for new housing, to identify any cases similar to those in the hon. Member's constituency and to ensure that NHBC have measures in place to avoid any more such cases. I am considering what additional steps are needed to ensure an effective transfer to the new Building Regulation requirements, and I will make a further announcement as soon as possible.

  Water and Fire Services
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the status of the code of practice produced by the National Liaison Group to improve water industry and Fire Service co-operation; and by whom it will be enforced. [50109]

  Angela Eagle
  The Code will provide guidance to water companies and Fire Authorities on issues relating to water for firefighting. It will not have direct enforcement provisions, but water companies and Fire Authorities will be expected to comply with its provisions. Its implementation will be monitored by my Department.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what community use is planned for the National Stadium at Wembley; and if he will make a statement. [49652]

  Mr. Banks
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is an agreement in principle that the stadium will be used for community use. The precise arrangements will be required by the English Sports Council, and will be considered as the design brief is prepared and finished.

WALES

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions (i) he, (ii) his special adviser and (iii) his Ministers have held with representatives of(a) GPC Market Access, (b) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (c) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [49699]
  651
  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special Advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and task forces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49781]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Integrated Transport Policy
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Government's proposals relating to an integrated transport policy in Wales will be published. [49788]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Transport Policy Statement is expected to be published later this month.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many innovation and technology counsellors there are in Wales offering free guidance to firms on the Year 2000 problem; and how they may be contacted. [49789]

  Mr. Hain
  There are currently 8 Innovation and Technology Counsellors employed across Wales who are addressing the year 2000 problem as part of their portfolio of providing wide-ranging advice and guidance to Welsh businesses.

  A recruitment exercise is, however, currently being undertaken to appoint a further 8 counsellors who will have specific responsibility for addressing the "Year 2000" issue.

  Existing ITCs can be contacted via Business Connect Wales on 0345 96 97 98.

  Exports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of(a) all exports and (b) manufactured goods exported from Wales to the rest of the EU in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 1998. [49795]
  652
  Mr. Hain
  Export statistics are collected only on a UK basis and cannot be disaggregated.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people he estimates were employed in manufacturing in Wales in each year since 1992. [49794]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest estimates of the number of employee jobs in manufacturing in each year since 1992 are given in the table.

  Number of employee jobs in manufacturing1

  Year

  Thousand

  1992

  200

  1993

  199

  1994

  207

  1995

  212

  1996

  209

  1997

  208

  1998

  214

  1 Excludes the self employed, but data from the Labour Force Survey indicate that, on average since 1992, there have been around 10,000 self employed people in the manufacturing sector in Wales

  Source:

  Employer Survey ONS, at March each year

  Strikes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many days were lost through strikes in Wales in each year since 1992. [49790]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of working days lost due to labour disputes, Wales 1992–19971

  Year

  Working days lost

  1992

  10,000

  1993

  20,100

  1994

  13,300

  1995

  14,700

  1996

  60,400

  1997

  3,200

  1Labour disputes statistics cover all stoppages of work connected with terms and conditions of employment, except those involving fewer than ten workers or lasting less than one working day. These are excluded unless the total number of working days lost in the dispute is greater than 100

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Inland Investment
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new jobs he estimates were created by inward investment to Wales in 1997–98. [49793]

  Mr. Hain
  In 1997–98, the Welsh Development Agency recorded inward investment projects which promise the creation of a total of 8,961 new jobs. Not all of the jobs will have been created last year; the majority of the projects will need time gradually to build up to full operating capacity.

  New Deal
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently on the New Deal in Wales, by travel-to-work area. [49787]

  Mr. Hain
  The figures are not available by travel-to-work area. However, over 5,000 young people in Wales have already joined the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds and are receiving the support, training and experience they need to secure lasting employment.

  "Pathway to Prosperity"
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to public funds of the publication of "Pathway to Prosperity". [49796]

  Mr. Hain
  The charge to the Department for designing, printing, and distributing the document and related materials is expected to be in the region of £16,000.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credits
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her latest estimate of likely ECGD losses on its portfolio in(a) Indonesia, (b) Thailand, (c) South Korea and (d) Malaysia. [49193]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: ECGD does not expect to make any losses on sovereign risk business in these markets. Payment delays have occurred in relation to a small element of commercial risk debts in Thailand and Indonesia, but it is too early to say how much loss (if any) these might lead to.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent assessment she has made of Indonesian risk under ECGD. [49197]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: ECGD completed its last formal market review of Indonesia in January 1998. The changing circumstances in the region have meant that ECGD has monitored the situation closely since then. A further formal review will commence shortly.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the country risks reviewed by ECGD in the last six months, along with the changes of terms which resulted. [49196]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Since January 1998 ECGD has reviewed the risks on the following countries:

  Month/country

  Change of terms

  January

  Bangladesh

  Cover increased. Premium reduced

  February

  Pakistan

  Premium increased

  Indonesia

  Premium increased

  Thailand

  Cover reduced. Premium increased

  March

  Argentina

  No Changes

  China

  Cover increased. Premium reduced

  654

  Month/country

  Change of terms

  Dominican Republic

  Cover increased. Premium increased

  Hong Kong

  No changes

  April

  Bolivia

  Resumption of medium-term cover

  Brazil

  Cover increased

  Croatia

  Cover increased. Premium decreased

  Israel

  No changes

  Laos

  No medium-term cover

  May

  Turkey

  Cover increased

  Greece

  Cover increased. Premium reduced

  June

  Chile

  Cover increased

  South Korea

  Premium increased

  July

  Ghana

  Review not complete

  Malaysia

  Review not complete

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the moneys that have been made available to each of the regions of the United Kingdom from each of the European Union's structural funds in each of the last three years. [49482]

  Mrs. Roche
  Structural Funds allocations under Objectives 1, 2 and 5b (excluding the Community Initiatives) are given in the table. Allocations for the Community Initiatives (which represent approximately 9 per cent of the UK's overall Objectives 1, 2 and 5b allocations) and under Objectives 3, 4 and 5a have not been given, since not all of these are regionally allocated. The decline in allocations under Objective 2 between 1996 and 1997 will be fully offset by higher allocations in 1998 and 1999.

  UK SPD Allocations: 1995–97million ecu, 1998 prices

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Objective 1

  Merseyside

  ERDF

  75

  80

  86

  ESF

  53

  57

  61

  EAGGF

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  129

  138

  148

  Highlands and Islands

  ERDF

  29

  30

  33

  ESF

  9

  10

  10

  EAGGF

  8

  9

  10

  FIFG

  4

  4

  3

  Total

  50

  53

  56

  Northern Ireland

  ERDF

  109

  117

  126

  ESF

  53

  58

  62

  EAGGF

  29

  32

  33

  FIFG

  2

  2

  3

  Total

  194

  209

  223

  Total UK Objective 1

  ERDR

  213

  227

  245

  ESF

  116

  125

  133

  EAGGF

  38

  41

  43

  FIFG

  6

  6

  6

  Total

  372

  400

  427

  655

  UK SPD Allocations: 1995–97million ecu, 1998 prices

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Objective 2

  North East England

  ERDF

  81

  86

  46

  ESF

  27

  29

  18

  Total

  109

  115

  65

  West Cumbria

  ERDF

  7

  7

  2

  ESF

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  9

  9

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  ERDF

  83

  86

  94

  ESF

  28

  29

  28

  Total

  110

  115

  122

  East Midlands

  ERDF

  21

  22

  25

  ESF

  7

  7

  8

  Total

  28

  29

  33

  West Midlands

  ERDF

  98

  104

  68

  ESF

  33

  35

  27

  Total

  131

  138

  95

  North West

  ERDF

  81

  86

  30

  ESF

  35

  37

  29

  Total

  116

  123

  59

  East London and Lea Valley

  ERDF

  20

  21

  16

  ESF

  7

  7

  6

  Total

  26

  28

  22

  Thanet

  ERDF

  4

  4

  5

  ESF

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  5

  5

  6

  Plymouth

  ERDF

  8

  9

  9

  ESF

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  10

  11

  11

  Industrial South Wales

  ERDF

  50

  53

  35

  ESF

  17

  18

  15

  Total

  66

  70

  50

  Eastern Scotland

  ERDF

  34

  36

  38

  ESF

  9

  9

  9

  Total

  43

  45

  47

  Western Scotland

  ERDF

  79

  83

  50

  ESF

  22

  24

  20

  Total

  101

  107

  70

  Total United Kingdom Objective 2

  ERDF

  565

  597

  417

  ESF

  188

  199

  166

  Total

  753

  796

  584

  Objective 5b

  South West England

  ERDF

  24

  28

  28

  ESF

  5

  6

  6

  EAGGF

  7

  8

  8

  Total

  36

  42

  42

  The Marches

  ERDF

  4

  4

  4

  ESF

  1

  2

  2

  EAGGF

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  7

  7

  7

  Midlands Uplands

  ERDF

  1

  2

  2

  ESF

  0

  0

  0

  EAGGF

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  2

  2

  2

  Northern Uplands

  ERDF

  11

  12

  12

  ESF

  4

  3

  5

  EAGGF

  3

  5

  3

  656

  UK SPD Allocations: 1995–97million ecu, 1998 prices

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Total

  18

  21

  21

  Lincolnshire

  ERDF

  6

  7

  7

  ESF

  1

  2

  2

  EAGGF

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  9

  10

  10

  East Anglia

  ERDF

  7

  8

  8

  ESF

  1

  1

  2

  EAGGF

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  10

  11

  12

  Rural Wales

  ERDF

  19

  22

  22

  ESF

  6

  6

  6

  EAGGF

  6

  7

  7

  Total

  30

  35

  35

  Borders of Scotland

  ERDF

  3

  4

  4

  ESF

  1

  1

  1

  EAGGF

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  5

  6

  6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ERDF

  6

  7

  7

  ESF

  1

  1

  1

  EAGGF

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  8

  9

  9

  Central Scotland/Tayside

  ERDF

  3

  3

  3

  ESF

  1

  1

  1

  EAGGF

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  4

  5

  5

  Grampian

  ERDF

  5

  5

  6

  ESF

  1

  1

  1

  EAGGF

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  7

  8

  8

  Total United Kingdom Objective 5b

  ERDF

  88

  102

  103

  ESF

  24

  25

  28

  EAGGF

  23

  29

  27

  Total

  136

  156

  157

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) special advisers in her Department have met representatives of (i) GPC Market Access, (ii) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (iii) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who their representatives were; and what were the topics of discussions. [49659]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government

  657
  Information published in January 1997. Special Advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and task forces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49773]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Hawk Jet Contract (Indonesia)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the likelihood of full payments being made by the customer for Hawk jets supplied to Indonesia. [49195]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: No specific assessment has been made in relation to the Hawk contracts. It is not usual practice to re-assess risk on individual contracts once the ECGD guarantee has been issued. Payments under the loans guaranteed by ECGD are up to date.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the cost of the audit for millennium compliance purposes of the computer systems used in container ships, and at container ports and freight depots. [49449]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is very concerned about the issue of millennium compliance and has brought it to the attention of the UK shipping and ports industries through their respective trade associations.

  I am aware that the Chamber of Shipping has issued advice to its members, and that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has also published guidance on the need to identify and test critical equipment and systems. Operators are also being advised to develop operational arrangements to mitigate the effect of any system failure.

  Of course, any audit of computer systems for millennium compliance purposes would be a matter for individual companies. We therefore do not have any information on the likely costs of such an exercise.

DEFENCE

  Nerve Agent Pre-treatment Sets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1998,Official Report,
  658
  columns 164–65, on nerve agent pre-treatment sets, how many of the tablets manufactured by Roche Products Ltd were used during Operation Granby. [48332]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence has no information on the quantity, if any, of Nerve Agent Pre-treatment Set (NAPS) tablets manufactured by Roche Products Ltd. which were used by UK forces during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. However, as my written answer of 16 June 1998,Official Report, columns 164–65, explained, MOD let a contract to Duphar BV in July 1988 to replace MOD's holding of Roche tablets; the Duphar tablets were delivered to MOD in February 1989 and distributed to units by August 1989. We therefore believe that the NAPS tablets used during the Gulf conflict were drawn principally, possibly exclusively, from stocks of the Duphar tablets.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1998,Official Report, columns 164–65, on nerve agent pre-treatment sets, if samples of the tablets manufactured by (a) Roche Products Ltd. and (b) Duphar BV, were tested again to determine suitability for use between 1990 and 1995. [48331]

  Dr. Reid
  Samples from the batch of Nerve Agent Pre-treatment Sets (NAPS) tablets manufactured by Duphar BV in January 1989 were analysed at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) (now known as the Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) at Porton Down in September 1994 and October 1995. In addition, samples from the batch of tablets produced by Duphar BV in February 1991 were tested by CBDE in December 1992. All of these tests found the tablets' mean Pyridostigmine Bromide content to be within the limits set by the United States and British Pharmacopoeiae (USP and BP).

  Other than the tests conducted by CBD (then the Chemical Defence Establishment (CDE)) in October 1990, to which I referred in my written answer of 16 June 1998, Official Report, columns 164–65, the Ministry of Defence is not aware of any other occasion on which the tablets produced by Roche in 1982 and 1983 were tested.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, columns 7–8, (1) how many staff are currently signed off work for sickness at Porton Down; how many have been signed off for more than a month; and how these figures compare to the average for the last 15 years; [49142]

  (2) what health monitoring of staff has taken place at Porton Down in the last 15 years; and what are the results of the monitoring; [49138]

  (3) how many staff have left employment at Porton Down for health reasons in the last 15 years; [49140]

  (4) how many staff at Porton Down have received inoculations and vaccinations as part of their normal safety regime in the last 15 years; what were the inoculations and vaccinations; and for what specific purpose; [49141]
  659
  (5) how many people have retired on health grounds from employment at Porton Down in the last 15 years; [49139]

  (6) how many people have been employed at Porton Down in each of the last 15 years; and of these how many were employed on work which required such vaccination. [49143]

  Mr. Spellar
  These are matters for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 10 July 1998:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Defence to reply to your questions about the health monitoring and vaccination programmes of staff employed in the Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) based at Porton Down. The following paragraphs address the areas raised in your six questions.
  CBD has an occupational health service on site which routinely monitors the health of its staff. The results of such monitoring are "Restricted—Medical in Confidence".
  A proportion of staff, because of the nature of their research work, receive inoculations and vaccinations in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the Advisory Committee for Dangerous Pathogens. Members of staff at CBD only receive such vaccinations if they are working or are intending to work with a pathogenic organism, or to meet recommendations/requirements for overseas travel in connection with their work.
  Last year, 130 members of staff received such vaccinations. The research at CBD includes the development of protective measures for the UK Armed Forces against potential biological warfare agents, and I will not disclose full details of the vaccinations under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, I can confirm that these vaccinations include those against plague and anthrax. Details of the numbers of staff who have received vaccinations and the numbers employed on work which has required vaccinations in each of the last fifteen years could only be obtained by examining the individual medical records of all members of staff for that period and would involve disproportionate effort.
  Members of the occupational health team are vaccinated in accordance with Department of Health guidelines.
  You also asked about staff on sick leave and those who have retired or left for health reasons. There are currently some 600 staff in CBD Sector at Porton Down. On Monday 29 June 1998 eleven staff were on sick leave and, of those, six have been "signed off" for more than one month. Records show that twenty seven members of staff have retired from or left employment at CBD on health grounds over the last ten years. The format of our records is such that I am unable to readily provide the information as requested.
  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Bilderberg Meeting, Turnberry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mode of transport he used to attend the recent Bilderberg meeting at Turnberry; and what was the cost to public funds. [46988]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I flew to Scotland on Friday 14 May in an aircraft of the RAF Communications Fleet, accompanied by the Secretary General of NATO, Snr. Solana. I left the following day in an Army helicopter for a further official engagement. The estimated value of the use of Departmental assets for these flights is £3,840.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49774]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today,Official Report, columns 641–42.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  One-estate Election
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he will implement to safeguard the interests of those who maintain historic houses open to the public against the effect of the withdrawal of one-estate election. [47225]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to introduce any specific measures in respect of those privately owned historic houses that may be subject to the withdrawal of One-Estate Election (OEE) in April 2001. Treasury Ministers are aware of the concerns about the repeal of OEE. Such matters of taxation policy are for Treasury Ministers.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Paymaster General concerning the ending of one-estate election; and if he will make a statement. [47202]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has exchanged views on One-Estate Election with the Paymaster General and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when (i) he, (ii) his Ministers and (iii) his special advisers have met representatives of(a) GPC Market Access, (b) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (c) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who these representatives were; and what was discussed at these meetings. [49661]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, the Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special Advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of

  661
  propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49778]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans have been developed to date for the provision of services for disabled sportsmen and women within the UK Sports Institute; and what representations he has received from disability organisations on the UK Sports Institute. [49207]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]: The UK Sports Institute will provide first class facilities for a range of Olympic and other non-commercial sports for our best disabled sportsmen and women, alongside those for the able bodies.

  A briefing meeting was recently held with the British Paralympic Association (BPA) to discuss their requirements for facilities and services at the Institute. The BPA Technical Director, and a seconded UK Sports Council project officer for disability sport, are members of the technical services team with responsibility for taking these issues forward.

  Lyric Theatre
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what support was provided to Sir Richard Eyre by his Department for the preparation of his report on lyric theatre in London; [49528]

  (2) how many officials from his Department worked on Sir Richard Eyre's report on lyric theatre in London; and what assistance they gave. [49529]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Sir Richard Eyre and his working group were provided with secretariat support by three officials from my Department. In addition, one official and my special adviser were members of the working group. My Department also made arrangements for the report to be published and launched. The contents of the report were entirely Sir Richard's.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions have taken place between representatives of the Sports Council and the British Athletics Federation about the need for an athletics track as part of the new English National Stadium at Wembley. [49801]
  662
  Mr. Banks
  The British Athletics Federation were fully involved in the selection process for the National Stadium and in defining the requirements for the project. Further discussions with the athletics governing body will take place as the design brief is prepared to discuss proposals for athletics facilities.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the Adjournment debate of 29 June 1998,Official Report, columns 126–30, on Wembley Stadium, when he plans to respond to the questions raised by the hon. Members for Brent, North and Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). [49800]

  Mr. Banks
  I am pleased to confirm that I wrote to my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North and for Bradford, South on 9 July.

  Copies of my replies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Sporting Achievement
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support he will give to outstanding sportsmen and sportswomen from the Eastern Region. [49634]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 16 December 1997, Official Report, column 77, that Sheffield was the successful consortium chosen to run and manage the United Kingdom Sports Institute Headquarters. Alongside the HQ there will be a regional network which will provide first class facilities for a range of Olympic and other non-commercial sports for our very best sportsmen and women.

  The Home Country Sports Councils have been tasked by Ministers to identify prospective regional centres. The English Sports Council (ESC) have looked very carefully at the siting of the Centres in England and have taken into account many factors including existing facilities, population and transport. They are aware that there are a couple of areas where the location of the Regional Centre is not so obvious or easy; however, that does not mean that the question of a Centre in that area is to be shelved. The ESC have therefore concentrated on finding a solution so that all our elite athletes, wherever they live, will have access to the best training and support services.

  I have received the ESC's recommendations, but they will need careful consideration and discussion before any decision and announcement are made.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results of the review of asylum and immigration appeals. [50528]

  Mr. Straw
  I will publish a consultation paper on the review of asylum and immigration appeals at 10.00 am on Monday 13 July. A copy of the consultation paper will be placed in the Library.

  Police (Entry and Seizure Powers)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on the exercise in London of the powers available under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. [49495]

  Mr. Michael
  The decision whether or not to use the powers available under section 61 is an operational one for the Commissioner.

  No guidance has been given specifically to the Commissioner. However, Home Office Circular 45/1994, was issued to all Chief Officers. This draws their attention to an undertaking made, by the then Government, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament:
  "The decision whether or not to issue a direction to leave is an operational one for the police alone to take in the light of all the circumstances of the particular case. But in making his decision, the senior officer at the scene may wish to take account of the personal circumstances of the trespassers; for example, the presence of elderly persons, invalids, pregnant women, children and other persons whose well-being may be jeopardised by a precipitate move".

  The Metropolitan Police issued guidance to their officers in a written notice on 11 August 1995 which contains the following points:
  "The powers under section 61 are discretionary.
  The type of land. It may be more appropriate to use the powers where trespassers "invade" a person's front garden than if they are camping on derelict land.
  The length of time that the trespassers have been on the land. It will be much less appropriate to use the powers if the trespassers have been on the land for several weeks than if they have just arrived.
  Policing problems which arise from the presence of the trespassers on the land, namely public disorder, crime or obstruction of the highway (bearing in mind that the offence does not relate to the highway). Good policing reasons for moving the trespassers may well be valid.
  It should be borne in mind that the use of the power under the Act may have the effect only of moving the problem to a different site. Indeed it could make matters worse.
  The police should not usurp the functions of the civil course. The use of the powers under section 61 are not appropriate where there may be a genuine dispute as to the right to the possession of the land. In such a case, the matter should be left to the civil courts to determine in the normal way.
  The officers should certainly consider the effect of a direction to leave land. If the trespassers comply with the direction, the use of it may well be successful. However, if they do not comply the officer should consider what steps it is proposed to take.
  It may not be practical to arrest all the trespassers, there may well be children or animals involved. Arresting adults may mean that provision will have to be made for the care of children or animals. Furthermore, arresting large numbers could lead to major disorder with the resulting problems that that would cause.
  If it is decided to arrest some or a large number of the trespassers, consideration should be given as to what will happen to vehicles and other property. It must be remembered that some of these vehicles will be used as homes by the trespassers.
  Even though section 62 provides a power to remove the vehicles, they have to be put somewhere. It would seem undesirable that police stations yards or car pounds should be turned into encampments for travellers or gipsies".

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49770]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and task forces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49783]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings or other contacts (i) he, (ii) his Ministers and (iii) his special advisers and officials have had with representatives of(a) GPC Market Access, (b) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (c) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; and what were the dates of such meetings or contacts, the names of the people involved and the subject matter of such exchanges. [49735]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to reduce the chances of cross-pollination between genetically modified crops and organic crops. [49434]
  665
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]: There are no specific requirements under the current legislation controlling the release of genetically modified organisms to consider organic farming when field testing genetically modified crops. However, where needed, release consents have specific measures attached that are designed to limit the cross-pollination of neighbouring crops whether they are organic or not.

  I am aware of the concerns raised by organic farmers in connection with the planting of GM crops and I have asked my officials to explore with DETR, the farming community and organic standards representatives how these can be addressed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Lobbyists
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when (i) she, (ii) her Ministers and (iii) her special advisers met representatives of(a) GPC Market Access, (b) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (c) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who these representatives were; and what was discussed at these meetings. [49662]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed; one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special Advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and task forces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49776]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  "Partnership for Equality"
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she has come to a decision on any of the proposals in the White Paper "Partnership for Equality" on which views were invited. [50527]
  666
  Mr. Worthington
  When the White Paper was published, written comments were invited by 12 June on issues where the Government had not yet made a final decision, or where there were detailed matters to be decided, consequent on a decision in principle. The Government have given urgent consideration to two of these issues—a proposal to create a statutory obligation on the public sector to promote equality of opportunity and the proposal to create a unified Equality Commission. In response to comments received on the proposed statutory equality obligation, it is proposed to set out the requirements on public bodies in more detail in forthcoming legislation, particularly in terms of consultation with outside bodies and the provision of information. The Government have also considered carefully the concerns expressed by a number of respondents on the proposal to bring together the existing statutory equality bodies in a unified Commission. They have decided to proceed with this proposal, while taking steps to ensure that the ethos of the current bodies and the advances which they have made are protected within the new framework, and that all dimensions of equality are given due attention in the new Commission's work. Discussions will take place with the existing statutory equality bodies on the structures of a new Commission. A briefing document, giving further details of changes made to the original proposals, has been placed in the Parliamentary Libraries.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and task forces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49767]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what dates (i) she,(ii) her Ministers and (iii) her special advisers have met representatives of(a) GPC Market Access, (b) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (c) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who these representatives were; and what was discussed at these meetings. [49569]

  Clare Short
  Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in
  667
  the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

SCOTLAND

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation passed in the current session would affect women; what consultation he had with women's organisations; and if he will make a statement. [49082]

  Mr. McLeish
  Guidance on policy appraisal for equal treatment has been available since 1992. Guidelines were last issued to Scottish Office staff in January 1997. The implementation of the guidelines is monitored by Departmental Management Boards.

  The Scottish Office is making full use of consultation and research projects to identify the impact of policies on women. In October 1997 I published a consultation document entitled "Reaching Women in Scotland" which I followed up with a conference on 24 April 1998 to which all responding organisations were invited. The outcome of the consultation is the establishment of the Women in Scotland Consultative Forum which will meet with me at least twice a year. The first meeting will take place on 20 November.

  I have also spoken individually to a number of women's organisations and groups and intend to continue to do so.

  The Scottish Office appointed a Women's Issues Research Consultant in April 1998. Her remit is to prepare a database of women's organisations and to advise on the best ways of keeping women informed and enabling them to express their views about the development of policy in Scotland. She will also advise on policy priorities and identify opportunities for further research.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings (i) he and (ii) his Ministers have held since 1 May 1997 with representatives of(a) GPC Market Access, (b) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (c) GJW Government Relations; and if he will make a statement. [49700]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other
  668
  countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meeting or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special Advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and task forces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49779]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new jobs he estimates were created by inward investment into Scotland in 1997–98. [49791]

  Mr. Wilson
  Many of the inward investment projects attracted to Scotland in 1997–98 will be implemented over a period of years and the creation of the new jobs associated with them will be phased accordingly. Figures published in the Locate in Scotland Annual Review for 1997–98 show that during that year Locate in Scotland and The Scottish Office helped to attract to Scotland 87 inward investment projects which, if fully implemented, will lead to the creation of 14,524 new jobs and the safeguarding of 3,423 existing jobs. Additionally, we are aware of a further 18 projects involving the planned creation of 850 jobs but in which neither Locate in Scotland nor The Scottish Office had any direct involvement.

  The figures are based on the employment forecasts made by companies at the time of the decision to invest. Some projects may subsequently be reduced in scale as a result of changes in the commercial environment. Equally, however, some projects may lead to more investment and more jobs than originally anticipated; and the figures take no account of the substantial number of new jobs created indirectly in supplier companies. Experience over a number of years indicates that, on average, around two-thirds of planned direct jobs are created.

TREASURY

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49777]
  669
  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend today, Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what occasions(a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) his special advisers have met representatives of (i) GPC Market Access, (ii) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn or (iii) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who these representatives were; and what was discussed at the meetings. [49670]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Inflation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the current sterling exchange rate on inflation in the United Kingdom. [49615]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with comments made by the Monetary Policy Committee in its May Inflation Report that"the lagged effect of sterling's rise on import prices is exerting downward pressure on UK inflation".

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of the increase in short-term interest rates since May 1997 on(a) the RPI, (b) wages and salary negotiations and (c) house prices.[49626]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Increases in short-term interest rates since May 1997 will return underlying retail price inflation towards target. Rising interest rates will temporarily boost headline RPI inflation because the headline measure includes mortgage interest payments, but this effect unwinds after a year.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 1998, Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation
  670
  passed in the current session would affect women; what consultation he had with women's organisations; and if he will make a statement. [49095]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Guidance on policy appraisal for equal treatment has been available since 1992. Application of the guidance has been the responsibility of individual Departments.

  Within the Treasury use has been made of consultation and micro-simulation modelling in order to identify the impact of policy upon women. Officials had a number of meetings with members of the Women's Budget Group in the run-up to the March 1998 Budget.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [48838]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  All compliance activity on Departmental systems has been phased to ensure that they are dealt with in priority order relative to their importance to the Department's business.

  The major systems (which are key to the payment of benefits and pensions) are designed to hold dates in a format unaffected by the turn of the century. The Department is on target against its published plans to achieve year 2000 compliance of these systems, and expects all will be confirmed as compliant before the end of 1998. The first part of our contingency is that this allows for a full year's running before 2000.

  The Department expects to complete the programme of work to upgrade or replace business critical desktop computer systems by the end of March 1999. This target allows adequate contingency before the dates these systems might otherwise fail.

  We have a range of plans to support the continuity of Social Security operations and are working closely with the Central IT Unit, other departments and Action 2000 to identify and if necessary deal with specific Year 2000 related threats. It is anticipated that all work on business continuity will be complete by March 1999. However, even beyond this date, we will continue to assess the potential impact of residual risks arising from external factors, over which we have no direct control e.g. electricity supply: for Year 2000 we will continue to update plans and if necessary to take action as more and better intelligence becomes available.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of retired households in Gloucestershire, by district, rely on social security for 50 per cent. or more of their income. [49256]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available as neither the Family Expenditure Survey nor the Family Resources Survey provides specific information for the geographical area requested.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what occasions(a) she, (b) her Ministers and (c) her Department's special advisers have met representatives of (i) GPC Market Access, (ii) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (iii) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who these representatives were; and what was discussed. [49674]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of the Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special Advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and task forces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49765]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer from the Prime Minister today,Official Report, columns 641–42.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she proposes to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside of 10 April originally sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and transferred to her on 1 May. [49764]

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to reply to the letter of 9 June from the hon. Member for Totnes, providing further information about Malcolm Boyd of Thornhill, Ashburton, South Devon, with regard to his eligibility for jobseeker' s allowance. [49799]

  Mr. Field
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member on Thursday 9 July 1998.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list her engagements and those of the Under-Secretary of State for Women for 29 June. [50003]
  672
  Ms Harman
  I was undertaking Departmental business in Richmond House.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women had Departmental engagements in Bristol and Taunton all day.

  Departmental Environmental Policies
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures she is taking to discourage car use on departmental business by his Department's employees. [50045]

  Mr. Denham
  Departmental instructions permit the use of cars only when all other forms of transport have been considered and they deliver the best value for money solution.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current annual energy consumption of her Department; what targets have been set to reduce this level; and what plans she has to include energy efficiency performance figures in her Department's annual report. [50029]

  Mr. Denham
  The energy consumption for the Department in 1996–97 was 574 million kWh. Figures for 1997–98 will be finalised in September.

  Following the PRIME initiative, which transferred the ownership of the Department's estate on 1 April 1998, all building related services are now provided to the Department by the private sector consortium PPM. These services include energy management.

  PPM have appointed a National Utilities Efficiency Manager. They are working with the Department to devise initiatives, and to implement innovative techniques, to optimise energy consumption and are acting on our behalf to procure energy supplies cost effectively. PPM are expected to invest in spend to save projects and are currently re-tendering electricity contracts to maximise the opportunities available from the expanded and deregulated utilities market. Consumption targets are to be agreed with the Department and both sides will be incentivised to make savings by reducing energy usage. All energy consumption will be monitored and site specific monthly, quarterly and annual reports will help to identify trends and good practice.

  The Social Security Departmental Report 1998–99, Cm 3913, includes a section on Environmental Issues, which details the Department's contribution to the programme to reduce government impact on the environment. The section includes the results of a six-month pilot to introduce an in-line fuel catalyst to the Department's fleet of 3,500 vehicles. The results showed improvements of more than 60 per cent. overall in toxic emissions and a 7 per cent. increase in miles per gallon due to the more efficient combustion.

  We will consider including further details of energy efficiency initiatives and performance in future Reports.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) disabled people and (b) people whose main disabling condition is deafness were awarded

  673
  disability living allowance (i) between 1 June 1996 and 31 May 1997 and (ii) since June 1997 (1) on their initial application, (2) at review and (3) at appeal. [49797]

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

  Awards of Disability Living Allowance

  1 June 1996 to 31 May 1997

  1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998

  Awards

  All disabilities

  Deafness

  All disabilities

  Deafness

  On initial application

  234,000

  1,700

  198,400

  2,300

  At review

  39,700

  700

  36,400

  1,200

  At appeal

  13,800

  600

  13,200

  1,000

  Notes:

  1. Numbers rounded to nearest hundred

  2. Figures for deafness relate to cases where this is the main disabling condition

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data

HEALTH

  Avon Health Authority
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 30 June 1998, Official Report, column 139, if he will set out the conclusions of his officials' examination of Avon Health Authority's policy on beta interferon; and if he will make a statement on the action which follows from that examination. [49273]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: Health authorities determine their priorities in the light of evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments, but there must be flexibility for them to consider individual exceptional cases on their merits. The Government want to see fairer access to quality services.

  Avon Health Authority most recently considered the issue of beta interferon at its meeting on 30 April 1998. The authority decided, after reviewing relevant evidence, that it would not provide specific funding for the drug on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support such a decision. Clinicians and trusts are however free to prescribe the drug within existing resources. The decision was widely publicised and the authority indicated its intention to review the position on receipt of further evidence.

  Officials are following up the matter with Avon Health Authority to ensure that their most recent decision conforms with Government policy.

  Health Authorities (Legal Direction)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1998, Official Report, column 386, if he will give the date prior to 1998 on which a Secretary of State for Health last issued a legal direction to a health authority to withdraw a public consultation document. [50044]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Salford and Trafford Health Authority
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from Trafford CHC relating to his decision to direct the Salford and Trafford Health Authority to withdraw its consultation on children's services; [50007]

  (2) what plans he has to provide additional funding to safeguard the future of the children's ward at Trafford General Hospital. [50006]

  Mr. Milburn
  Salford and Trafford Health Authority is already funding the children's services at Trafford General Hospital and will continue to do so. We have received no such representations from Trafford Community Health Council.

  Infertility Services
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to issue guidelines on infertility services. [50071]

  Ms Jowell
  Clinical guidelines on infertility are currently being revised by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The first two sets of clinical guidelines, which deal with primary care and local specialist services, should be available in August. The final set, which deals with the most specialised tertiary-level infertility services, will be available in early 1999.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside of 27 March and 22 May. [49763]

  Ms Jowell
  I regret there is no trace of these letters having been received in the Department. If my hon. Friend will arrange for copies to be sent to me I shall ensure they receive urgent attention.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49766]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today, Official Report, columns 641–42.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what occasions(a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) his special advisers have met representatives of (i) GPC Market Access, (ii) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (iii) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who these representatives were; and what was discussed at these meetings. [49761]

  Ms Jowell
  Ministers, their special advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific
  675
  functions of special advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety; for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what responses have been received to the consultation paper, Unification of the Stipendiary Bench, published on 1 April. [50428]

  Mr. Hoon
  54 responses have been received. I have today placed a summary of the responses in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Official Residence
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many nights the Lord Chancellor has spent in his official residence since the refurbishments were completed. [49786]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor and Lady Irvine moved into the Official Residence on 27 April 1998. They usually stay in the Residence on weekday evenings, returning to their home in London for weekends.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of full-time and part-time special adjudicators employed by the Immigration Appellate Authority to hear and determine asylum appeals(a) currently, (b) on 1 January 1997, (c) on 1 January 1995 and (d) at the time the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force. [49165]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of special adjudicators are as follows:

  (a) currently there are 37 full-time and 118 part-time adjudicators, (b) on 1 January 1997 there were 32 full-time and 85 part-time adjudicators, (c) on 1 January 1995 there were 21 full-time and 23 part-time adjudicators and (d) at the time the Act came into force there were 9 full-time and 6 part-time adjudicators.

  Bar Pupillages
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps his Department is planning to ensure that there is an increase in the number of pupillages available at the private bar. [49074]
  676
  Mr. Hoon
  Barristers are part of an independent and self-regulating profession. The number of pupillages available at the private Bar is a matter for the profession itself.

  Contact Orders
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many women were sent to prison in each of the last three years for refusing to allow an estranged partner access to their children under a contact order. [48941]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not held centrally. Although there is provision for either party to be committed for non compliance with a contact order, no historical data are kept. Each individual case record would need to be searched and the information could, therefore, be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of applications for contact orders from estranged fathers were(a) turned down and (b) turned down on grounds of a history of physical or sexual abuse in the last year for which figures are available. [48942]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not held centrally. Although details of the number of refused contact applications can be obtained, the information is not broken down. Each individual case record would need to be searched and the information could, therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what sanctions the courts may impose on(a) a parent with care and (b) an estranged parent who breaks the terms of a contact order. [48940]

  Mr. Hoon
  In cases where a parent with care or an estranged parent breaks the terms of a contact order, the court may enforce the order by an injunction. Where an undertaking by a party is incorporated in an order of the court that may also be enforced in the same way. Ultimately, the failure to comply with a defined contact order can amount to contempt of court, for which the penalty can be a fine or committal to prison. Imprisonment is a last resort, although in some cases the threat of it can be as effective.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training is available for judges and magistrates to assist them in their understanding of cases involving(a) domestic violence and (b) contact orders. [48971]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which is a non-departmental government body. The JSB also sets the syllabuses for and monitors and evaluates the training of lay magistrates.

  In 1997 all District Judges attended a seminar on their new powers in relation to domestic violence under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. Domestic violence is included in JSB Continuation Seminars for Circuit Judges, Recorders and Assistant Recorders, private Family Law Induction and Continuation seminars attended by judiciary nominated to hear private family law cases and District Judges Continuation seminars. Domestic violence

  677
  is covered in the training for lay magistrates who sit in family panels. It is also included in the Equal Treatment Training Pack recently produced by the JSB.

  Contact orders are addressed at JSB Private Family Law Induction and Continuation seminars, and at Public Law Continuation Seminars attended by Circuit Judges nominated for private and public family law proceedings, Deputy High Court Judges, District Judges of the Principal Registry of the Family Division and District Judges nominated for Public Family Law Proceedings. Lay magistrates on family panels also receive training on contact orders.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the meetings(a) Ministers and (b) special advisers in his Department have had with lobbying companies since 1 May 1997. [49667]

  Mr. Hoon
  Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of government to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and task forces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49780]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation passed in the current session would affect women; what consultation he had with women's organisations; and if he will make a statement. [49097]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not had any major policy legislation in the current session. More generally, guidance on policy appraisal for equal treatment has been available since 1992. Within this 678
  Department we are increasingly using consultation and research to identify the impact of our policies generally, and are working to secure more disaggregated statistics as our information systems are developed further.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Nuclear Industry (Commercial Confidentiality)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the impact of the proposals contained in his Freedom of Information White Paper on commercial confidentiality within the nuclear industry. [48973]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Freedom of Information White Paper, Your Right to Know, set out our approach to freedom of information across a wide range of public authorities, including nationalised industries, public corporations and non-departmental public bodies. The White Paper also made it clear that commercial confidentiality is one of the proposed specified interests to which the substantial harm test will be applied in determining whether information should be disclosed. I intend to publish a draft FOI Bill by the end of September which will make clearer the exact coverage of the regime and its operation. However, at this stage it is not possible to predict the effect that the proposals will have on one of the specified interests within a particular industry.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49772]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

CABINET OFFICE

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio on what dates since 1 May 1997 he has met representatives of(a) GPC Market Access, (b) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (c) GJW Government Relations; and if he will make a statement. [49675]

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) when (i) he and (ii) his special advisers have met representatives of(a) GPC Market Access, (b) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (c) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who these representatives were; and what was discussed at these meetings; [49660]

  (2) what discussions he had with representatives of Lawson, Lucas Mendelsohn in respect of Tesco's involvement in the Millennium Dome. [49962]
  679
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what dealings, in pursuance of his ministerial responsibilities, he has had with lobbying organisations over the last 6 months; and if he will make a statement. [49878]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and task forces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49784]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Derek Draper
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio on how many occasions he has received draft articles written by Mr. Derek Draper for scrutiny prior to their publication in the press since 1 May 1997. [50070]

  Mr. Mandelson
  None.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when, in pursuance of his ministerial responsibilities, he last met Mr. Derek Draper. [49879]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today,Official Report, columns 641–42, to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what occasions(a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) his special advisers have met representatives of (i) GPC Market Access, (ii) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (iii) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who attended such meetings; and what was discussed at them. [49632]
  680
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside of Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information with authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49769]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the timetable for the review of the exemption of small employers under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [50026]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Section 7 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires that a review of the effects of the small employer exemption threshold must be completed within 9 months. I announced such a review on 3 December 1997,Official Report, column 243. We have been analysing the responses to the public consultation exercise which ended on 2 March 1998 and hope to announce a decision shortly. Any change to the threshold has to be made within one year of the review commencing.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list by Government department the timetables for the auditing activity undertaken in connection with Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; [50027]

  (2) if he will publish the areas covered by disability access audits of Government department buildings. [50028]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Disability Discrimination Act does not place a specific duty on service providers to conduct disability access audits of their premises. Access audits are, however, in many cases highly effective means of helping service providers to ensure that their premises comply with the requirements of the Act. Government departments have been made aware of the benefits of
  681
  conducting audits and future guidance to them on implementing the remaining provisions of Part III of the Act will re-emphasise this advice.

  The specific information requested is not held centrally and, since Government departments and agencies occupy many tens of thousands of premises, could be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, as I described in my reply to the hon. Member on 6 July 1998, Official Report, columns 391–99, departments are well aware of their duties under the legislation and are pressing ahead, in a variety of ways reflecting their particular circumstances, to ensure that they meet the provisions of the Act including those on premises.

  School Records
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow parents to appeal in respect of information held on their child's record by a school. [49798]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Education (School Records) Regulations 1989 provide for parents to appeal to the governing body if a teacher refuses to amend any part of the child's record which the parent regards as inaccurate.

  Schools (Essex)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which schools in Essex are to be funded as beacon schools. [49957]

  Mr. Byers
  Subject to the agreement of contracts with DfEE, the following schools in Essex will be funded as beacon schools from September 1998:

  Davenant Foundation School, Loughton;

  Parkland Junior School, Romford; and

  William Ford C. of E. School, Dagenham.

  Education Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) percentage and (b) amount was allocated to education through the standard spending assessment for area cost adjustment, in each of those authorities that received it in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1995–96. [49113]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The information is not available in the form in which it has been requested.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the current percentage of education standing spending assessment allocated to additional educational needs; [49114]

  (2) what sum would be released if the additional educational needs expenditure was reduced by 4.7 per cent. for those authorities coming above the national county average per pupil allocation under standing spending assessment; [49115]

  (3) what would be the impact on each local education authority if the additional educational needs expenditure was reduced by 4.7 per cent. for all those authorities above the national county average for per pupil allocation
  682
  under standard spending assessment, and redistributed to those below the national county average, on the basis of a per pupil funding; [49116]

  (4) by what percentage the additional educational needs expenditure would have to be reduced for authorities above the present average if those authorities below were to be brought up to the existing average for pupil allocations. [49117]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Table 1 sets out the percentage of each of the five education SSA sub-blocks which is allocated on the basis of additional educational needs (AEN). The other information is not available in the form in which it has been requested.

  Table 1

  SSA sub-block

  AEN cash (£ billion)

  AEN (per cent.)

  Primary

  1.291

  15.7

  Secondary

  1.277

  15.7

  Post-16

  0.188

  16.5

  Under fives

  0.427

  36.4

  Other

  0.417

  58.3

  Total

  3.601

  18.6

  Schools (Parents' Meetings)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) grant maintained and (b) local education authority secondary schools have held (i) compulsory annual parents' meetings and (ii) parents' evenings during OFSTED inspections at which the attendance was (1) zero, (2) zero to five, (3) five to 10, (4) 11 to 20, (5) 21 to 50 and (6) 51 and over. [49687]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Teachers (Status)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve the status of teachers. [48165]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The support of well-motivated and talented teachers is central to our drive to raise standards in schools. We must, and do, take every opportunity to acknowledge the professionalism of good teachers and the contribution they make to schools.

  The measures we set out in our January response to the Select Committee report on teacher supply will raise the status of teachers: the General Teaching Council will provide a unified voice for the profession; and new curricula for initial teacher training courses, national professional standards, a mandatory induction year, and a new grade of Advanced Skills Teachers will enhance professionalism.

  The Teacher Training Agency's campaign, No-one Forgets a Good Teacher, aims to raise public awareness of the vital contribution that teachers make to the continued prosperity and success of the nation. Since the launch of the campaign, the TTA's inquiry line has received some 76,000 calls, an average of 2,066 a week.

  683
  The National Teaching Awards, which were launched last month under the Chairmanship of The Lord Puttnam, will also help raise the status of teaching.

  Schools (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money local education authority schools in Gloucestershire have held in reserves(a) as a total amount and (b) as a percentage of the total available to be spent on schools, for the most recent five years for which records are available. [50067]

  Mr. Byers
  The table shows the amount held as balances by LEA schools in Gloucestershire for each of the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 both in cash terms and as a percentage of the General Schools Budget. Information on the position at the end of the financial year 1997–98 will not be available centrally until local education authorities publish their outturn statements in the Autumn. I will write to the hon. Member when those figures are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Gloucestershire LEA—net school balances

  Balances (£000)

  GSB (£000)

  Balances as percentage of GSB

  1993–94

  6,240

  117,285

  5.32

  1994–95

  6,743

  117,023

  5.76

  1995–96

  4,990

  111,503

  4.48

  1996–97

  4,626

  115,309

  4.01

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the proportion of primary schools that offer foreign language teaching. [49276]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect this information, but a survey conducted in 1995 by the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research suggested that about 20 per cent. of primary schools offered foreign language teaching. The Centre intends to conduct a further survey later this year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomats
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list diplomatic posts abroad together with the number of his Department's staff in each on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 24 June 1998. [48203]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The following is the list of FCO Posts overseas giving the number of UK-based staff on the FCO establishment for the dates requested. FCO staff in the Department Territories are listed separately.

  Number of staff at post

  Post

  1997

  1998

  Abidjan

  8.00

  8.00

  Abu Dhabi

  11.00

  10.00

  Addis Ababa

  12.00

  11.00

  684

  Number of staff at post

  Post

  1997

  1998

  Al Khobar

  2.00

  2.00

  Alexandria

  1.00

  1.00

  Algiers

  4.00

  4.00

  Almaty

  4.00

  4.00

  Amman

  16.00

  15.00

  Amsterdam

  3.00

  2.00

  Ankara

  16.00

  14.00

  Antananarivo

  3.00

  2.00

  Ashgabat

  2.00

  3.00

  Asuncion

  2.00

  2.00

  Athens

  17.00

  15.00

  Atlanta

  3.00

  2.00

  Auckland

  2.00

  2.00

  Bahrain

  9.00

  8.00

  Baku

  3.00

  4.00

  Bandar Seri Begawan

  6.00

  7.00

  Bangkok

  28.00

  23.00

  Banjul

  8.00

  6.00

  Barcelona

  2.00

  2.00

  Beirut

  7.00

  7.00

  Belgrade

  16.00

  15.00

  Belmopan

  5.00

  4.00

  Berlin

  15.00

  15.00

  Berne

  7.00

  8.00

  Bilbao

  1.00

  1.00

  Bogota

  11.00

  12.00

  Bombay

  19.00

  19.00

  Bonn

  33.00

  30.00

  Bordeaux

  1.00

  1.00

  Boston

  2.00

  2.00

  Brasilia

  12.00

  12.00

  Bratislava

  7.00

  5.00

  Bridgetown

  14.00

  13.00

  Brisbane

  2.00

  2.00

  Brussels (Embassy)

  14.00

  13.00

  Brussels (Joint Mangage)

  4.00

  4.00

  Brussels (UK rep)

  70.00

  76.00

  Brussels UK Del NATO)

  36.00

  38.00

  Bucharest

  18.00

  17.00

  Budapest

  18.00

  16.00

  Buenos Aires

  14.00

  15.00

  Cairo

  26.00

  24.00

  Calcutta

  4.00

  3.00

  Canberra

  18.00

  16.00

  Cape Town

  5.00

  3.00

  Caracas

  11.00

  9.00

  Casablanca

  4.00

  4.00

  Castries

  1.00

  1.00

  Chiang Mai

  1.00

  1.00

  Chicago

  4.00

  3.00

  Cleveland

  1.00

  1.00

  Colombo

  16.00

  15.00

  Copenhagen

  12.00

  11.00

  Dakar

  6.00

  5.00

  Dallas

  1.00

  1.00

  Damascus

  12.00

  10.00

  Dhaka

  30.00

  28.00

  Doha

  6.00

  7.00

  Dubai

  13.00

  11.00

  Dublin

  20.00

  18.00

  Durban

  2.00

  2.00

  Dusseldorf

  9.00

  10.00

  Frankfurt

  2.00

  2.00

  Freetown

  5.00

  5.00

  Gaborone

  5.00

  5.00

  Geneva (CG)

  1.00

  1.00

  Geneva (UK Del)

  5.50

  5.50

  Geneva (UK Mis)

  22.00

  22.50

  Georgetown

  6.00

  5.00

  Guangzhou

  3.00

  5.00

  Guatemala City

  4.00

  4.00

  Hamburg

  3.00

  3.00

  Hanoi

  9.00

  9.00

  685

  Number of staff at post

  Post

  1997

  1998

  Harare

  15.00

  13.00

  Havana

  10.00

  8.00

  Helsinki

  12.00

  11.00

  Ho Chi Minh City

  4.00

  3.00

  Holy See (Vatican)

  2.00

  2.00

  Hong Kong (BCG)

  38.00

  42.00

  Hong Kong (JLG)

  5.00

  4.00

  Honiara

  2.00

  2.00

  Houston

  3.00

  3.00

  Islamabad

  60.00

  61.00

  Istanbul

  17.00

  16.00

  Jakarta

  21.00

  22.00

  Jedda

  8.00

  7.00

  Jerusalem

  6.00

  7.00

  Johannesburg

  6.00

  5.00

  Kampala

  10.00

  10.00

  Karachi

  13.00

  15.00

  Kathmandu

  8.00

  8.00

  Khartoum

  9.00

  9.00

  Kiev

  13.00

  14.00

  Kigali

  3.00

  3.00

  Kingston

  13.00

  13.00

  Kingstown, St. Vincent

  1.00

  1.00

  Kinshasa

  3.00

  5.00

  Kuala Lumpur

  18.00

  17.00

  Kuching

  1.00

  1.00

  Kuwait

  11.00

  11.00

  La Paz

  4.00

  4.00

  Lagos

  49.00

  47.00

  Lille

  1.00

  1.00

  Lilongwe

  10.00

  8.00

  Lima

  9.00

  8.00

  Lisbon

  13.00

  13.00

  Ljubljana

  3.00

  4.00

  Los Angeles

  4.00

  4.00

  Luanda

  7.00

  6.00

  Lusaka

  11.00

  8.00

  Luxembourg

  6.00

  6.00

  Lyon

  1.00

  1.00

  Madras

  5.00

  8.00

  Madrid (Embassy)

  21.00

  21.00

  Managua

  2.00

  2.00

  Manila

  16.00

  16.00

  Maputo

  9.00

  8.00

  Marseilles

  1.00

  1.00

  Maseru

  3.00

  3.00

  Mbabane

  3.00

  3.00

  Melbourne

  2.00

  2.00

  Mexico City

  17.00

  15.00

  Miami

  1.00

  1.00

  Milan

  4.00

  4.00

  Minsk

  3.00

  3.00

  Montevideo

  4.00

  3.00

  Montreal

  3.00

  3.00

  Moscow

  83.00

  84.00

  Munich

  3.00

  2.00

  Muscat

  11.00

  11.00

  Nairobi

  27.00

  20.00

  Naples

  2.00

  2.00

  Nassau

  3.00

  2.00

  New Delhi

  47.00

  47.00

  New York (Bis)

  3.00

  3.00

  New York (CG)

  9.00

  7.00

  New York (JMO)

  2.00

  2.00

  New York (UK Mis)

  35.00

  35.00

  Nicosia

  16.00

  14.00

  Nuku'alofa

  1.00

  1.00

  Oporto

  1.00

  1.00

  Osaka

  5.00

  5.00

  Oslo

  9.00

  10.00

  Ottawa

  15.00

  15.00

  Palma

  1.00

  1.00

  Panama City

  2.00

  2.00

  686

  Number of staff at post

  Post

  1997

  1998

  Paris (Embassy)

  48.00

  46.00

  Paris (UK Del OECD)

  6.00

  7.00

  Peking

  46.00

  46.00

  Perth

  2.00

  2.00

  Phnom Penh

  2.00

  3.00

  Port Louis

  6.00

  7.00

  Port Moresby

  6.00

  4.00

  Port of Spain

  7.00

  7.00

  Prague

  12.00

  13.00

  Pretoria

  26.00

  24.00

  Quito

  5.00

  6.00

  Rabat

  7.00

  7.00

  Rangoon

  5.00

  5.00

  Reykjavik

  3.00

  3.00

  Riga

  22.00

  5.00

  Rome

  22.00

  20.00

  San Francisco

  2.00

  3.00

  San Jose

  4.00

  2.00

  San Salvador

  2.00

  2.00

  Sana'a

  10.00

  9.00

  Santiago

  8.00

  9.00

  Santo Domingo

  1.00

  1.00

  Sao Paulo

  5.00

  5.00

  Sarajevo

  11.00

  10.00

  Seattle

  1.00

  1.00

  Seoul

  16.00

  16.00

  Shanghai

  6.00

  6.00

  Singapore

  16.00

  16.00

  Skopje

  2.00

  2.00

  Sofia

  13.00

  12.00

  St. George's, Grenada

  1.00

  1.00

  St. Johns

  1.00

  1.00

  St. Petersburg

  4.00

  6.00

  Stockholm

  12.00

  12.00

  Strasbourg

  4.00

  4.00

  Stuttgart

  1.00

  1.00

  Suva

  5.00

  5.00

  Sydney

  4.00

  4.00

  Taipei

  6.00

  7.00

  Tallinn

  3.00

  4.00

  Tashkent

  5.00

  5.00

  Tbilisi

  4.00

  4.00

  Tegucigalpa

  2.00

  2.00

  Tehran

  10.00

  13.00

  Tel Aviv

  17.00

  16.00

  The Hague

  17.00

  16.00

  Tirana

  3.00

  4.00

  Tokyo

  38.00

  37.00

  Toronto

  4.00

  4.00

  Tripoli

  2.00

  2.00

  Tunis

  11.00

  12.00

  Ulaanbaatar

  2.00

  2.00

  Valletta

  9.00

  8.00

  Vancouver

  2.00

  2.00

  Victoria

  2.00

  2.00

  Vienna (UK Mis)

  3.00

  7.00

  Vienna Embassy

  12.00

  12.00

  Vienna OSCE

  10.00

  9.00

  Vila

  2.00

  2.00

  Vilnius

  3.00

  4.00

  Warsaw

  21.00

  16.00

  Washington (Embassy)

  70.00

  55.00

  Wellington

  10.00

  10.00

  Windhoek

  4.00

  4.00

  Yaounde

  4.00

  5.00

  Yekaterinburg

  1.00

  3.00

  Yerevan

  2.00

  3.00

  Zagreb (Embassy)

  8.00

  7.00

  Zurich

  3.00

  0.00 (closed)

  Total

  2,198.50

  2,112.00

  FCO staff in Dependent Territories
  687

  Number of staff at post

  Post

  1997

  1998

  Anguilla

  4.00

  4.00

  Ascension

  1.00

  1.00

  Gibraltar

  8.00

  9.00

  Grand Cayman

  2.00

  2.00

  Grand Turk

  2.00

  2.00

  Plymouth, Montserrat

  4.00

  4.00

  St. Helena

  1.00

  1.00

  Stanley

  5.00

  5.00

  Tortola

  3.00

  3.00

  Tristan da Cunha

  1.00

  1.00

  Total

  31.00

  32.00

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation passed in this session would affect women; what consultation he had with women's organisations; and if he will make a statement. [49096]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The FCO has introduced three pieces of legislation in the current session: to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Ottawa Convention on Landmines. These implement internationally negotiated treaties in the United Kingdom.

  Women's groups were not consulted in the preparation of the UK legislation.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had, and with whom, on the negotiations for Cyprus's accession to the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [49489]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with our EU partners, the Government of Cyprus and the European Commission on the negotiations for Cyprus's accession to the European Union.

  Nuclear Industry
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following the recent Indian and Pakistan nuclear tests, there has been a change of policy on nuclear-related exports to India and Pakistan, and on contacts between British nuclear industry officials and their Indian and Pakistani counterparts. [50568]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK already has in place strict controls on the export of nuclear-related goods to India and Pakistan, and we do not believe there is a loophole in the existing controls. The UK also exercises caution over contacts between personnel from the British nuclear industry and their Indian and Pakistani counterparts.688
  However, following the recent Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests we have decided that it is appropriate to introduce some additional measures.

  All export licence applications (ELAs) for items listed on the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Dual-Use List will be denied to nuclear and nuclear-related end-users in India and Pakistan, as will all other goods to these end-users which could contribute to the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programmes. This will mean that some amendments will be required to existing open general export licences, which will be made in due course.

  All contacts by British nuclear scientists or nuclear industry personnel with Indian and Pakistani counterparts will be discouraged, and all visits by Indians or Pakistanis to UK nuclear facilities will be prevented.

  As the recent actions by both countries have demonstrated a lack of commitment to the principles of non-proliferation, and have adversely affected regional stability, we will consider all export licence applications concerning either country with particular vigilance.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those individuals who are not hon. Members or civil servants currently serving on review bodies and taskforces set up since May 1997 whose appointment was promoted or canvassed for by(a) GPC Market Access, (b) LLM, (c) GJW and (d) other professional lobbying organisations. [49775]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions(a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) his special advisers have met representatives of (i) GPC Market Access, (ii) Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn and (iii) GJW Government Relations since 1 May 1997; who these representatives were; and what was discussed. [49672]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Ministers, their Special Advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. This properly includes meetings with interest groups outside Government; indeed, one of the specific functions of Special Advisers is to liaise with such interest groups. This liaison is intended to help Ministers draw upon outside contributions—from academics, think-tanks, trade and industry associations, trade unions, lobby groups and others, as well as relevant experience from other countries—during the process of policy analysis and development. By convention it is not the practice of governments to make information on such meetings or their content publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997. Special advisers and other civil servants must observe the requirements of propriety: for instance, they must not provide confidential information without authorisation or allow improper influence on policy. Any breach of these requirements could be a disciplinary offence.

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

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (158) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out 'or'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In speaking to this amendment I shall speak to the numerous other amendments in this group. All deal with rights of access to information held in certain manual records.
The records in question are those to which the Access to Personal Files Act 1987, the Access to Health Records Act 1990 and the Education (School Records) Regulations 1989 and the corresponding legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland apply. These are local authority housing and social services records, health records, and records held by schools on pupils and former pupils.
The amendments are numerous. That is because the provision they make is technically complex and intricate. But the underlying purpose is perfectly straightforward. That is to consolidate in the Bill the access rights given in the other legislation to which I referred and thereby to give effect in respect of the relevant records to the ECHR judgment in the case of Gaskin.
Gaskin is to do with refusal of subject access. It says that where access is refused because of the risk of identifying third parties who have not consented there must be a mechanism for independent review of that refusal. The Bill deals with this in two ways. Where access has been refused data subjects may seek a court order requiring access to be given or they may request an assessment to be made by the data protection commissioner who has the power to take the necessary enforcement action.
The Bill, as it left this House, did give effect to the Gaskin judgment in relation to automated and structured manual records within the first three parts of the definition
1478
of "data" in Clause 1. So, to the extent that public bodies—for example, local authorities, NHS trusts and schools—hold records likely to be caught by the Gaskin judgment, the Bill, as it left this House, already did the job for those automated or manual records which came within its scope.
We did need, however, to make the necessary provision for the other unstructured manual records to which there is an existing right of access under the other legislation and which did not then come within the scope of the Bill. To deal with that problem—because we wish to meet the United Kingdom's ECHR obligation in this case in full—we decided to bring those additional records within the scope of the Bill. That is the purpose of these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor: My Lords, we welcome these amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert 'or
(d) does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section (Meaning of "accessible record");'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 47.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. In dealing with that amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 102.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 3 and 102 is to delete Clause 1(5) and (6) and the associated reference to the definition of "transfer" in the index of defined expressions in Clause 65. Clause 1(5) and (6) was included in the Bill with the intention that it might clarify the somewhat opaque provisions relating to the international movement of personal data in Articles 4 and 25 of the directive.
The wording of Clause 1(6) in the Bill, as introduced, gave rise to a certain amount of confusion. We therefore introduced an amendment in another place designed to clarify its effect.
Not for the first time, after listening carefully to further representations made, we concluded that there was still a measure of confusion about the purpose and effect of Clause 1(5) and (6). Since their sole purpose was to clarify, that was rather unsatisfactory. We could not see a useful way in which the necessary clarity could be achieved by further amendment and we thought that the best thing would be just to delete them.

1479
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 make a small change to Clause 5 to bring it into closer conformity with the data protection directive, providing that, where processing to which the Bill applies is done by a controller established outside the United Kingdom but using equipment in the UK, the controller must appoint a representative in the UK. The directive requires provision of this kind. These amendments remedy that relatively small deficiency in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have not taken part previously in proceedings on this Bill. I wonder, looking at Clause 5, what is meant by the word "established", what effect it will have and the condition that it indicates. We find the same word used in Amendment No. 5. That is why it seems to me to be in order to raise the matter. It is a very vague word. It could mean "residing" or someone who has an office in the United Kingdom but moves about the world. What is the word intended to mean in the context of this Bill?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister replies to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, perhaps I may also ask a question. What is the situation regarding the dissemination of information via the world-wide web? A case has recently come to my attention where information relating to the sexual orientation and religious beliefs of an individual was placed on a website. The service provider was approached by the individual and asked to take the information off the web. He did so in circumstances where, I understand, the interpretation of Section 1 of the Defamation Act was not clear as applying to service providers. He was afraid that litigation against him might ensue as the publisher of that material. If we disregard that and the application of this clause to service providers, is there not an additional danger that where those operating websites place information in relation to an individual on a page it becomes available to anyone in any country and would seem to be caught by this part of the Bill? Would the Minister care to say anything for the benefit of service providers about their obligations under this Bill where those who use service providers for their web pages disclose such information? Would they be liable to any action in the courts? Will not that place even further restrictions on what the service providers are prepared to allow, thus inhibiting freedom of expression on the web?
Lord William of Mostyn: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will provide me with the details of the case that troubles him, I undertake to write to him on the specific questions that he has raised. I am happy to address the general problem. I can deal with it shortly now or in correspondence with the noble Lord, which I undertake to place in the Library. I should have thought that it may be more fruitful to place such correspondence in the Library once I have considered the full details, if the noble Lord does not mind giving them to me in writing.
1480
In reference to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, "established" in this Bill has the same meaning as in Community law generally.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there is a reference to it in Clause 5(2), which rather elaborately includes various situations, but it did not seem to me to be complete which is why I raised the matter. However, I take note of what the noble Lord says and will follow it up.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
11.15 a.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out 'or other beliefs' and insert 'beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature,'.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 114 and 115.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 4. Clause 2 sets out lists of sensitive data for the purposes of the Bill. These data may only be processed if one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is met.
Article 8 of the directive requires personal data revealing "religious or philosophical beliefs" among other categories to be treated as sensitive.
The Bill originally gave effect to this requirement in Clause 2(b) by referring to "religious or other beliefs". On reflection, we took the view that that was insufficiently precise. Amendment No. 4 changes this to read, "religious or other beliefs of a similar nature". We believe that that expression captures more precisely the data which the directive requires to be treated as sensitive.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 79 and 114. These amendments are intended to make sure that paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 is fully consistent with the directive. Paragraph 7 permits the processing of sensitive data where necessary for a range of public sector functions. This paragraph is included in reliance on Article 8.4 of the directive.
Article 8.4 specifies that processing to which it relates must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, and must be carried out for reasons of substantial public interest.
As it left this House, paragraph 7 made no express reference either to substantial public interest, or to safeguards. We think that both these requirements will normally be met in the circumstances covered by the paragraph. However, given the breadth of the provision, we think it prudent to make provision to deal with any cases which may arise where they may not be.
Amendment No. 114 allows the Secretary of State by order to specify cases in which the public sector processing may not involve sensitive data. This would, for example, allow processing which was conceivably not in the substantial public interest to be excluded from the scope of the paragraph.

1481
The order may also specify cases in which sensitive data may only be processed if specified conditions are met. The conditions could take the form of additional safeguards to ensure full conformity with the directive in any doubtful case.
Amendment No. 79 provides that the power is subject to the negative resolution procedure.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 80 and 115. The House will recall that at Third Reading an undertaking was given to bring forward an amendment to make clear on the face of the Bill that information about racial or ethnic origin may be processed for the purpose of ethnic monitoring. This was in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. These amendments give effect to that commitment.
Amendment No. 115 introduces a new paragraph into Schedule 3 which has the effect which I have just mentioned. It says that information about racial or ethnic origin may be processed for ethnic monitoring purposes, provided that the processing is carried out with appropriate safeguards. Subparagraph (2) provides for the Secretary of State to specify by order circumstances in which the processing is or is not to be taken as being carried out with appropriate safeguards.
Amendment No. 80 would add that order-making power to the list of those in Clause 63(5) which are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
These amendments have been drafted in close consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality which welcomes them. I am grateful to the commission for its help.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 5, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
'(1A) A data controller falling within subsection (1)(b) must nominate for the purposes of this Act a representative established in the United Kingdom.'.
6 Page 3, line 38, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'subsections (1) and (1A)'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 7, page 4, line 41, leave out 'section 8' and insert 'sections 8 and (Application of section 7 where data controller is credit reference agency)'.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. One of the purposes of the
1482
Bill is to consolidate into the general data protection regime the special arrangements which apply to personal data held by credit reference agencies under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This was dealt with in Clauses 7(7) and 59 of the Bill as it left this House. But those provisions did not completely achieve the desired effect. The purpose of this set of amendments is to bring the arrangements in the Bill more closely into line with the current arrangements under the 1974 Act.
The key provision is the new clause added by Amendment No. 18. Subsection (1) provides that the subject access under Clause 7 has effect subject to the new clause when the data controller is a credit reference agency. The 1974 Act gives individuals a subject access right to credit reference agency information. The permitted turn-round time is quicker and the fee is cheaper than those under data protection legislation. Given the large number of subject access requests to credit reference agencies—there are about one million a year—we think the revised approach is better. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides for subject access requests to credit reference agencies to be dealt with on this "quick and cheap" basis unless the data subject request indicates otherwise. Clause 7(7) as it left this House would have had the opposite effect.
Subsection (3) of the new clause preserves the duty on controllers under the 1974 Act to inform the data subjects of their rights under Section 159 and allows for the addition by order of a duty on controllers also to give information about rights under the Bill. The remaining amendments in the group make the necessary consequential amendments required by the addition of the new clause and make transitional arrangements. The purpose is effectively to maintain the position as it now is under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 until 24th October 2007 when the Bill's regime must apply in full.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in another place there was significant debate on these issues. There is concern in the credit industry that this requirement will have a detrimental effect on small businesses or individuals trading as partnership or sole traders. There is a need to ensure that credit reference agencies have correct information, but as the Bill is drafted a credit agency may ask for a reference from a bank, insurance company or anybody who trades with that individual and the response may be that the business is not worth the candle and it should not be lent any money. If the credit agency turns down the applicant, the latter has the right to see the information that is available. As a result no one will want to provide what they consider to be accurate information because of the risk of being sued if it turns out to be wrong. In effect people will say that they simply cannot comment and it will restrict the flow of information.
The Minister in another place said that the Government would keep this under review and consult the credit industry and small businesses. This is an important issue. I accept that the Government have

1483
tabled this amendment for the very best of motives. However, it may operate in entirely the wrong way. Can the Minister go a little further than his colleague in another place and provide the House with some reassurance that the Government will, on a regular basis, meet the industry and will be prepared to return to Parliament to make changes if it is found that the provision is not working?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the points raised by the noble Viscount. The Government are aware of the concerns expressed by the credit industry on this issue and the fact that the identity of companies who have given references in certain circumstances may not be protected from identification by the data subject. As the noble Viscount said, undertakings were given in another place that the matter would be kept under review. I repeat that the Government will keep the matter under review and look at it again in about three years in consultation with the credit reference industry and small businesses generally. I very much hope that that goes a little further as the noble Viscount requested.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 7, page 5, line 15, after 'subject' insert 'for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct,'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I shall speak also to the other numerous amendments in the group. This Bill is technical in nature and inter-related in structure. We have introduced a number of relatively minor amendments with the aim of making sure that the technical effect of the Bill is as intended. That is the nature of the amendments in this group. Individually they do not make changes of any great substance.
Amendment No. 104 is part of the Gaskin grouping, which we have already discussed, but it covers a non-Gaskin point. The amendment adds three new provisions to those listed in Clause 69(2) of the Bill which will come into force on Royal Assent. Two of those provisions, new paragraphs (ef) and (eg), relate to the Gaskin group. New paragraph (ee) relates to the commissioner's powers. It is required to ensure, for example, that the registrar can exercise the commissioner's functions in relation to notification regulations in advance of Clause 6(1) coming into force. The preparation of those regulations will be an important part of the next phase of this legislation if, as it is hoped, the Bill progresses shortly to its enactment.
The Bill provides for a large amount of subordinate legislation—altogether some 40 instruments. Much of this will need to be in place before we can implement the regime required by the data protection directive. Work has begun on subordinate legislation but a good
1484
deal remains to be done including in some cases consultation with interested parties. We do not want to rush through the work to an over-tight schedule. Reluctantly, we have decided to accept that 24th October 1998 is no longer a realistic target date for implementation of the new regime. My honourable friend Mr. Howarth indicated as much recently in another place.
I cannot give the House a firm indication today of a revised implementation date. We intend to make all good speed. We want to bring the Bill into force at the earliest realistic opportunity. We shall indicate a date as soon as we can. I do not expect it to be before the end of this calendar year, but I hope it will not be long after that. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to put to the Minister a question relating to Clause 8(5) which deals with trade secrets. This matter was debated in your Lordships' House. The industry and the CBI were, and are still, concerned about the Government's view of what constitutes a trade secret. Can the Minister deal with that so that we have on the record of this House the view of the Government which will make it easier for industry when considering these issues?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Viscount's question and his wholly co-operative attitude throughout all stages of the Bill. It has been very important to discuss these matters as fully as we can particularly with those organisations with legitimate trade and business concerns.
In Clause 8(5) "trade secret" carries its ordinary meaning. Whether particular material used in automated decision making—which I believe to be the purpose of this question—is covered depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Material that is commercially available and is used by more than one organisation is unlikely to be covered by the provision. It is probably wide enough to cover material prepared in confidence by a commercial organisation for the purpose of its business which is not in the public domain and which could, if disclosed, prejudice the organisation's business.
There was a particular concern which I know was expressed about algorithms which some organisations use to determine whether to meet individual's requests for a service of some kind; for instance, a credit scoring system used to determine whether or not to give people credit. The concern expressed—the noble Lord is right—is that if the detail of factors used to make those decisions were to be disclosed those seeking credit would be able to massage the information they provide and undermine the system. That is a legitimate concern in the Government's view. Therefore on 3rd June this year Home Office and DTI officials met CBI representatives to discuss that concern. Officials explained that reference to "trade secret" was wide enough to meet those concerns. I believe that the CBI

1485
accepted that, but indicated at that stage that it would like the Government's view put on public record, which is what I am happy to do.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I feel obliged to draw attention to another drafting point. It is on Amendment No. 8 which amends Clause 7(1)(d) which is a fairly long subsection. Paragraph (d) runs to more than four lines. Another three lines will be inserted in it. When one reads the paragraph, as amended, it is not easy to follow, and it becomes, I am sorry to have to say, a clumsy piece of drafting. At this stage, of course, with so many Commons amendments being considered, I realise there is nothing that the Government can do about this problem. If we find that there is an awkward piece of drafting, we should draw attention to it just to alert the parliamentary counsel to the fact that that sort of thing should be avoided in the future. This is a clumsy piece of drafting.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept the epithet "clumsy". It is certainly technical, but in the nature of the beast there is no alternative but to have technical definitions which are sometimes lengthy and need to be scrutinised.
Accessible records are themselves defined in the new clause which is added by Amendment No.87. They are essentially those records to which I made reference earlier: existing statutory access rights, outside the scope of the data protection regime. They include certain health records, accessible public records and educational records, as defined in the new schedules which are added by Amendments Nos. 131 and 132.
I agree that one needs to spend some time looking at the effect of what is technical legislation, but I have to protect the draftsman against charges of clumsiness. However, if he feels on reflection that he may have erred into clumsiness, I am sure that he will accept the noble Lord's reproof in the good-natured way in which it was tendered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
9 Clause 7, page 5, line 20, leave out from 'subsection (1)' to end of line 21 and insert 'unless he has received—

(a) a request in writing, and

(b) except in prescribed cases, such fee (not exceeding the prescribed maximum) as he may require.'.

10 Page 5, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 33.
11 Page 6, line 4, at end insert—
'(6A) An individual making a request under this section may, in such cases as may be prescribed, specify that his request is limited to personal data of any prescribed description.'.
12 Page 6, leave out lines 5 to 7.
13 Page 6, leave out lines 16 and 17.
14 Page 6, leave out lines 18 to 22.
15 Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
'"prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations;'.
16 Page 6, line 23, leave out 'by the Secretary of State by regulations'.
17 Page 6, line 26, leave out 'so'.
18 After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION OF SECTION 7 WHERE DATA CONTROLLER IS CREDIT REFERENCE AGENCY
'.—(1) Where the data controller is a credit reference agency, section 7 has effect subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) An individual making a request under section 7 may limit his request to personal data relevant to his financial standing, and shall be taken to have so limited his request unless the request shows a contrary intention.
(3) Where the data controller receives a request under section 7 in a case where personal data of which the individual making the request is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of the data controller, the obligation to supply information under that section includes an obligation to give the individual making the request a statement, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations, of the individual's rights—

(a) under section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and

(b) to the extent required by the prescribed form, under this Act.'.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 18.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 18.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 10, page 8, leave out lines 15 to 18.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.
I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 76, 85 and 112. Amendments Nos. 19, 30 and 112 make small but important improvements to changes that were made to the Bill at Report stage in this House.
The House may remember that, following amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in Committee the Government brought forward amendments which would require data controllers to respond in writing within 21 days to written notices from data subjects under Clauses 9, 10 and 13.
Following those changes the Government received very strong representations from the direct marketing industry about the requirement attached to Clause 10. It pointed out that it would be very difficult and costly for them to comply with, and that it might lead to a withdrawal of "opt out" boxes, which are very convenient for data subjects. So, paradoxically, a provision which was intended to help data subjects could result in their being worse off.
In any event, the requirement in Clause 10 serves too limited a function to offer worthwhile protection for data subjects. It is merely a statement of intention to comply

1487
with the law. A similar argument applies to the requirement under Clause 13(1). Amendments Nos. 19 and 30 accordingly remove these requirements; and Amendment No. 112 makes a consequential change to Schedule 1.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 76 and 85. The Bill makes provision in many places for notices and requests for other communications to be given or made "in writing".
It has been put to us—I hope this will chime agreeably in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—that in this electronic age such notices should be capable of being made electronically. The Government agree. Accordingly, the new clause added by Amendment No. 76 provides in respect of certain of these that the requirement for them to be in writing is satisfied if they are given or made in electronic format; that is, by fax or e-mail. It also provides for the Secretary of State by regulation to provide that the requirement for notices and requests to be in writing is not to apply in circumstances prescribed in the regulations.
Amendment No. 85 adds those regulations to the list of statutory instruments subject to negative resolution procedure in Clause 63(5).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I notice that the Minister referred specifically to the new clause after Clause 60 and Amendment No. 76. I observe that in subsection (2) the electronic transmission must be received in legible form. As one who has great difficulty on occasions with facsimile machines, and receives what I can only describe as gobbledegook—most certainly not legible—I assume that it will be a defence to produce a piece of fax paper which is clearly not in legible form.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that that would be right in the same way as any other form of writing has to be capable of being read. Otherwise it is not a valid notice.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I may seek clarification on the issue raised by my noble friend. Facsimile messages have a horrible habit of disappearing off the paper. For how long would one need to keep a copy? They fade.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the old ones fade, the new ones in our spanking new Home Office equipment are on plain paper. It is not really a question of how long one needs to keep a notice, because there is no difference in principle between a fax and a typewritten notice, which does not necessarily have to be kept by the recipient. It is the fact that the notice was given. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, that if one is going to entrust the message to the fax it would be a wise precaution for the fax sender to have a record that the fax was capable of being proved to have been sent. That is an important point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
20 Clause 10, page 8, line 21, leave out 'requirement' and insert 'notice'.
21 Page 8, line 22, leave out 'requirement' and insert 'notice'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 12, page 9, line 20, leave out from 'destruction' to end of line 22.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.
I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 to 28. These amendments make essentially technical changes to the Bill. I shall attempt to explain them simply. Clause 12, as it left your Lordships' House, gave courts two main powers: first, to order the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of inaccurate data; and to order the erasure, destruction, blocking but not rectification of data where a data subject has suffered damage for which compensation could be claimed or where there is a further risk of a similar occurrence.
The main purpose of Amendments. Nos. 22 to 28 is to bring consistency between the two powers. They give to courts a power under Clause 12(4) to order rectification of data as well as their erasure, destruction or blocking. As I have said, that power is currently not available to the courts. Attached to the courts' power under subsection (4) is a power similar to that already available under subsection (3) to require controllers to notify third parties to whom data have been disclosed of rectification and so forth. They clarify to which data the power in subsection (4) applies. The power is currently expressed in general terms. The amendments relate the power to particular data and they also ensure consistency of language.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, this group of amendments is desirable and necessary. I am not making a drafting point this time. Amendment No. 28, the proposed subsection (4A) in the third line, refers to,
"third parties to whom the data have been disclosed".
As a practical matter, will the third parties necessarily be known or will there be difficulty in finding out who they are?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I recognise the point the noble Lord makes. It was a point recognised by the draftsman because in the second line

1489
of subsection (4A) the court must consider whether it is reasonably practical to notify the third parties. So the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised, which is an important point, can be considered by the court before it determines which third parties have to be notified. The point is covered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
23 Clause 12, page 9, line 24, leave out from first 'of' to 'of' in line 25 and insert 'any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements'.
24 Page 9, line 25, after 'Act' insert 'in respect of any personal data'.
25 Page 9, line 27, leave out 'failure' and insert 'contravention in respect of those data'.
26 Page 9, line 29, leave out 'erasure, destruction or blocking' and insert 'rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction'.
27 Page 9, line 29, leave out third 'the' and insert 'any of those'.
28 Page 9, line 29, at end insert—
'(4A) Where the court makes an order under subsection (4) it may, where it considers it reasonably practicable, order the data controller to notify third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction.
(4B) In determining whether it is reasonably practicable to require such notification as is mentioned in subsection (3) or (4A) the court shall have regard, in particular, to the number of persons who would have to be notified.'.
29 Page 9, leave out lines 30 and 31.
30 Clause 13, page 10, line 2, leave out '(1) or'.
31 Page 10, line 27, leave out from second 'decision' to end of line 28 and insert 'which is not based solely on such processing as is mentioned in subsection (1)'.
32 Transpose Clause 13 to after Clause 10.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 to 32 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 to 32.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
33 Clause 16, page 11, line 45, leave out 'section 21 applies to the processing' and insert 'the processing is assessable processing for the purposes of section 21'.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.
These amendments make what is essentially a series of tactical improvements to the preliminary assessment provisions in what was Clause 21 when the Bill left this House, and also associated provisions.
Clause 21 provided for certain processing about which particular worries about data subjects' interests arise to be assessed by the data protection commissioner for compliance with the principles before it may begin. The processing in question is to be specified in subordinate legislation.
1490
The preliminary assessment is to be carried out in the context of notification. That is why all processing in this limited category, even where it is carried out manually or might otherwise have been exempted from the notification regime, has to be notified. As it stood, the Bill was not as clear as it might be about how the system works. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify matters.
Essentially they do three things. First, they make technical changes so that the key provisions in Clause 21 are much easier to follow and the sequence of events is set out more plainly. The drafting is simplified and made more narrative in its form. Secondly, they make clearer the relationship between the preliminary assessment itself and the notification which precedes it. Thirdly, both of those improvements are carried through to the transitional provisions where the arrangements are substantially simplified.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
34 Clause 17, page 12, line 10, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 and Amendment No. 145.
Clause 17 in the Bill as it left this House deals with the arrangements for data controllers to notify the data protection commissioner of the processing which they do. It covers both mandatory and voluntary notification. Subsection (1) said that controllers "may" notify the commissioner. Amendment No. 34 changes "may" to "must". This makes clear that any controller who wants to go into the register, following mandatory or voluntary notification, must make a proper notification to the commissioner in the form required by the rest of the clause.
As to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, what was Clause 18 requires the data protection commissioner to maintain a register of notifications given under Clause 17. The provision limited the content of the register to the details notified by the data controller in line with Clauses 15 and 17 together with any necessary updating amendment. But it could sometimes be appropriate to include further material in the register entry. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 allow for this. An example of the additional material that might be included would be the content of an enforcement notice that was in force in respect of a particular data controller. Under the amendments, the notification regulations would be able to authorise or require the commissioner to include the particular types of material. The regulations themselves would need to be laid before Parliament. The amendments are intended, therefore, to allow limited, commonsense additions to notification entries.
Amendment No. 37 makes clear that the commissioner must not charge for making the register of notifications open for public inspection under what

1491
was Clause 18(6). Amendment No. 38 is a technical amendment which makes a small improvement to Clause 19.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I agree to Amendment No. 34. However, it does not use the word "must" but the word "shall", despite what the Minister said.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister responds to the noble Baroness, is he now advocating new drafting practice, that the word "must" shall appear generally in legislation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I stand entirely corrected by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who has read the documents much more closely than I. She is absolutely right. Perhaps I may say in my own rather pitiful defence that I think the substance is the same.
As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, the answer is no. It is not now a practice that "must" shall always replace "may" but only when appropriate in the circumstances.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has answered the wrong question. I was asking whether "must" shall now replace "shall".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in the context of this particular Bill the word "shall" is obviously the most appropriate word to use. Whether that will be the case in every Bill I have no idea. I suspect not. It will depend on the circumstances.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
11.45 a.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
35 Clause 18, page 12, line 39, after 'of' insert '(a)'.
36 Page 12, line 41, at end insert 'and
(b) such other information as the Commissioner may be authorised or required by notification regulations to include in the register'.
37 Page 13 line 12, after 'public', insert 'free of charge'.
38 Clause 19, page 13, line 36, after 'notification' insert 'under notification regulations made'.
39 Clause 21, page 14, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'processing' and insert 'In this section "assessable processing" means'.
40 Page 14, line 10, leave out from 'whether' to 'and' in line 11 and insert 'any of the processing to which the notification relates is assessable processing'.
41 Page 14, line 12, leave out 'proposed' and insert 'assessable'.
42 Page 14, line 16, leave out 'processing to which this section applies or would apply' and insert 'assessable processing'.
43 Page 14, line 18, leave out 'proposed'.
44 Page 14, line 24, leave out from 'No' to 'shall' and insert 'assessable processing in respect of which a notification
1492
has been given to the Commissioner as mentioned in subsection (2)'.
45 Page 14, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'either' in line 27.
46 Page 14, line 35, leave out from 'controller' to end of line 37 and insert 'is guilty of an offence'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 46 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 46.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 Clause 26, page 16, line 25, leave out from 'means' to first 'to' in line 26 and insert 'the provisions specified in subsection (3A)'.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 narrow the definition of the non-disclosure provisions. Disclosures of personal data are processing for the purposes of the Bill. They must therefore be made in conformity with the data protection principles. The directive and the Bill recognise that it may be necessary to make disclosures in certain circumstances where it is not possible to comply with the principles. The purpose of the non-disclosure exemptions in Part IV is to ensure that such disclosures may be made.
Clause 26(3) as it left this House defined the "non-disclosure provisions" as including all the data protection principles except the seventh principle—which relates to security—to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the disclosure in question. We realised that this went rather too far and meant that we would be providing exemptions from parts of the regime where the directive does not permit us to do so. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 is to bring the definition into line with the directive.
The other amendments in this group do a different, although related, job. Amendment No. 48 refers at paragraph (c) to Clause 12(1) to (3). This means that the non-disclosure exemptions are available in respect of Clause 12(1) to (3) but not Clause 12(4).
Clause 12(1) to (3) provides what amounts to a free-standing right to rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of personal data on the ground of their inaccuracy. In that respect it complements the fourth data protection principle. Where exemptions are provided from the fourth principle, it is necessary also to provide exemption from Clause 12(1) to (3).
But Clause 12(4) does something different. It provides a general remedy of rectification etc., where damage has been suffered and there is a substantial risk of further contravention. In this respect, it complements the general remedial provisions of Clause 11.

1493
At present the Bill provides a number of exemptions from the whole of Clause 12. Where it does so, it is intended only to complement exemption from the fourth principle. There is no basis for disapplying the remedial provisions of Clause 12(4) in these cases.
The effect of these amendments is to remove Clause 12(4) from the scope of the exemption provided by a number of provisions in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 26, page 16, line 27, at end insert—
'(3A) The provisions referred to in subsection (3) are—

(a) the first data protection principle, except to the extent to which it requires compliance with the conditions in Schedules 2 and 3,

(b) the second, third, fourth and fifth data protection principles, and

(c) sections 9 and 12(1) to (3).'.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
49 Clause 28, page 18, line 7, at end insert—
'(4) Personal data in respect of which the data controller is a relevant authority and which—

(a) consist of a classification applied to the data subject as part of a system of risk assessment which is operated by that authority for either of the following purposes—

(i) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or any imposition of a similar nature, or

(ii) the prevention or detection of crime, or apprehension or prosecution of offenders, where the offence concerned involves any unlawful claim for any payment out of, or any unlawful application of, public funds, and

(b) are processed for either of those purposes,

are exempt from section 7 to the extent to which the exemption is required in the interests of the operation of the system.
(5) In subsection (4)—
"public funds" includes funds provided by any Community institution;
"relevant authority" means—

(a) a government department,

(b) a local authority, or

(c) any other authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit.'.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49. I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group which all deal with changes to the subject information exemptions in Part IV and Schedule 7.
The House will recall that at Third Reading it decided to remove from the Bill, against the Government's advice, what was Clause 28(4). That provision would have allowed the Secretary of State by order to specify exemptions from the subject information and non-disclosure provisions. It was included to meet the particular needs of the Inland Revenue. However, the House felt that this provision was insufficiently precise, and lacking in transparency.
The noble Lord will be glad to hear that Amendment No. 49 introduces a narrower exemption, specifically to protect the public purse and hence taxpayers, in place of the former Clause 28(4). I believe that it takes full account of the concerns which were expressed about the previous version.
Since that earlier debate, the Government have done what we said we would do. First, we have carefully reviewed the particular needs of the Inland Revenue and how they might best be met. Secondly, we have reviewed what similar needs exist elsewhere in the public sector—so that we could give a clearer explanation to Parliament of the practical need for the class exemption, and so that we could consider whether the exemption could be set out wholly on the face of the Bill.
As a result, we have decided not to pursue further in this Bill the non-disclosure exemption. On reflection, we accept that, where systematic disclosure of information to government departments is appropriate, we should seek specific statutory powers within the relevant departmental legislation.
On risk assessment, we have concluded that we can deal with this on the face of the Bill in a way that should reassure the House about our intentions. Amendment No. 49 introduces a new, narrowly focused, exemption applying solely to subject access. It applies only to government departments, local authorities and other authorities administering particular benefits and payments. It applies only when they are using risk assessment systems to help collect or protect public funds. Its aim is solely to protect honest taxpayers from fraud and tax evasion.
This exemption is necessary solely to avoid a serious and adverse impact on government departments' work to prevent and detect fraudulent claims for money and to collect sums owed to the Exchequer. We must protect honest taxpayers against the depredations of the dishonest. Moreover, we propose to do so through an amendment which is narrow and clearly targeted: it exempts only risk assessment material not information on the data subject generally. Subject access to other material will continue.
I hope that the House will agree that, in bringing forward this amendment, the Government have had proper regard to the concerns of this House which led it to delete the earlier provision.

1495
I turn to Amendments Nos. 52 to 56. This group of amendments clarifies the subject information exemption which Clause 30 provides for certain regulatory activity in respect of the relevant functions of statutory public sector ombudsmen.
The clause as it stood when it left this House already applied in general terms to the functions of the ombudsmen. But there is a measure of doubt about whether it covered all of their functions which need to be covered. In particular, it is uncertain whether it covered the ombudsmen's functions in relation to deficiencies in the provision of services by public bodies. The purpose of the amendments is to put the matter beyond doubt.
A reference to the new Welsh administration ombudsman has also been introduced in line with developments in the Government of Wales Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Nicholas of Winterbourne: My Lords, I welcome the amendment and thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his clear exposition of how the Government have reached this satisfactory conclusion. It is good to know that the noble and learned Lord has accepted the intellectual reasoning that was put forward from all sides of the House in the earlier debate. I feel confident that it was only pressure of time which held back the Government from putting forward at that time what I and others consider to be this exceptionally appropriate amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not wish to be churlish and, like the noble Baroness, I broadly congratulate the Government on their changes of mind in the re-drafting of Clause 28. However, Clause 28 seems to go much further than the concern of taxpayers.
Subsection (1) states:
"Personal data processed for … the prevention or detection of crime"—
that is crime at large, not merely confined to taxpaying—
"the apprehension or prosecution of offenders"—
that also is very wide; and the subsection goes wider still—
"the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature".
It is an important clause. The amendment that has been made, acceptable though it is, may give rise in years to come to problems of application rather than interpretation. Although I believe that it is wise of the Government to make this and other consequential amendments in relation to Clause 28, the way in which in future it affects the liberty of the subject should be borne in mind.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord suffered what I might call a pincer movement at Third Reading in your Lordships' House. The noble
1496
Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and I, persuaded the Government to remove the clause so that we could ensure—although the Government had agreed to consider it—that the measure would come back to your Lordships' House and we would have another chance to debate it.
We welcome the changes. They are exactly what is needed. My noble friend, Lord Renton, is right: the provision is wider than just tax collection. It is about the enforcement of the law, and investigation of crime. It is limited in its purposes to the prevention and detection of crime. There is always concern that the powers will be used too widely. That was our concern when we debated the clause originally. The Government have taken that on and narrowed it. It is an issue that will always have to be considered in the future.
We welcome the clarification about the role of the ombudsmen. It is an important clarification because it provides a degree of protection for the public.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The concerns expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness Lady Nicholson of Winterbottom, related to what was then Clause 28(4). Clause 28(4) gave a wide order-making power which permitted the orders to be made to exempt various aspects of the Bill. They went wider than the targeted exemption which is now set out on the face of what is now Clause 29(4). I believe that that was the concern, and not Clause 29(1).
The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that Clause 29(1) includes and refers to the prevention and detection of crime. But that was not something about which concern was expressed. That was acceptable to this House. It was the wide order-making power in what was then Clause 28(4) to which the House objected and it removed that clause altogether.
The noble Lord is right in what he says about what is now Clause 29(1) but that was not the problem. Therefore the noble Lord is right to say that it applies to crime but that was not the problem at the time. The problem was the order-making power in what was Clause 28(4). Therefore, what I said in my opening remarks was entirely accurate. It is limited to what it says in Clause 29(4).
Finally, in relation to what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, I should not take credit for any of this. He will remember that we were not persuaded; we were out-voted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
50 Clause 29, page 18, line 11, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State may by order exempt from the subject information provisions, or modify those provisions in relation to—

(a) personal data in respect of which the data controller is the proprietor of, or a teacher at, a school, and which consist of information relating to persons who are or have been pupils at the school, or

1497

(b) personal data in respect of which the data controller is an education authority in Scotland, and which consist of information relating to persons who are receiving, or have received, further education provided by the authority.'.

51 Page 18, line 27, at end insert'—
( ) In this section—
"education authority" and "further education" have the same meaning as in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act"), and
"proprietor"—

(a) in relation to a school in England or Wales, has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996,

(b) in relation to a school in Scotland, means—

(i) in the case of a self-governing school, the board of management within the meaning of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989,

(ii) in the case of an independent school, the proprietor within the meaning of the 1980 Act,

(iii) in the case of a grant aided school, the managers within the meaning of the 1980 Act, and

(iv) in the case of a public school, the education authority within the meaning of the 1980 Act, and

(c) in relation to a school in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and includes, in the case of a controlled school, the Board of Governors of the school.'.

52 Clause 30, page 18, line 29, leave out 'section' and insert 'subsection'.
53 Page 18, line 33, leave out 'This section' and insert 'Subsection (1)'.
54 Page 18, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'or'.
55 Page 19, line 9, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
56 Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) Personal data processed for the purpose of discharging any function which—

(a) is conferred by or under any enactment on—

(i) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration,

(ii) the Commission for Local Administration in England, the Commission for Local Administration in Wales or the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland,

(iii) the Health Service Commissioner for England, the Health Service Commissioner for Wales or the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland,

(iv) the Welsh Administration Ombudsman,

(v) the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, or

(vi) the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and

(b) is designed for protecting members of the public against—

(i) maladministration by public bodies,

(ii) failures in services provided by public bodies, or

1498

(iii) a failure of a public body to provide a service which it was a function of the body to provide,

are exempt from the subject information provisions in any case to the extent to which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice the proper discharge of that function.'.
57 Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) Personal data processed for the purpose of discharging any function which—

(a) is conferred by or under any enactment on the Director General of Fair Trading, and

(b) is designed—

(i) for protecting members of the public against conduct which may adversely affect their interests by persons carrying on a business,

(ii) for regulating agreements or conduct which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in connection with any commercial activity, or

(iii) for regulating conduct on the part of one or more undertakings which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position in a market,

are exempt from the subject information provisions in any case to the extent to which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice the proper discharge of that function.'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 to 57.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 to 57.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
58 Clause 31, page 19, line 31, leave out & 12' and insert '12(1) to (3)'.
59 Clause 33, page 21, line 3, leave out '12' and insert '12(1) to (3)'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 58 and 59.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 58 and 59.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I rise to ask a question of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, with regard to Amendment No. 58. That exemption is a first for the United Kingdom. It has been strongly argued. Will the Minister confirm that as his Written Answer of 8th April to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill indicates, the Data Protection Bill interpretation of Clause 31 will be applied by the courts and interpreted in accordance with the European legal principles of proportionality and legal certainty?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness whose nomenclature

1499
I think I have more accurately than my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General. I shall explain that joke to him later. The noble Baroness gave me notice of this matter and I affirm that what I said in the Written Answer remains correct.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 Clause 39, page 22, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'which requires the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy any inaccurate data may also'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 to 66 and 148.
These amendments make a number of technical changes to ensure that Clause 39 works as it should. Clause 39(1) makes provision for the issue by the data protection commissioner of enforcement notices requiring data controllers to change their practice if the commissioner is satisfied that they are contravening any of the data protection principles. Where appropriate, any enforcement notice is capable of requiring the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of data.
Clauses 39(3) and (4) make special arrangements for enforcement notices issued in respect of contraventions of the fourth data protection principle. Clause 39(3) provides for such a notice to require the controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy any inaccurate data and any other data he holds containing expressions of opinion which are based on inaccurate data, or to follow a special procedure in relation to inaccurate data which were received by the data controller and which he has recorded accurately.
Clause 39(4) deals with the situation where inaccurate personal data, which have been rectified and so on, have previously been disclosed to third parties. It says that an enforcement notice may, if reasonably practicable, require the data controller to tell the third parties of the rectification and so on.
The arrangements for the rectification and so on of personal data, and for notifying third party recipients of the rectification, need to apply to any breach of the data protection principles and not simply to breaches of the fourth principle. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that they do.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
61 Clause 39, page 22, line 16, leave out 'any inaccurate data and'.
62 Page 22, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert—
'(3A) An enforcement notice in respect of a contravention of the fourth data protection principle'.
63 Page 22, line 21, leave out from 'party' to second 'to' and insert 'may require the data controller either—
1500

(a) to rectify, block, erase or destroy any inaccurate data and any other data held by him and containing an expression of opinion as mentioned in subsection (3), or

(b)".

64 Page 22, line 28, leave out from 'notice' to 'or' in line 30 and insert 'requires the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy any personal data'.
65 Page 22, line 32, leave out 'were inaccurate' and insert 'had been processed in contravention of any of the data protection principles'.
66 Page 22, line 43, leave out from '(7)' to 'before' in line 44 and insert 'an enforcement notice must not require any of the provisions of the notice to be complied with'.
67 Clause 42, page 24, leave out from end of line 29 to second 'the' in line 30 and insert 'and, if such an appeal is brought,'.
68 Clause 43, page 25, line 13, leave out from 'which' to end of line 14 and insert 'proceedings have been stayed under section 31'.
69 Clause 43, page 25, leave out from end of line 42 to second 'the' in line 43 and insert 'and, if such an appeal is brought,'.
70 Clause 50, page 29, line 39, leave out 'observance' and insert 'following'.
71 Clause 52, page 30, line 10, leave out 'brings' and insert 'is an actual or prospective party to'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 71.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 71.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
72 After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—
Records obtained under data subject's right of access
PROHIBITION OF REQUIREMENT AS TO PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS
.—(1) A person must not, in connection with—

(a) the recruitment of another person as an employee,

(b) the continued employment of another person, or

(c) any contract for the provision of services to him by another person,

require that other person or a third party to supply him with a relevant record or to produce a relevant record to him.
(2) A person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public must not, as a condition of providing or offering to provide any goods, facilities or services to another person, require that other person or a third party to supply him with a relevant record or to produce a relevant record to him.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who shows—

(a) that the imposition of the requirement was required or authorised by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court, or

(b) that in the particular circumstances the imposition of the requirement was justified as being in the public interest.

(4) Having regard to the provisions of Part V of the Police Act 1997 (certificates of criminal records etc.), the imposition of the requirement referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is not to be regarded as being justified as being in the public interest on the ground that it would assist in the prevention or detection of crime.
(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence.
(6) In this section "a relevant record" means any record which—

(a) has been or is to be obtained by a data subject from any data controller specified in the first column of the Table below in the exercise of the right conferred by section 7, and

(b) contains information relating to any matter specified in relation to that data controller in the second column,

and includes a copy of such a record or a part of such a record.

TABLE

Data controller

Subject-matter

1. Any of the following persons—

(a) Convictions.

(b) Cautions.

(a) a chief officer of police of a police force in England and Wales.

(b) a chief constable of a police force in Scotland.

(c) the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

(d) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

(e) the Director General of the National Crime Squad.

2. The Secretary of State.

(a) Convictions.

(b) Cautions.

(c) His functions under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, section 205(2) or 208 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 or section 73 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 in relation to any person sentenced to detention.

(d) His functions under the Prison Act 1952, the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 or the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 in relation to any person imprisoned or detained.

(e) His functions under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or the Jobseekers Act 1995.

(f) His functions under Part V of the Police Act 1997.

3. The Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland

Its functions under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 or the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

(7) In the Table in subsection (6)—
"caution" means a caution given to any person in England and Wales or Northern Ireland in respect of an offence which, at the time when the caution is given, is admitted;
1502
"conviction" has the same meaning as in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 or the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.
(8) The Secretary of State may by order amend—

(a) the Table in subsection (6), and

(b) subsection (7).

(9) For the purposes of this section a record which states that a data controller is not processing any personal data relating to a particular matter shall be taken to be a record containing information relating to that matter.
(10) In this section "employee" means an individual who—

(a) works under a contract of employment, as defined by section 230(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or

(b) holds any office,

whether or not he is entitled to remuneration; and "employment" shall be construed accordingly.'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 72. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 78 and 105.
We gave an undertaking to deal with the problem of enforced subject access. The issues are complex and we were not able to complete all the necessary work before the Bill left this House. These amendments give effect to the Government's undertaking.
Amendment No. 72 makes enforced subject access an offence in certain circumstances. We do not propose an offence lightly. Criminalising behaviour places a special duty on the Government and Parliament to focus very carefully on significant social problems. Therefore, we have put the offence in that context. It is limited to certain types of records—criminal records, prison records and DSS records.
Therefore, we are focusing on the types of records with which there is currently a problem or those to which the present problem might be displaced. The present problem is mainly with records which give information about criminal history; namely, police records or DSS contribution records where significant gaps might indicate periods in custody.
However, we are not ruling out applying the offence to other records. Under Amendment No. 78 the list is extendable by order subject to affirmative resolution in case the practice is diverted elsewhere. The offence is committed only where the data subject is required to provide the specified data. We do not wish to criminalise straight requests for information. It is perfectly legitimate for a potential employer to ask a job applicant for details of any criminal record. It should be a crime only if he requires provision of that information through the applicant's subject access right.
We are confining the offence to the types of situation in which systematic use is most likely to occur and where people are least likely to be acting in their private as distinct from their professional capacity. Those are employment and appointments which would include recruitment, continued employment, preferment or promotion; placing contracts; and providing goods, facilities or services to the public.

1503
We propose defences where it can be shown that the requirement was authorised by law or court order or was justified as being in the public interest. But bearing in mind the planned dedicated channel for the supply of criminal records under the Police Act 1997, the public interest defence will explicitly exclude crime prevention or detection. Anyone who has that as a genuine motive will have an alternative route to obtain appropriate information.
Because of the close link that we see with the introduction of criminal record certificates, Amendment No. 105 provides that the new clause added by Amendment No. 72 cannot be brought into force before they are available.
As with other offences under the Bill, by virtue of Clause 57, only the data protection commissioner or the Director of Public Prosecutions can prosecute. The punishment would be a fine and Amendment No. 72 also allows the court to order forfeiture, erasure or destruction of documents or other material. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 72.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, on Amendment No. 72, which is very necessary, there is just one point on which we need clarification. Subsection (6) on page 8 refers to "a relevant record" which means a record which,
"has been or is to be obtained by a data subject from any data controller specified in the first column of the Table".
We are then told what subject matter can be provided.
We have various laws, and I am sorry that I do not carry them in my head and I have not had time to look them up, which have the effect that some convictions can no longer be used by the courts or in any other way after a period of time. It does not apply to all offences but it is a rather important provision. I remember it being passed many years ago in another place.
I very much hope that the information that can be given under that new clause and in the proposed "Table" will exclude anything which has, by the passage of time, been forbidden for use by the courts, or in any other way. If the Minster can give that undertaking, I am sure that we would all be very much happier.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the legislation that the noble Lord had in mind is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. As the noble Lord quite rightly says, for a longer period of time, some convictions—and I shall not irritate the House by going into detail—are regarded as spent and, therefore, cannot be used in certain circumstances. As I understand the construction of the new clause, nothing in it will affect the protections provided by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. If I am wrong in that respect, I shall immediately correct myself in writing to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that undertaking.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
73 After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—
AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN CONTRACTUAL TERMS RELATING TO HEALTH RECORDS
'.—(1) Any term or condition of a contract is void in so far as it purports to require an individual—

(a) to supply any other person with a record to which this section applies, or with a copy of such a record or a part of such a record, or

(b) to produce to any other person such a record, copy or part.

(2) This section applies to any record which—

(a) has been or is to be obtained by a data subject in the exercise of the right conferred by section 7, and

(b) consists of the information contained in any health record as defined by section (Meaning of "accessible record")(2).'.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 73.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 73.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
74 Clause 56, page 33, line 6, leave out 'for reasons of substantial' and insert 'in the'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 74. The purpose of Clause 56 is to put a duty of confidentiality, subject to a criminal sanction, on the Data Protection Commissioner and her staff in respect of confidential information that they acquire in the course of their functions under the Bill. This provision flows from a requirement on member states in the directive. Article 28.7 requires us to ensure that the members and staff of our supervisory authority are subject to a duty of professional secrecy in respect of the confidential information to which they have access. There are a number of exemptions. One is where the disclosure is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.
Amendment No. 74 was proposed by the Government in the light of representations by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, to the effect that the substantial public interest posed too stiff a test. We thought about this and we agreed, on reflection, that it would be more consistent with the approach to freedom of information, while remaining consistent with the directive, to lower this threshold to simple public interest. That is one more step in helping to ensure that, in practice, the commissioner and her staff are not impeded from doing their job effectively.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 74.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds—and, again, I am grateful for the warning—wishes to raise a point on Amendment No. 79. Therefore, what I propose to do, with the agreement of your Lordships, is to take Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 inclusive first, and then call Amendments Nos. 79 to 105.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
75 Clause 57, page 33, line 27, leave out 'or 54' and insert 54 or (Prohibition of requirement as to production of certain records),
( ) an offence under section 20(2) relating to processing which is assessable processing for the purposes of section 21,'.
76 After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
'.—(1) This section applies to—

(a) a notice or request under any provision of Part II,

(b) a notice under subsection (1) of section 23 or particulars made available under that subsection, or

(c) an application under section 40(2),

but does not apply to anything which is required to be served in accordance with rules of court.
(2) The requirement that any notice, request, particulars or application to which this section applies should be in writing is satisfied where the text of the notice, request, particulars or application—

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,

(b) is received in legible form, and

(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that any requirement that any notice, request, particulars or application to which this section applies should be in writing is not to apply in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations.'.<reason>77
77 Clause 63, page 36, leave out line 35.
78 Page 36, line 38, at end insert—
'section (Prohibition of requirement as to production of certain records)(8),'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 75 to 78.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 75 to 78.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
79 Clause 63, page 37, line 10, after '2' insert 'or 7'.
80 Page 37, line 10, after '2' insert 'or 8A'.
81 Page 37, line 10, leave out 'or'.
82 Page 37, line 11, at end insert—
'paragraph 5A of Schedule 7'.
83 Page 37, line 12 leave out 'relating' and insert 'which—

(i) prescribe cases for the purposes of subsection (2)(b),

(ii) are made by virtue of subsection (6A), or

(iii) relate'.

84 Page 37, line 14, after 8(1)' insert 'or section (Application of section 7 where data controller is credit reference agency)(3)'.
85 Page 37, line 14, at end insert—
'(cc) regulations under section (Transmission of notices etc. by electronic or other means),'.
86 Page 37, line 21, leave out 'containing' and insert 'which contains only'.
87 After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—

MEANING OF "ACCESSIBLE RECORD"
'.—(1) In this Act "accessible record" means—

(a) a health record as defined by subsection (2),

(b) an educational record as defined by Schedule (Meaning of "educational record"), or

(c) an accessible public record as defined by Schedule (accessible public records.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) "health record" means any record which—

(a) consists of information relating to the physical or mental health or condition of an individual, and

(b) has been made by or on behalf of a health professional in connection with the care of that individual.'.

88 Insert the following new clause—

MEANING OF "HEALTH PROFESSIONAL"
'.—(1) In this Act "health professional" means any of the following—

(a) a registered medical practitioner,

(b) a registered dentist as defined by section 53(1) of the Dentists Act 1984,

(c) a registered optician as defined by section 36(1) of the Opticians Act 1989,

(d) a registered pharmaceutical chemist as defined by section 24(1) of the Pharmacy Act 1954 or a registered person as defined by Article 2(2) of the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976,

(e) a registered nurse, midwife or health visitor,

(f) a registered osteopath as defined by section 41 of the Osteopaths Act 1993,

(g) a registered chiropractor as defined by section 43 of the Chiropractors Act 1994,

(h) any person who is registered as a member of a profession to which the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 for the time being extends,

(i) a clinical psychologist, child psychotherapist or speech therapist,

(j) a music therapist employed by a health service body, and

(k) a scientist employed by such a body as head of a department.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) "registered medical practitioner" includes any person who is provisionally registered under section 15 or 21 of the Medical Act 1983 and is engaged in such employment as is mentioned in subsection (3) of that section.
(3) In subsection (1) "health service body" means—

1507

(a) a Health Authority established under section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977,

(b) a Special Health Authority established under section 11 of that Act,

(c) a Health Board within the meaning of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,

(d) a Special Health Board within the meaning of that Act,

(e) the managers of a State Hospital provided under section 102 of that Act,

(f) a National Health Service trust first established under section 5 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or section 12A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,

(g) a Health and Social Services Board established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972,

(h) a special health and social services agency established under the Health and Personal Social Services (Special Agencies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, or

(i) a Health and Social Services trust established under Article 10 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.'.

89 Clause 64, page 37, line 29, at end insert—
'"credit reference agency" has the same meaning as in the Consumer Credit Act 1974;'.
90 Page 37, leave out lines 41 to 45.
91 Page 38, line 8, at end insert—
'"pupil"—

(a) in relation to a school in England and Wales, means a registered pupil within the meaning of the Education Act 1996,

(b) in relation to a school in Scotland, means a pupil within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, and

(c) in relation to a school in Northern Ireland, means a registered pupil within the meaning of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;'.

92 Page 38, line 19, at end insert—
'"school"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996,

(b) in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, and

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;

"teacher" includes—

(a) in Great Britain, head teacher, and

(b) in Northern Ireland, the principal of a school;'.

93 Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
'(2) For the purposes of this Act data are inaccurate if they are incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact.'.
94 Clause 65, page 38, line 28, at end insert—

'accessible record

section (Meaning of "accessible record")'.

95 Page 38, line 31, at end insert—

'credit reference agency

section 64(1)'.

96 Page 38, line 40, at end insert—

'enactment

section 64(1)'.

97 Page 38, line 44, column 2, leave out 'section 64' and insert 'section (Meaning of "health professional")'.
98 Page 38, line 44, at end insert—

'inaccurate (in relation to data)

section 64(2)'.

99 Page 39, line 9, at end insert—

'pupil (in relation to a school)

section 64(1)'.

100 Page 39, line 14, at end insert—

'school

section 64(1)'.

101 Page 39, line 18, at end insert—

'teacher

section 64(1)'.

102 Page 39, leave out line 21.
103 Clause 66, page 39, line 24, leave out '24th October 2001' and insert 'the commencement of this section'.
104 Clause 69, page 39, line 39, after 'section' insert—

(ee) paragraph 17 of Schedule 5,

(ef) Schedule (Meaning of "educational record"),

(eg) Schedule (Accessible public records),'.

105 Page 40, line 3, at end insert—
'( ) The day appointed under subsection (3) for the coming into force of section (Prohibition of requirement as to production of certain records) must not be earlier than the first day on which sections 112, 113 and 115 of the Police Act 1997 (which provide for the issue by the Secretary of State of criminal conviction certificates, criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates) are all in force.'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 to 105.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 to 105.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Milner of Leeds: My Lords, I am rather confused by Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81, all of which refer to line 10 on page 37 of the Bill. Amendment No. 79 reads,
"after '2' insert 'or 7",
Amendment No. 80,
"after '2' insert 'or 80,
and Amendment No. 81 proposes to leave out the word "or". Can my noble friend the Minister tell me how line 10 of that clause will read when amended?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot do so at present. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend in relation to his query.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
106 Clause 69, page 40, leave out lines 7 to 10.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106.
This is a purely procedural amendment. It takes away subsection (6) of Clause 69, which provides that nothing in the Bill imposes any charge on the people or on public funds. The provision was found necessary during the Bill's passage through this House—as will be notoriously well known to all but me—to avoid questions of privilege.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
107 Schedule 1, page 42, line 13, after 'where' insert 'at that time'.
108 Page 42, line 15, leave out 'information contained in the data is' and insert 'data are'.
109 Page 42, line 16, leave out 'information contained in the data is' and insert 'data are'.
110 Page 43, leave out line 12.
111 Page 43, line 23, leave out from 'information' to 'in' in line 24.
112 Page 43, line 29, leave out from 'section' to 'or' in line 30.
113 Page 43, line 44, leave out 'staff and insert 'employees'.
114 Schedule 3, page 46, line 21, at end insert—
'(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) exclude the application of sub-paragraph (1) in such cases as may be specified, or

(b) provide that, in such cases as may be specified, the condition in sub-paragraph (1) is not to be regarded as satisfied unless such further conditions as may be specified in the order are also satisfied.'.

115 Page 46, line 29, at end insert—
'8A.—(1) The processing—

(a) is of sensitive personal data consisting of information as to racial or ethnic origin,

(b) is necessary for the purpose of identifying or keeping under review the existence or absence of equality of opportunity or treatment between persons of different racial or ethnic origins, with a view to enabling such equality to be promoted or maintained, and

(c) is carried out with appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify circumstances in which processing falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) is, or is not, to be taken for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) to be carried out with appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects.'.
116 Schedule 7, page 53, line 6, at end insert—
'Corporate finance
5A.—(1) Where personal data are processed for the purposes of, or in connection with, a corporate finance service provided by a relevant person—

(a) the data are exempt from the subject information provisions in any case to the extent to which either—

(i) the application of those provisions to the data could affect the price of any instrument which is already in existence or is to be or may be created, or

(ii) the data controller reasonably believes that the application of those provisions to the data could affect the price of any such instrument, and

(b) to the extent that the data are not exempt from the subject information provisions by virtue of paragraph (a), they are exempt from those provisions if the exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding an important economic or financial interest of the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) the Secretary of State may by order specify—

(a) matters to be taken into account in determining whether exemption from the subject information provisions is required for the purpose of safeguarding an important economic or financial interest of the United Kingdom, or

(b) circumstances in which exemption from those provisions is, or is not, to be taken to be required for that purpose.

(3) In this paragraph—
"corporate finance service" means a service consisting in—

(a) underwriting in respect of issues of, or the placing of issues of, any instrument,

(b) advice to undertakings on capital structure, industrial strategy and related matters and advice and service relating to mergers and the purchase of undertakings, or

(c) services relating to such underwriting as is mentioned in paragraph (a);

"instrument" means any instrument listed in section B of the Annex to the Council Directive on investment services in the securities field (No. 93/22/EEC), as set out in Schedule 1 to the Investment Services Regulations 1995;
"price" includes value;
"relevant person" means—

(a) any person who is authorised under Chapter III of Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 or is an exempted person under Chapter IV of Part I of that Act,

(b) any person who, but for Part III or IV of Schedule I to that Act, would require authorisation under that Act,

(c) any European investment firm within the meaning given by Regulation 3 of the Investment Services Regulations 1995,

(d) any person who, in the course of his employment, provides to his employer a service falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of the definition of "corporate finance service", or

(e) any partner who provides to other partners in the partnership a service falling within either of those paragraphs.'.

117 Page 54, leave out lines 1 to 7.
118 Page 54, line 14, leave out 'if and insert 'to the extent that'.
119 Schedule 8, page 54, line 39, after first 'data' insert other than data forming part of an accessible record,'.
120 Page 54, line 40, at end insert—
'(2) This paragraph does not apply to eligible manual data to which paragraph 2B applies.'.
121 Page 54, line 40, at end insert—
'2A.—(1) This paragraph applies to—

(a) eligible manual data forming part of an accessible record, and

(b) personal data which fall within paragraph (d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) but which, because they are not subject to processing which was already under way immediately before 24th October 1998, are not eligible data for the purposes of this Schedule.

(2) During the first transitional period, data to which this paragraph applies are exempt from—

(a) the data protection principles, except the sixth principle so far as relating to sections 7 and 13A,

1511

(b) Part II of this Act, except—

(i) section 7 (as it has effect subject to section 8) and section 13A, and

(ii) section 14 so far as relating to those sections, and

(c) Part III of this Act.'.

122 Page 54, line 40, at end insert—
'2B.—.(1) This paragraph applies to eligible manual data which consist of information relevant to the financial standing of the data subject and in respect of which the data controller is a credit reference agency.
(2) During the first transitional period, data to which this paragraph applies are exempt from—

(a) the data protection principles, except the sixth principle so far as relating to sections 7 and 13A,

(b) Part II of this Act, except—

(i) section 7 (as it has effect subject to sections 8 and (Application of section 7 where data controller is credit reference agency)) and section 13A, and

(ii) section 14 so far as relating to those sections, and

(c) Part III of this Act.'.

123 Page 57, leave out lines 6 to 12.
124 Page 57, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'are' in line 17 and insert—
'13.—(1) This paragraph applies to—

(a) eligible manual data which were held immediately before 24th October 1998, and

(b) personal data which fall within paragraph (d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) but do not fall within paragraph (a) of this sub-paragraph,

but does not apply to eligible manual data to which the exemption in paragraph 15 applies.
(2) During the second transitional period, data to which this paragraph applies'.
125 Page 57, line 22, leave out '12' and insert '12(1) to (3)'.
126 Page 57, leave out lines 23 and 24.
127 Page 57, line 36, leave out '12' and insert '12(1) to (3)'.
128 Page 58, line 5, leave out '12' and insert '12(1) to (3)'.
129 Page 58, line 14, at end insert—

'PART V

  EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 21
  . Processing which was already under way immediately before 24th October 1998 is not assessable processing for the purposes of section 21.'.
  130 Schedule 9, page 58, line 34, at end insert 'as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph'.
  131 After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—

'SCHEDULE

  MEANING OF "EDUCATIONAL RECORD" FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION (MEANING OF "ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC RECORD")
  1. For the purposes of section (Meaning of "accessible record") "educational record" means any record to which paragraph 2, 5 or 7 applies.
  England and Wales
  2. This paragraph applies to any record of information which—

  (a) is processed by or on behalf of the governing body of, or a teacher at, any school in England and Wales specified in paragraph 3,

  (b) relates to any person who is or has been a pupil at the school, and

  (c) originated from or was supplied by or on behalf of any of the persons specified in paragraph 4,

  other than information which is processed by a teacher solely for the teacher's own use.
  3. The schools referred to in paragraph 2(a) are—

  (a) a school maintained by a local education authority, and

  (b) a special school, as defined by section 6(2) of the Education Act 1996, which is not so maintained.

  4. The persons referred to in paragraph 2(c) are—

  (a) an employee of the local education authority which maintains the school,

  (b) in the case of—

  (i) a voluntary aided, foundation or foundation special school (within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998), or

  (ii) a special school which is not maintained by a local eduction authority,

  a teacher or other employee at the school (including an educational psychologist engaged by the governing body under a contract for services),

  (c) the pupil to whom the record relates, and

  (d) a parent (as defined by section 576(1) of the Education Act 1996) of that pupil.

  Scotland
  5. This paragraph applies to any record of information which is processed—

  (a) by an education authority in Scotland, and

  (b) for the purpose of the relevant function of the authority,

  other than information which is processed by a teacher solely for the teacher's own use.
  6. For the purposes of paragraph 5—

  (a) "education authority" means an education authority within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act") or, in relation to a self-governing school, the board of management within the, meaning of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 ("the 1989 Act"),

  (b) "the relevant function" means, in relation to each of those authorities, their function under section 1 of the 1980 Act and section 7(1) of the 1989 Act, and

  (c) information processed by an education authority is processed for the purpose of the relevant function of the authority if the processing relates to the discharge of that function in respect of a person—

  (i) who is or has been a pupil in a school provided by the authority, or

  (ii) who receives, or has received, further education (within the meaning of the 1980 Act) so provided.

  Northern Ireland
  7.—(1) This paragraph applies to any record of information which—

  (a) is processed by or on behalf of the Board of Governors of, or a teacher at, any grant-aided school in Northern Ireland,

  (b) relates to any person who is or has been a pupil at the school, and

  (c) originated from or was supplied by or on behalf of any of the persons specified in paragraph 8,

  1513
  other than information which is processed by a teacher solely for the teacher's own use.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) "grant-aided school" has the same meaning as in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
  8. The persons referred to in paragraph 7(1) are—

  (a) a teacher at the school,

  (b) an employee of an education and library board, other than such a teacher,

  (c) the pupil to whom the record relates, and

  (d) a parent (as defined by Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986) of that pupil.

  England and Wales: transitory provisions
  9.—(1) Until the appointed day within the meaning of section 20 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, this Schedule shall have effect subject to following modifications.
  (2) Paragraph 3 shall have effect as if for paragraph (b) and the "and" immediately preceding it there were substituted—

  "(aa) a grant-maintained school, as defined by section 183(1) of the Education Act 1996,

  (ab) a grant-maintained special school, as defined by section 337(4) of that Act, and

  (b) a special school, as defined by section 6(2) of that Act, which is neither a maintained special school, as defined by section 337(3) of that Act, nor a grant-maintained special school."

  (3) Paragraph 4(b)(i) shall have effect as if for the words from "foundation", in the first place where it occurs, to "1998)" there were substituted "or grant-maintained school".'.
  132 Insert the following new schedule—

'SCHEDULE

  ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC RECORDS
  Meaning of "accessible public record"
  1. For the purposes of section (Meaning of "accessible record") "accessible public record" means any record which is kept by an authority specified—

  (a) as respects England and Wales, in the Table in paragraph 2,

  (b) as respects Scotland, in the Table in paragraph 4, or

  (c) as respects Northern Ireland, in the Table in paragraph 6,

  and is a record of information of a description specified in that Table in relation to that authority.
  Housing and social services records: England and Wales
  2. The following is the Table referred to in paragraph 1(a).

  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND INFORMATION

  The authorities

  The accessible information

  Housing Act local Authority.

  Information held for the purpose of any of the authority's tenancies.

  Local social services authority.

  Information held for any purpose of the authority's social services functions.

  3.—(1) The following provisions apply for the interpretation of the Table in paragraph 2.
  (2) Any authority which, by virtue of section 4(e) of the Housing Act 1985, is a local authority for the purpose of any provision of that Act is a "Housing Act local authority" for the purposes of this Schedule, and so is any housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988.
  (3) Information contained in records kept by a Housing Act local authority is "held for the purpose of any of the authority's tenancies" if it is held for any purpose of the relationship of landlord and tenant
  1514
  of a dwelling which subsists, has subsisted or may subsist between the authority and any individual who is, has been or, as the case may be, has applied to be, a tenant of the authority.
  (4) Any authority which, by virtue of section 1 or 12 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, is or is treated as a local authority for the purposes of that Act is a "local social services authority" for the purposes of this Schedule; and information contained in records kept by such an authority is "held for any purpose of the authority's social services functions" if it is held for the purpose of any past, current or proposed exercise of such a function in any case.
  (5) Any expression used in paragraph 2 or this paragraph and in Part II of the Housing Act 1985 or the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 has the same meaning as in that Act.
  Housing and social services records: Scotland
  4. The following is the Table referred to in paragraph 1(b).

  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND INFORMATION

  The authorities

  The accessible information

  Local authority. Scottish Homes.

  Information held for the purpose of any of the body's tenancies.

  Social work authority.

  Information held for any purpose of the authority's functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the enactments referred to in section 5(1B) of that Act.

  5.—(1) The following provisions apply for the interpretation of the Table in paragraph 4.
  (2) "Local authority" means—

  (a) a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994,

  (b) a joint board or joint committee of two or more of those councils, or

  (c) any trust under the control of such a council.

  (3) Information contained in records kept by a local authority or Scottish Homes is held for the purpose of any of their tenancies if it is held for any purpose of the relationship of landlord and tenant of a dwelling-house which subsists, has subsisted or may subsist between the authority or, as the case may be, Scottish Homes and any individual who is, has been or, as the case may be, has applied to be a tenant of theirs.
  (4) "Social work authority" means a local authority for the purposes of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; and information contained in records kept by such an authority is held for any purpose of their functions if it is held for the purpose of any past, current or proposed exercise of such a function in any case.
  Housing and social services records: Northern Ireland
  6. The following is the Table referred to in paragraph 1(c).

  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND INFORMATION

  The authorities

  The accessible information

  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Information held for the purpose of any of the Executive's tenancies.

  A Health and Social Services Board.

  Information held for the purpose of any past, current or proposed exercise by the Board of any function exercisable, by virtue of directions under Article 17(1) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, by the Board on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Services with respect to the administration of personal social services under—

  (a) the Children and Young Persons

  Act (Northern Ireland) 1968;

  (b) the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972;

  (c) Article 47 of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978;

  (d) Article 11 of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980;

  (e) the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; or

  (f) the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

  An HSS trust

  Information held for the purpose of any past, current or proposed exercise by the trust of any function exercisable, by virtue of an authorisation under Article 3(1) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, by the trust on behalf of a Health and Social Services Board with respect to the administration of personal social services under any statutory provision mentioned in the last preceding entry.

  7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the interpretation of the Table in paragraph 6.
  (2) Information contained in records kept by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is "held for the purpose of any of the Executive's tenancies" if it is held for any purpose of the relationship of landlord and tenant of a dwelling which subsists, has subsisted or may subsist between the Executive and any individual who is, has been or, as the case may be, has applied to be, a tenant of the Executive.'.
  133 Schedule 11, page 61, line 46, leave out 'eligible' and insert 'exempt'.
  134 Page 61, line 46, after 'inaccurate' insert 'or incomplete'.
  135 Page 61, line 47, leave out 'eligible' and insert 'exempt'.
  136 Page 62, line 2, after 'inaccurate' insert 'or incomplete'.
  137 Page 62, leave out lines 13 to 17 and insert—
  —exempt manual data" means—

  (a) in relation to the first transitional period, as defined by paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 8, data to which paragraph 2A or 2B of that Schedule applies, and

  (b) in relation to the second transitional period, as so defined, data to which paragraph 13 of that Schedule applies;'.

  138 Page 62, leave out lines 18 and 19.
  139 Page 62, line 19, at end insert—
  '(5) For the purposes of this section personal data are incomplete if, and only if, the data, although not inaccurate, are such that their incompleteness would constitute a contravention of the third or fourth data protection principles, if those principles applied to the data.'.
  140 Page 62, leave out line 20.
  141 Page 62, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
  '(a) in subsection (2) after "section 13" there is inserted—
  1516
  "(dd) section 13A,", and.
  (b) in subsection (4) after "13(8)" there is inserted ", 13A(3)".'.
  142 Page 62, line 25, leave out 'section 12' and insert 'section 12(1) to (3)'.
  143 Page 62, line 25, leave out &12' and insert '12(1) to (3)'.
  144 Page 62, line 25, at end insert—
  '4A. In section 52(1) after "13(8)" there is inserted ", 13A(3)".'.
  145 Schedule 12, page 62, line 46, leave out from first 'period' to end of line 48 and insert ', in relation to a person, means—

  (a) where there is a single entry in respect of that person as a data user, the period at the end of which, if section 8 of the 1984 Act had remained in force, that entry would have fallen to be removed unless renewed, and

  (b) where there are two or more entries in respect of that person as a data user, the period at the end of which, if that section had remained in force, the last of those entries to expire would have fallen to be removed unless renewed.'.

  146 Page 63, line 22, leave out '16' and insert &18'.
  147 Page 63, leave out lines 24 to 27.
  148 Page 64, line 49, at end insert—
  '. Subsection (4)(b) of section 39 does not apply where the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction occurred before the commencement of that section.'.
  149 Page 65, line 5, at end insert—
  '. Where by virtue of paragraph 10 an information notice is served on the basis of anything done or omitted to be done before the day on which section 42 comes into force, subsection (2)(b) of that section shall have effect as if the reference to the data controller having complied, or complying, with the new principles were a reference to the data controller having contravened the old principles by reason of any such act or omission as is mentioned in paragraph 10.'.
  150 Page 65, line 5, at end insert—
  'Self-incrimination, etc.
  .—(1) In section 42(9), section 43(10) and paragraph 11 of Schedule 7, any reference to an offence under this Act includes a reference to an offence under the 1984 Act.
  (2) In section 34(9) of the 1984 Act, any reference to an offence under that Act includes a reference to an offence under this Act.'.
  151 Page 65, line 24, at end insert—
  'Applications under Access to Health Records Act 1990 or corresponding Northern Ireland legislation
  .—(1) The repeal of any provision of the Access to Health Records Act 1990 does not affect—

  (a) the application of section 3 or 6 of that Act in any case in which the application under that section was received before the day on which the repeal comes into force, or

  (b) the application of section 8 of that Act in any case in which the application to the court was made before the day on which the repeal comes into force.

  (2) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in relation to an application for access to information which was made by reference to this Act.
  .—(1) The revocation of any provision of the Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 does not affect—

  (a) the application of Article 5 or 8 of that Order in any case in which the application under that Article was received before the day on which the repeal comes into force, or

  (b) the application of Article 10 of that Order in any case in which the application to the court was made before the day on which the repeal comes into force.

  (2) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in relation to an application for access to information which was made by reference to this Act.
  Applications under regulations under Access to Personal Files Act 1987 or corresponding Northern Ireland legislation
  .—(1) The repeal of the personal files enactments does not affect the application of regulations under those enactments in relation to—

  (a) any request for information,

  (b) any application for rectification or erasure, or

  (c) any application for review of a decision,

  which was made before the day on which the repeal comes into force.
  (2) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in relation to a request for information which was made by reference to this Act.
  (3) In sub-paragraph (1) "the personal files enactments" means—

  (a) in relation to Great Britain, the Access to Personal Files Act 1987, and

  (b) in relation to Northern Ireland, Part II of the Access to Personal Files and Medical Reports (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.'.

  152 Page 65, line 24, at end insert—
  'Applications under section 158 of Consumer Credit Act 1974
  . Section 59 does not affect the application of section 158 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in any case where the request was received before the commencement of section 59, unless the request is made by reference to this Act.'.
  153 Schedule 13, page 66, leave out lines 24 to 29.
  154 Page 66, line 33, leave out "'the Access to Health Records Act 1990"' and insert '"the Data Protection Act 1998"'.
  155 Page 67, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert—
  '10. Schedule 2 to the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 (loans for students) so far as that Schedule continues in force shall have effect as if the reference in paragraph 4(2) to the Data Protection Act 1984 were a reference to this Act.'.
  156 Page 67, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
  '12. For section 2 of the Access to Health Records Act 1990 there is substituted—
  "Health professionals.
  2. In this Act "health professional" has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 1998."'.
  157 Page 67, line 12, at end insert—
  '13A. In section 5(3) of that Act (cases where right of access may be partially excluded) for the words from the beginning to "record" in the first place where it occurs there is substituted "Access shall not be given under section 3(2) to any part of a health record".'.
  158 Page 67, line 22, leave out '"the Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993"' and insert '"the Data Protection Act 1998"'.
  159 Page 67, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert—
  '17. For paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 of the Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 there is substituted—
  "(1) In this Order "health professional" has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 1998."'.
  160 Page 67, line 43, at end insert—
  '18A. In Article 7 of that Order (cases where right of access may be partially excluded) for the words from the beginning to "record" in the first place where it occurs there is substituted "Access shall not be given under Article 5(2) to any part of a health record".'.
  161 Schedule 14, page 68, line 9, at end insert—

  '1987 c. 37.

  The Access to Personal Files Act 1987.

  The whole Act.'

  162 Page 68, line 11, at end insert—

  '1988 c. 50.

  The Housing Act 1988.

  In Schedule 17, paragraph 80.

  1990 c. 23.

  The Access to Health Records Act 1990.

  In section 1(1), the words from "but does not" to the end.

  In section 3, subsection (1)(a) to (e) and, in subsection (6)(a), the words "in the case of an application made otherwise than by the patient".

  Section 4(1) and (2).

  In section 5(1)(a)(i), the words "of the patient or" and the word "other".

  In section 10, in subsection (2) the words "or orders" and in subsection (3) the words "or an order under section 2(3) above".

  In section 11, the definitions of "child" and "parental responsibility".'

  163 Page 68, line 25, column 3, leave out 'Section 38(2)(a) and (4)' and insert 'Section 38'.
  164 Page 68, line 26, column 3, leave out 'Section 38(3)(a) and (5)' and insert 'Section 38'.
  165 Page 68, line 27, at end insert—

  '1994 c. 19.

  The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

  In Schedule 13,paragraph 30.'

  166 Page 68, line 29, at end insert—

  1519

  '1994 c. 39.

  The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

  In Schedule 13, paragraph 154.'

  167 Page 68, line 35, at end insert—

  'S.I. 1991/1707 (N.I. 14).

  The Access to Personal Files and Medical Reports (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Part II. The Schedule.

  168 Page 68, line 39, at end insert—

  S.I. 1993/1250 (N.I. 4).

  The Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

  In Article 2(2), the definitions of "child" and "parental responsibility".

  In Article 3(1), the words from "but does not include" to the end.

  In Article 5, paragraph (1)(a) to (d) and, in paragraph (6)(a), the words "in the case of an application made otherwise than by the patient".

  Article 6(1) and (2).

  In Article 7(1)(a)(i), the words "of the patient or" and the word "other".

  S.I. 1994/429 (N.I. 2).

  The Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  In Schedule 1, the entries relating to the Access to Personal Files and Medical Reports (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  169 Page 68, line 43, at end insert—

  'S.I. 1995/755 (N.1. 2).

  The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

  In Schedule 9, paragraphs 177 and 191.'

  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 107 to 169.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 107 to 169.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
  12.15 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order will introduce in Northern Ireland some provisions of the Education Act 1996, Education Act 1997 and certain elements of education policy set out in the draft Teaching and Higher Education Bill and the School Standards and Framework Bill. It will also implement certain other proposals that the Government have for education policy in the Province. The main provisions to be introduced will be in relation to discipline, assessments and pupils' performance, performance and management of schools, pre-school education, teacher-related issues, financing of schools and the development of Irish-medium education. A number of other miscellaneous provisions are also included.
  The order was considered by a wide range of educational interests in Northern Ireland. All of their comments were carefully considered and, as a result, a number of minor changes have been made to the draft order. I am grateful for the interest shown by those who took the trouble to respond. I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I say a few words about the main provisions of the order.
  The Department of Education carried out a comprehensive review of discipline during 1997 and found that the standard of behaviour in schools is generally good and that most schools feel that they can cope with their discipline problems, given appropriate support; and, indeed, that they wish to do so. Articles 3 to 6 will strengthen the position of schools in relation to discipline and good behaviour and will underpin the range of support initiatives in this area, which were announced as part of the Northern Ireland School Improvement Programme which the Minister for Education in Northern Ireland announced in February.
  It might be helpful if I included some comments about Articles 86 and 87 at this stage, as they are linked to discipline. These articles, which parallel legislation in England and Wales, provide a legal basis for the establishment of pupil referral units which will provide short-term support in behaviour management for seriously disruptive pupils so that they can be re-integrated back into their usual school. A small number of such units already exist, and these have proved successful in modifying behaviour to enable pupils to return to their normal schools and take full advantage of the education provided for them.
  Article 86 also provides the statutory basis for the development of alternative education provision for the very small number of pupils who could not be returned to a mainstream school because they exhibit deep-seated disaffection. The provision will be developed on a multi-disciplinary, multi-agency basis, drawing on the expertise in the education sector, and other agencies such as social services and the Probation Service, to develop appropriate programmes. The limited provision of this type which already exists has focused on the acquisition of basic skills and employability and, in many cases, has been successful in engaging the interest of these young people.
  Articles 7 to 13 set out a range of measures related to pupil assessment and to target-setting and development planning in schools. In particular, Articles 7 to 9 provide

  1521
  the statutory basis for the baseline assessment of primary school pupils in their first year of compulsory education. It is intended that a single scheme for baseline assessment in Northern Ireland will be drawn up and introduced at an appropriate pace with adequate training and support for the teachers involved.
  Articles 11 and 13 will provide for schools to set and publish annual targets for the performance of their pupils, within the context of development plans. The setting of targets and the drawing up of development plans provide an important context for the work done in schools, and increased stimulus for improvement. They are key components of our strategy for improvement of school performance. We intend to make target-setting a statutory requirement from the 1998–99 school year. The requirement to draw up development plans will be introduced at a later date by Appointed Day provision to allow time for the necessary training and support for schools.
  The order provides a new power in circumstances where a school is judged to be failing to provide an acceptable standard of education for its pupils, and this is judged to be wholly or partly the result of actions or inactions on the part of the board of governors. Where the Education and Training Inspectorate reports that a board of governors is contributing to a school's failure, the Department of Education will be empowered to appoint additional members to the board of governors, including a chairman, to remedy the shortcomings of the board of governors.
  I do not expect that this power will be used often, but where it is used there will be full consultation with the relevant interests. Governors of schools are hard-working and committed people and I wish to place on record the Government's gratitude for the work they do. But, where problems arise, I consider it vital that steps can be taken to put things right and so enable the school to provide the education to which the pupils are entitled.
  Article 15 extends the duty placed on a board of governors of a school to include within their annual report the measures or revised arrangements which they have taken to safeguard pupils and staff while at school. This provision arises from one of the recommendations of the Working Group on School Security set up by the DfEE following the fatal stabbing of the London head teacher, Phillip Lawrence. I am sure your Lordships will fully support this measure, which brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales and is consistent with government aims to encourage greater parental involvement and partnership in schools.
  Article 16 provides for a statutory limit to be prescribed on class sizes in Key Stage 1 (Years 1–4 in Northern Ireland) in grant-aided primary schools. The intention is to limit the size of primary school infant classes to 30. This reflects the importance the Government attach to the promotion of effective learning in the early years of education and is to be introduced as quickly as possible, depending on decisions on spending levels. Schools will be required
  1522
  to comply with the statutory limit, subject to any exceptions approved by the education and library boards.
  Part V of the order provides for a programme of expansion of pre-school education in Northern Ireland. The long-term aim is to provide a full-year pre-school education place for every child whose parents wish it. This programme will be planned at local level to meet the needs of children and their parents. Places will be secured through pre-school education development plans which will be drawn up and implemented through partnership between the education and library boards and other providers of pre-school education in the statutory, private and voluntary sectors.
  Chapter I of Part V gives the Department of Education for Northern Ireland powers to determine quality standards for pre-school education and to monitor these through the Education and Training Inspectorate. Noble Lords will be glad to hear that it also removes an existing legislative bar on nursery provision in the integrated education sector.
  Chapter II of Part V introduces new arrangements for the admission of children to grant-aided nursery schools and nursery classes at primary schools to ensure effective use of nursery provision and equity of access to pre-school education.
  Chapter 1 of Part VI of the order provides for the establishment of the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland. The council, as in Scotland, England and Wales, will be the major body to advise the Department of Education and employing authorities in Northern Ireland on the standards of entry to the profession, the structure and content of initial teacher training courses, the career development and performance management of teachers and standards of teaching and teachers' conduct. It will have professional responsibility for registering teachers and excluding from teaching those found guilty of misconduct after due process.
  I am grateful to those who took the time to respond to the draft order and the consultation paper on the establishment of the council. Both were considered by a wide range of educational interests. Their views show considerable support both for the establishment of a council, and for the proposal that it should be representative of a broad range of interests, among which members of the teaching profession should represent the single largest group.
  The order provides the framework of the council and its functions. The exact detail of the council's composition, the registration requirements, and the arrangements for levying registration fees will be set out in draft regulations on which there will again be wide-ranging consultations by the department. In view of the further consultation and planning which needs to be undertaken, the Government have set a target to bring the council into operation in the year 2000.
  Chapter II of Part VI of the order enables regulations to be made prescribing the eligibility conditions which must be met in order to be considered for employment as a principal of a grant-aided school, and in particular to hold a qualification approved by the department. It

  1523
  also provides exemption from the regulations of acting principals and those appointed to principal posts before the regulations become law. Consultations on this issue indicated strong support for the new qualification, which will be phased in from next year and which will become a compulsory requirement for headship as soon as there is a sufficient pool of qualified candidates to fill principal vacancies.
  Article 43 re-enacts, with minor amendments, Articles 143 and 153 of the 1989 order, which relate to schemes for the employment of teachers by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and education and library boards respectively. The schemes will continue but they will no longer require the department's approval. It also discontinues the requirement in education law for an agreement to be entered into between a teacher and the employer on the terms and conditions of employment. These are matters which are subject to general employment legislation.
  The thrust of Part VII of the order is to provide for the transfer of funding responsibility for voluntary grammar schools and grant-maintained integrated schools from the Department of Education to the education and library boards. Because of the complexities of the previous legislation governing the financing of schools, it has been necessary at the same time to consolidate the existing provisions, with minor modifications and tidying up, while incorporating the new provisions transferring the funding responsibility. May I emphasise to the House that the only fundamental change which the transfer initiates is simply a change of paymaster from DENI to the boards. The reasons for it are very straightforward.
  My colleague has indicated in public on several occasions that he does not think that it is defensible, equitable or sensible to have seven different funding formulae for allocating resources to schools in Northern Ireland and has made clear that this Government's policy objective will be to secure commonality across the Province. This will ensure that schools with the same needs will have the same level of funding, regardless of the area or the schools sector in which they are located. I know that this will take time to achieve and that much consultation with all education interests will be necessary, but solid and sensible progress has already been made with the introduction of a number of changes for 1998–99 which will bring the funding formulae much closer together. Thus the proposals in this part of the order will contribute to commonality by reducing the number of funding formulae in operation from seven to five and thus promote greater equity, consistency and transparency of funding across all schools.
  It has been put to my colleague with some force, during extensive consultation on the draft order, that such a transfer will somehow mean that the unique ethos and management arrangements which currently exist, particularly in the voluntary grammar school sector, will be somehow damaged or lost. This is simply not so. Voluntary grammar schools and grant-maintained integrated schools will continue to manage their own affairs without interference from boards; the draft order does not give the boards any role in the day-to-day
  1524
  management of these schools. Voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools would not, therefore, lose their identities and simply become the same as controlled schools, nor would there be any new restrictions on their present freedom as to how they use their resources.
  It has also been suggested that boards will somehow spirit away funds from voluntary grammar schools and grant-maintained integrated schools for use elsewhere. Again, this is not the case. The new funding arrangements will recognise their significant financial differences in terms of VAT, rates, maintenance etc. The draft order contains safeguards to reflect this: it gives the department a clear approval role, not only in respect of all aspects of the LMS formula arrangements and how they apply to the voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated sector, but also in respect of boards' annual financial schemes. These measures should provide ample reassurance to the sectors that boards will not be able to divert funds away from these schools' budgets.
  Articles 73 to 80 consolidate the existing provisions relating to the powers and duties of the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, which are currently contained in four orders in council, and expand those powers to require or empower CCEA: to publicise the arrangements for baseline assessment; to develop and publish criteria for the accreditation of relevant external qualifications and to accredit qualifications which meet the criteria; to produce guidance and teaching materials for the curriculum of pre-school-age children; and, in exercising its functions, to have regard, as far as is relevant, to the requirements of industry and commerce and of persons with special learning needs.
  Article 81 consolidates existing provisions related to the approval of qualifications by the Department of Education, which are intended to ensure that the qualifications offered are acceptable and appropriate and are part of the nationally recognised framework of qualifications.
  Article 82 extends the period during which pupils can avail of work experience to include all of Key Stage 4. Article 83 makes provision for institutions of further education, on behalf of schools, to provide secondary education for pupils at Key Stage 4 within arrangements made by education and library boards.
  Both of these provisions are designed to allow schools more flexibility to provide a curriculum matched to the needs of the individual child. Article 83 has been amended from the original draft to make it clear that any provision made by an institution of further education is in fact on behalf of a school and that pupils remain on the school roll.
  The order also introduces some technical amendments to education legislation which are designed to remove any remaining doubt about the powers of education and library boards to enter into contracts which may be appropriate under the private finance initiative. This mirrors the legislative provisions made for local authorities in Great Britain.
  Article 89 lays a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium education and gives powers for the funding of a promotional body or bodies. These provisions will bring Irish-medium education onto a similar footing to integrated education.
  These are the main provisions of the order, which I believe will help enhance the education system in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
  12.30 p.m.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I welcome that extremely helpful and comprehensive explanation of the order. I apologise that a relatively inexpert representative is speaking from these Benches in the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and my noble friend Lord Alderdyce, who is in Northern Ireland.
  The Liberal Democrats welcome this order. We particularly welcome the stress on pre-school and primary education. It seems to us more and more to be the key to improving education throughout the United Kingdom. We are not entirely happy with the idea that one can bring school numbers down in primary schools by means of statutory legislation. One cannot entirely build bricks without straw. Clearly, there will have to be extra funding for primary schools. Looking round this Chamber I see no other university teachers present, but it should be said that some of us recognise that the shift in education spending will move away from higher education towards primary schools.
  I note that Article 88 refers to the private finance initiative. My party has some hesitations about the private finance initiative. It is not an entirely cost-free element in education funding. It simply puts off spending for later years. There are large questions in regard to education as to what can most easily be funded through the PFI. Computers, information technology and other resources that have a fast depreciation rate are not easy to fund by private means.
  We are very glad to see the encouraging references to integrated education. However, we regret that more is not being done. I understand that, currently, one in every 40 pupils in Northern Ireland attends an integrated school. The pressure for pupils to attend integrated schools means that demand is higher than the current provision. Clearly it is a matter of public policy to encourage that growth. I was a candidate in the North West of England, and was well aware at that time in Manchester of the resistance to integrated education from different sections of the community. Clearly, within the current circumstances in Northern Ireland, we wish by all means to encourage that.
  I wish to mention one final small point. On page 100 Schedule 3 sets out criteria for the disqualification of members of the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment. I am puzzled that the disqualification criteria include not only bankruptcy but anyone who has made "an arrangement
  1526
  with his creditors". I have made an arrangement with my creditors for the purpose of buying a house and undertaking a mortgage. I merely question how loose the phrasing should be.
  With those exceptions, on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues I welcome the order. I hope that it will contribute to a more useful and integrated education system in Northern Ireland.
  12.35 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, my first observation relates to the size, as well as the nature, of the order. It demonstrates the difficulties of direct rule as practised by successive governments over the past three decades or so. It is simply not a proper parliamentary procedure to put up 116 pages for discussion in a single debate with no possibility of amendment. Whatever it is, it is not proper parliamentary procedure.
  I realise that the Government have consulted widely, and I commend them on that consultation. But that is not parliamentary government, or even representative democracy. The point is particularly relevant just now. As was clear from the Minister's opening remarks, the order represents rather a motley collection of different educational matters flowing from different sources. There is no real theme to the order as a whole. Secondly, many of these matters might more satisfactorily have been left to the Assembly, which has now begun its work.
  I am beginning to get the impression, given the volume of orders for both affirmative and negative procedure that are coming forward, that the Northern Ireland Office is, as it were, trying to empty its in-tray and get everything through as soon as possible before the Assembly is under way. There may be a suspicion that democracy will be slightly more difficult to manage than direct rule. I happen to think that it would be useful for the Assembly's in-tray to be full of what might be termed normal bread-and-butter legislation; it would be likely to spend less time discussing the very contentious matters which people all too easily fall into discussing in Northern Ireland politics.
  I recognise that there was some momentum behind many of the proposals in the order at the time when the agreement was reached and the Assembly began to become a reality. But since then Ministers have not, as it were, backed off and said, "We shall not proceed with that for the time being". They have, instead, crammed on speed and added to this order.
  It is not as if education in Northern Ireland was bad and needed urgent action in order to rescue it. On the contrary, it is recognised as good by both those who take an outside interest in it and by parents. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister and visited Army families, it was a notable feature of life in Northern Ireland that the aspect of a long tour there that was welcomed by wives and soldiers alike was that their children would be able to attend the local schools. That was very much appreciated.
  The Minister explained that a considerable number of the changes are based on English educational arrangements. If English education had been recognised

  1527
  as better than Northern Ireland education over the past few years, that might be more acceptable. The reasons why Northern Ireland education is better go back beyond direct rule; they are older than that. It is better as a result of arrangements that were made at the time when Northern Ireland had its own assembly of a different kind, its own parliament. It set up the arrangements.
  I wish to mention one or two matters of a more detailed nature arising from the order. The general teaching council is one of the items in the order which is modelled on the England and Wales legislation, which is being considered separately. I was not clear. I thought I heard the Minister say in his introduction that the general teaching council would have powers to oversee the conduct of teachers. I take it, therefore, that it would have powers to strike teachers off the register for professional misconduct. I believe that that provision is to be included in the Great Britain legislation. I could not spot it in the Northern Ireland legislation, but perhaps it is one of the powers that is left to regulation and will be brought in later—delegated legislation creating further delegated legislation.
  I welcome the provisions for the testing of pupils, the publication of performance targets, and so on. As far as class sizes are concerned, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us a little more about how class sizes of 30 and under are to be achieved in primary schools and over what time-scale. Of course, they could be achieved simply by going against parents' wishes to send their children to a particular school and forcing the children to go to another school. There is also a question of finance. Are the schools to which parents would like to send their children to be given additional classes to enable the class sizes to come down? That is obviously the most desirable way of doing it. I should be grateful for any comments the Minister can make on that point.
  The Minister was able to make some reassuring points to the voluntary grammar schools on the changes to the funding formulas. I believe that that is a matter which could at this stage have been left to the Assembly and the new executive to sort out. As the Minister said, moving to what is apparently regarded as a fairer funding formula is inevitably a slow matter. It is inevitable that some schools will be disadvantaged in any change of this kind. For that reason, the matter should proceed slowly and with the maximum amount of local acceptance. I believe that, as events have turned out, this aspect of the order could have been postponed and gone into the in-tray of the new Assembly.
  Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I believe that I am the sole representative from Northern Ireland present in the Chamber today. I know that many of my colleagues have returned to the Province with a great deal of concern, as I shall shortly.
  I totally agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the standards of education in Northern Ireland and about the benefits which service children enjoy at Northern Ireland schools. I was sent to a school in this country, about 30 miles from your Lordships' House, of a type of which perhaps Members on the
  1528
  Government Benches would not wholly approve. However, my wife and I took a conscious decision to send our own children to school in Northern Ireland. Our daughter has just finished her A-levels at a voluntary grammar school in Belfast and we have two boys currently at a separate voluntary grammar school in Belfast.
  I too welcome the information which the Minister gave so clearly, as he always does, on the provision of additional funding for voluntary grammar schools and integrated schools. In particular, I am very pleased that the boards of governors and head teachers of these voluntary schools will still have the wherewithal to decide how to apply the funds they are given and that the power is not to be vested in the education and library boards. That is a welcome move. I have no problems with the order before us today.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the general support for the order. I will deal with the points which were made, not necessarily in the same order.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, commented on the length of the order and criticised the parliamentary procedure for scrutinising it. I have a lot of sympathy with that point. All being well, these are matters which will in future be dealt with by the Assembly, which will no doubt develop its own ways of scrutinising them.
  The noble Lord asked why the order was not left to the Assembly and said that there was a danger that the Assembly might have an empty in-tray. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government's concern is that the Assembly's in-tray will, if anything, be far too full by the time it ceases to be in shadow mode and takes over full powers early next year, I hope. The danger is that if we load the new Assembly with too much to do, there will be an enormous burden on individual Members and on Ministers in the early days and it will take rather longer for them to get round to some of these bread-and-butter issues than would otherwise be the case.
  Another consideration is that if the Government were now to leave everything to the new Assembly, there would be a policy and decision-making vacuum for the next seven or eight months. I do not believe that that would be healthy in terms of politics; it would not represent good government; and it would not be in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, who surely expect government to continue and decisions to be made, particularly on a matter such as this which has been subject to such extensive consultation. I assure the noble Lord that the Assembly's in-tray will not be empty, but I do not believe that it would be proper for us to delay matters. Under that argument, there are many other matters of government policy and decision-making which would presumably also be left, and I am not sure that that would be a happy way of proceeding.
  The order was initially prepared when the talks were at an early stage and there was at that point no assurance that the talks would reach the successful conclusion that occurred on Good Friday.
  Some of the powers in the order are essential. Without them it will not be possible to move for the benefit of Northern Ireland schools on a range of issues which

  1529
  have widespread support, such as pre-school education, school improvement programmes and school development plans. As the noble Lord conceded, the order was subject to widespread consultation. We shall consult further in any instances where further enactment is needed to introduce any of its provisions. I believe that the order has such widespread support that it would be wrong for us not to proceed.
  A question was asked about the general teaching council. The power of the council as to the removal of teachers from the register will be included in the regulations which will be made under the order.
  I was asked how the department intended to implement the class-size policy in Northern Ireland. The scale of the matter is substantially less in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. In addition, the structural and funding arrangements for education in Northern Ireland are quite different from those which exist in England and Wales. A working group of representatives of the Department of Education, the five education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools is currently developing the detailed arrangements for the implementation of the policy on a standard basis across the Province. Resources will be available to schools from the department via education and library boards, when necessary, to assist them to comply with the policy. It is expected, however, that the great majority of schools will be able to comply with the policy without additional assistance.
  I was asked whether additional funds would be available to implement the new class-size policy. This policy is a key priority. Subject to the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, additional funds will be made available to support it. However, as I said, many schools should be able to meet the statutory requirement by the effective use of existing teaching resources and possibly the reorganisation of class structures.
  I appreciate the positive support for integrated education from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The Government will continue to support well-founded proposals for new integrated schools in the primary and secondary sectors. We are committed to doing that and the order extends support to integrated education in the pre-school sector.
  I can assure the noble Lord therefore that we are committed to integrated education. Of course, the speed with which we can move forward depends not just on overall support—one can quote statistics of support in Northern Ireland—but also on support in specific areas so that one can establish an integrated school of an adequate size. There is a difficulty therefore in the transition process, but we are moving forward as rapidly as possible.
  The noble Lord asked also about the comment in Schedule 3 in relation to creditors. These are common provisions which have been in existence since 1990. There have been no objections from any source in two public consultations and of course the power would not he exercised unreasonably. Therefore, although the
  1530
  noble Lord raised the matter as something which might cause concern, it is an established way of operating and no one seems to have objected to it.
  As regards the public finance initiative, again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, of course that is not a panacea for all ills. However, it is a useful way of raising additional resources for education and, as such, the Government are committed to using the PFI whenever appropriate. There are specific areas of educational provision—the noble Lord mentioned computers—where the PFI approach might not work as well as in other aspects of education. But our commitment is there. We want to use the PFI as well as other means of raising the money necessary to continually improve education in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Producer Responsibility Obligations (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
  12.51 p.m.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st June be approved.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Northern Ireland) Order is to introduce in Northern Ireland provisions on producer responsibility in line with those already in force in Great Britain under Sections 93 to 95 of the Environment Act 1995.
  The order will also enable the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to make regulations to implement European Community requirements.
  The powers in the order will be used in the first instance to make producer responsibility regulations to place statutory obligations on businesses to meet recovery and recycling targets, thus enabling Northern Ireland to comply with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste.
  We are all aware of the pressing need to find better ways of dealing with the waste which we produce through the development of more sustainable waste management practices. According to the most recent figures available, the amount of packaging waste currently going to landfill in the United Kingdom amounts to over 10 million tonnes per annum. This is clearly a figure which none of us wishes to see continued, let alone increased. Indeed, we want to reduce it. Sustainable waste management must therefore involve every individual, every household, every business and every district council in trying to find a better alternative. In fact, I recently announced the publication of a draft waste management strategy for Northern Ireland which seeks to move waste disposal away from landfill and up the waste hierarchy towards recycling and recovery.
  I appreciate that the details of this order are somewhat technical and to that extent may sound dull when I describe them. But to ordinary people who have the misfortune to live near a landfill site, these matters are

  1531
  neither dull nor pedantic; they are of importance to them because most of those people would like to have no site at all or less waste going into the site. I am convinced that the future policy on waste is something which will affect everybody and in order to have an effective waste strategy we will need the active co-operation of households, councils, businesses and all others concerned with the matter. Therefore, it is not a dull issue, even though the details of the order appear dull at first glance.
  The introduction of the legislation on producer responsibility will further the aims of the strategy and make a valuable contribution to the Government's sustainable development approach to the environment, but without imposing an undue burden upon smaller businesses. In that regard, it is estimated that the legislation will capture 90 per cent. of all packaging waste while placing an obligation upon only 10 per cent. of businesses in Northern Ireland. It is an impressive statistic that 10 per cent. of all businesses contribute 90 per cent. of all packaging waste. It is therefore the larger businesses which will be particularly involved.
  The order should be of especial interest to the House because it is a piece of legislation which is not simply being imposed on industry out of the blue. It is, rather, the fruit of a long and constructive debate with a wide range of industry representatives on the best and most equitable means of ensuring that producers assume responsibility for the impact upon the environment of the materials and articles which they manufacture.
  There has been widespread consultation with business in the United Kingdom. A consultation paper was published in Northern Ireland in 1996. The result of those consultations was the formulation of the shared producer responsibility concept which spreads the burden across the business sectors involved. It was also concluded that recovery and recycling targets could be met but not on a voluntary basis. Legislation would be necessary both to avoid free-riders and to provide an incentive for business-operated schemes to organise recovery and recycling to meet the targets.
  It was also recognised that all sectors of the packaging chain would have to be involved, from raw materials manufacturers and convertors of that raw material into packaging through to packer-fillers and sellers to the final user.
  That, in essence, is the content of the order. It is designed on the one hand to comply with specific aims as regards the recovery and recycling of waste materials and on the other to ensure that individual businesses may choose the method of compliance which best suits their own business operation.
  The order achieves those objectives by introducing provisions which, while strengthening environmental law and ensuring that Northern Ireland can implement national, EC and international obligations, do not offer any barrier to competition or free trade. The regulations will set annual tonnage and turnover thresholds. Only those businesses which both have an annual turnover of over £5 million per annum and handle 50 tonnes or more of packaging per annum will be subject to the
  1532
  regulations. This means that all small business will be exempt from any obligations. The regulations will also provide for businesses to meet their statutory obligations, if they so choose, through membership of exemption schemes for joint compliance. What this means in practice is that in return for the payment of a fee, an exemption scheme will assume the legal obligations of its member companies and arrange for the required tonnages of waste packaging materials to be recycled on their behalf.
  In Great Britain, the duties of registration and monitoring of obligated companies that this legislation entails are being carried out by the Environment Agency in England and Wales and by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency north of the Border. In Northern Ireland that role will be carried out by the Environment and Heritage Service, an executive agency of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland which already carries out a similar regulatory and monitoring role in respect of other environmental controls.
  The business community in Northern Ireland was initially consulted about a shared responsibility approach to the legislation in November 1996. Those consulted included members of the packaging chain, the waste and recycling sector, major manufacturers and retail chains, trade and industry federations, district councils, environmental groups and other interested parties. There were, of course, a number of concerns regarding the costs and practicalities involved in meeting the proposed targets. However, the response was on the whole favourable and in accord with the Government's ongoing commitment to achieving a more sustainable approach to dealing with the impact of waste upon the environment.
  We have been mindful of the importance of ensuring that the economic cost of implementing the order should not discriminate against any sector of industry. I am pleased to be able to reassure the House that the operation of the legislation will be the subject of detailed scrutiny. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st June be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
  1 p.m.
  Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I welcome this statutory instrument because it takes important steps towards improving our environment. I like the idea that manufacturers should take responsibility for the by-products that arise through manufacturing processes.
  There is always a problem in achieving a balance between environmental protection and waste management. I should like my noble friend to explain more about the impact the order will have on small firms. He said that it would not be a burden on small firms but went on to describe the exemption scheme, which, on the face of it, sounded rather good. However, fees will be associated with that exemption scheme. This worries me very much because the role of SMEs and micro-companies is so important to the development of the economy, not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. We have to ensure

  1533
  that we do not increase the burdens on such developing companies in a way that would impair their rate of development, their productivity and their ability to re-invest.
  Accordingly, I would be most obliged if my noble friend could give the House some assurances on the impact that the order will have on SMEs and what protection it will offer them so as to ensure that their performance and development are not impaired.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the order. We do not find anything boring about sustainable development or about reducing the level of waste produced by industry and consumers throughout the country. We welcome the underlying objectives of the order. I merely wish to make a number of brief points, partly general and partly related specifically to Northern Ireland.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, suggested, it is a matter of achieving a balance between imposing burdens on business and promoting sustainability. I notice that Article 3(b)(d) refers to minimising the bureaucratic burden on firms. We all recognise that that is exactly where the balance has to be struck and that is where detailed regulations prepared for specific industries have to be implemented. We welcome the idea of regulations tailored to specific industries.
  Secondly, the definition in Article 3 of the re-use, recovery and recycling of products implicitly extends to encouraging extended use of materials. It is often much more environmentally friendly simply to extend the use of something rather than to waste resources by providing packaging which is re-usable and which is then re-churned through the system.
  Thirdly, Article 4(5) specifies that the revenue from any fees or levies raised under regulations shall be paid directly into the Consolidated Fund. As the Minister will be aware, my party has spent some time thinking about the need to increase trust in the tax system by providing a greater degree of visibility between what is taxed and what taxes are spent on. There should be a degree of hypothecation here; for example, the extent to which taxes raised on producer responsibility should be related to cleaning up the rivers. That is very much the way forward.
  Lastly, Article 6 deals with the liability of the Crown. We are all conscious that the Crown is a rather larger element in the Northern Ireland economy than in the rest of the country. I ask the Minister for reassurance that Article 6 will be interpreted in such a way as not to let the Crown off the hook in terms of its responsibilities in producing waste.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the ideas behind the order and the objective it is trying to achieve. The order results from long and good consultation started under the previous government and carried on by the present one. But, from the parliamentary point of view, this is a very unsatisfactory way of legislating. The order is subject to the affirmative procedure, which is what we are now engaged in, but the sole purpose of the order is
  1534
  to create powers for regulations to be introduced by the negative procedure. In a sense it is a dodge to get round the affirmative procedure. I should like the Minister to tell us what progress has been made on the regulations and with the consultation on them. They are the meat of the whole matter.
  There is little detail in the order. The Minister referred to quite a number of matters which are not in the order but which will appear in the regulations to follow. One example is the matter of small businesses, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. The Minister referred to a 50—tonne limit. That is not in the order but it is intended to be in the regulations. However, the regulations may not be introduced into this House at all. By that time responsibility may have passed to the Assembly; it certainly will a short time after, if all goes smoothly, as we hope it will. It is not insignificant that many regulations set up offences for which people can be charged and fined, which is usually but I always think amusingly described as, "On summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum." I am not sure why it is necessary to express the matter that way. It is one of the disadvantages of not being a lawyer, although, on the whole, I find that an advantage in parliamentary discussions.
  The order opens up the way for a whole series of regulations which we have not yet seen. That is the important part of the order. The regulations are clearly intended to do things which we support, but the detail of them will also be important to, among others, small businesses.
  I have one other point. The Minister may not be able to deal with it straightaway but it arises indirectly from the order. I am told that planning permission has been given for a waste incineration plant on Belfast Lough which is expected to deal with much of the waste that comes out of Belfast. That will be a major matter. If the Minister is in a position to update us on how that is coming along and what is now expected in respect of the plant, it would be helpful background information in considering the order.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their general support for the order and what it is intended to achieve. Perhaps I may deal with the specific points that were raised. My noble friend Lord Randall was quite properly concerned about the effect on small firms. I shall explain how the system will work.
  Small firms which have a turnover of under £5 million a year and which create packaging waste of under 50 tonnes a year will not be subject to the regulations. The point about the exemption scheme is that large firms may either collect their own packaging waste and deal with it in accordance with the regulations or they may use other firms who specialise in that activity to collect it for them. The firms can be exempt from having to collect the waste, but they must ensure that they comply with the need to meet the percentage targets. For example, a firm in the retailing business might use a lot of packaging which is taken home by consumers and disposed of. Therefore, it would be difficult for the firm to go to the consumers to collect

  1535
  the waste. Clearly, it would contract a specialised firm to collect the appropriate amount of waste to enable it to meet the target. That is how such a firm would be exempt from having to collect the waste itself. The two concepts are different, but I can assure the noble Lord that we do not intend to impose a burden on small businesses. Those below the threshold will be exempt from the provisions of the regulations.
  However, I very much hope that small businesses will act in the spirit of the regulations and do their best to minimise packaging waste. After all, the object of the regulations is not to impose a financial burden on businesses but to give them an incentive to produce less waste in their activities. That is the desired aim.
  Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that answer. The micro-companies and the small SMEs would be protected, which shows considerable insight. Nevertheless, information regarding the structure of the fees associated with the exemption scheme for companies above the £5 million and 50—tonne figures would be helpful to the House.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, it would be best if I were to write to the noble Lord and send copies to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The issue is complicated and I am not sure that I can deal with it accurately. It would take a lot of time to do so. Perhaps my noble friend will bear with me and I shall write to him.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sorry for interrupting him. Can he confirm that as regards small business exemptions below 50 tonnes and so forth he is stating the Government's intention for the regulations? No limit is specified in the order; the figure could be 1 tonne or even nil. The order does not specify 50 tonnes; the Minister is merely telling us that that is the Government's intention as regards the regulations. The information is valuable—I asked for particulars of the regulations—but it is an example.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. In answer to another question which he posed, the regulations are likely to come before Parliament, not before the new Assembly, as we hope to have them laid before the end of the year. He will be able to take part in further debates about the regulations before they come into effect.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the general progress of the regulations. The draft regulations were published for consultation on 26th June and consultation is taking place with a wide range of interested parties, including industry and district councils. More than 500 companies have been consulted. We are undertaking a proper and widespread consultation on the regulations which will come before this House, all being well, before the end of this year.
  1536
  The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, also asked about the regulations. They will encourage the re-use of packaging by exempting re-used packaging such as bottles which are returned and refilled. We wish to encourage such a process. It may seem old-fashioned to return to bottles which are used more than once, but it is a sensible way forward. I hope that the regulations will give full effect to that.
  The noble Lord also asked about the position of the Crown. Article 6 applies the order to the Crown. That means that there is no exemption for government departments or other Crown bodies. In practice, it is unlikely that they will be conducting a business to which the regulations would apply. However, I take the spirit of the noble Lord's comment. In this, as in other matters connected with the environment, it is important that government departments should set the lead and set a good example. Other people can then say, "If Government do that, it is reasonable for us to follow." I refer to a whole range of issues concerned with sustainable development and the "greening" of government generally. However, it is unlikely that such regulations for businesses will apply to the operation of government departments.
  Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about the Consolidated Fund. I hear what he says, but I am not sure that I can change Treasury policy quite so easily. I note his point, which is that any moneys going to Northern Ireland should stay there for Northern Ireland purposes.
  I thank noble Lords for their support and I look forward to their contributions in debates when the regulations come before us.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Pensions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
  1.16 p.m.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Of all the duties it falls to Parliament to discharge none is of more compelling priority than our bounden duty to act justly to men and women who were prepared to lay down their lives for this country and the dependants of those who did so. It is that duty the Bill's supporters will be addressing in this debate. Sadly, we shall be doing so at a time of continuing distress for hundreds of the men and women who served in the Gulf conflict. Having been fit and well when they went to the Gulf more than seven years ago, many are now very seriously ill. Their illnesses are still undiagnosed. Others have gone to their graves with a deep sense of injustice, leaving behind aggrieved dependants, some of them wives who are widowed while young and fear poverty when they are old.
  There can be little doubt that had the provisions of this Bill been in force seven years ago their problems and needs, as well as those of others in the ex-service community with unresolved claims, would have been seen in far sharper focus in Whitehall and Westminster and subjected to much closer public and parliamentary

  1537
  scrutiny. The Bill has been most warmly welcomed by the ex-service community. Like me, they are well aware of the work of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions. Indeed, I used to chair the committee 24 years ago. But many who know most about its work today feel that it has become a vehicle for government pronouncements rather than for debate in depth about the concerns of war pensioners.
  "Over the years", says one CAC veteran, "the committee's role has changed in practice and its value has declined". A main purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the ex-service community and Parliament can take an informed and considered view of the adequacy of service, war and war widows' pensions and related benefits. The Central Advisory Committee might itself be asked to contribute to the compilation of the annual report for which the Bill provides. At the very least it should be free to debate the report.
  It was said recently:
  "They are a unique group of workers because of the nature of the work they do, the hours they put in and the places in which they operate".
  That may sound like a quotation from a campaigning trade union leader in support of a bumper pay rise. In fact, as my noble friend Lord Haskel will doubtless have recognised, they are the words of a ministerial colleague of ours when justifying, on 3rd February 1998, the exclusion of the Armed Forces, and only the Armed Forces, from the legislation for a national minimum wage. Never was there clearer recognition by a government of the unique status of the Armed Forces as public servants of the nation. Whatever the challenge, they unfailingly respond with total professionalism and commitment. They reflect huge credit on this country and inspire both national pride and international envy. It is not the quality of their equipment but the qualities of the men and women who serve in them that set our Armed Forces apart from others.
  But what of their rewards and provision for the security of their families? They are employed by the biggest employer in Europe—the Ministry of Defence—whose reputation as an employer is of fundamental importance to the Government's moral authority in exhorting other employers to adopt forward-looking employment policies, as they frequently do. All government departments have a responsibility to act as good and caring employers, but its size puts a special onus on the Ministry of Defence to be seen as a model employer, in terms not only of rewards for serving personnel but also of dignified provision for those who have completed their service. The MoD's standing as an employer is indeed best judged by its treatment of service pensioners.
  Yet several cases that give cause for concern have been drawn to my attention in anticipation of this debate. The first is that of Catherine Koe, the widow of an Army major. Her husband served for 32 years and his early death in 1971 was hastened by the studied inhumanity and barbarous cruelties of existence in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp. Mrs. Koe has lived on
  1538
  a meagre one-third rate pension for the past 27 years because the 1956 pension code, under which her husband retired, paid the lowest rate of military pension of any pension code since 1945. I am sure that your Lordships' House will feel that Mrs. Koe deserved—and deserves even more now as an elderly widow—very much better than that from the country her husband served with so much dedication and undoubted courage.
  Another cause for concern is the case of Audrey Osland who married her late husband after he completed 30 years in the RAF, including the whole of the Second World War. Sadly, his first wife died before he left the RAF and, because he completed his service before April 1978 and remarried after retirement, Mrs. Osland receives not one penny in widow's pension. That case, too, must cause concern in all parts of this House, more especially since it shows the MoD falling lamentably short of best practice in the private sector.
  Again, even in cases where the widow is receiving a pension based on her husband's military service under the Armed Forces pension scheme her pension, like that of a war widow, is withdrawn if she remarries. This is in stark contrast even with normal practice in the private sector, where a widow's pension is awarded to her for life regardless of her future marital status. Again, it conflicts with the report of Sir Michael Bett's independent review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which states that he and his team,
  "found the practice of stopping a widow's pension on remarriage unsatisfactory".
  Sir Michael recommended that,
  "In line with private sector practice, a widow's pension should be payable for life".
  This has already been adopted in the civilian public service, for example, by the pension scheme of local government officers. So what possible justification can there be now, not only for failing to lead but lagging far behind the private sector and ignoring Sir Michael Bett's recommendation on so sensitive an issue?
  The intention of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to speak on the Bill makes this an evocative moment for me. We used to speak, to the same effect, each in our own House; but now we can speak as one in the same House. I know that, as before, he will add eloquently to the voices calling for more dignified provision for service and war pensioners and their dependants. Meanwhile, if I am not allowed to call him "my noble friend", which in literal truth he is, I hope that it is permissible at least for me to describe him as "my noble associate". I do so having long been delighted to strive with him for improvements in provisions that are now in place and for others we are seeking to justify today.
  Turning now, in the order of the Bill, to war and war widows' pensions, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Gilbert and his ministerial colleagues—notably the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—for reacting so quickly to my plea in the debate on Gulf War illnesses in February for an end to the delay in granting a war pension to Gunner Tom Ford, late of 2nd Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, who came back from the Gulf in broken and rapidly deteriorating health (Hansard, 2/2/98; cols. 480 to 481). To be awarded one's entitlement to a war

  1539
  pension, as I was reminded by that case, is no passport to a dolce vita. On the contrary, it recalls that moving passage from Kipling,
  "Think where 'e's been,
  Think what 'e's seen,
  Think of his pension—
  An' Gawd save the Queen"
  It was the Royal British Legion that asked me to raise Gunner Ford's case and they share my pleasure that, within two weeks of the debate on 2nd February, he received an interim award that was followed within three weeks by an ongoing war pension of 70 per cent. So anyone who thinks that speaking in your Lordships' House cuts little ice might reflect on the speed and understanding with which my noble friends reacted to that debate.
  As with service pensions, there are nevertheless many causes for concern in relation to war and war widows' pensions. One which heavily underlines the case for this Bill, drawn to my attention by Tom House of the Royal British Legion, is that of Margaret Davies who has now waited four years for a compensation payment to which both the DSS and the Lord Chancellor's Department accept her entitlement. Unfortunately for Mrs. Davies, however, the MoD does not agree and continues to pay her not a war widow's pension but only that of a widow whose husband's death was in no way attributable to his service in the Armed Forces. I cannot believe that, if this Bill had already been law, that kind of anomaly would not have been addressed sooner. I hope profoundly that it will now be urgently reviewed by the Government and with the same result as that in the case of Gunner Tom Ford.
  I know that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, will also be commenting on war pensions, which he does with so much authority, and also how very grateful the War Widows' Association of Great Britain are that my noble friend Lady Dean will speak on their concerns. But there are some issues of general importance that it may be helpful for me to touch upon briefly. The first concerns the need for additional help for ageing war pensioners with severe disabilities. With increasing age the problems of disability intensify and multiply. The average age of war pensioners now makes this a majority problem among them. Lieutenant Colonel Ray Holland of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemens Association (BLESMA) informs me that they have recently put to my noble friend Lady Hollis and her department a proposal to introduce two new age additions. I know my noble friend will want to do whatever she can to help and, since the cost involved is relatively small, I hope very much that she may soon be able to act on the proposal.
  This is a very appropriate day for our debate and to remind ourselves how greatly indebted we should all be to those whom BLESMA came into existence to assist, for while in another place they are debating provisions in the Landmines Bill to save people from mutilation, we are met to give more dignity to the remaining years of men and women who are already mutilated and who lost their limbs, acting on our behalf, that others across the world might live in peace, comfort and security.
  1540
  Total spending on war and war widows' pensions will cost £137 million less this year, at constant prices, than in 1993–94. This is not because the value of individual pensions and allowances has been reduced, but because the number of pensioners is falling year by year as their average age increases and more and more of the war disabled and bereaved die. Thus simply by holding expenditure on war and war widows' pensions at its present level for a few years, we could make this a time for more generosity to Britain's ageing and ever more needful war pensioners.
  With no increase in overall spending we could then also do more to meet the claims of the war widows, for whom my noble friend Lady Dean will speak and for whom the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, would have spoken had she not, very sadly, been prevented by an accident from being with us. She will be deeply missed in this debate.
  My submission today has been informed by, among others, Major General Peter Bonnet and Robin Markes of the Officers' Pension Society; Colonel Terry English of the Royal British Legion; Iris Thorogood, Jenny Green and Irene Bloor of the War Widows' Association of Great Britain, as well as by Tom House and Lieutenant-Colonel Ray Holland. For them and for those in whose service they spend their lives, I commend this Bill to the House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Morris of Manchester.)
  1.32 p.m.
  Lord Vivian: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on bringing this Bill to your Lordships' House today. I cannot give greater support to what he has already said in respect of our servicemen and women. Our sailors, soldiers and airmen are unique, as the noble Lord stated. They are the people who provide the defence of the realm and the security of the nation to enable the rest of us to live in peace and tranquillity in our own country. They are the people who risk their lives and who are prepared to make the supreme sacrifice whenever required for the sake of their country.
  I submit that there are widespread areas in the Armed Forces pension scheme which are profoundly unfair. All of us, including the noble Lord the Minister, who have any connection with pensions for our servicemen and women, should feel a deep sense of shame. We should make a much greater and more determined effort to correct the injustices in the pension scheme to ensure that when they leave the Armed Forces, their pensions are sound and fair.
  All the services are under strength—some more so than others. The Army, with its very welcome increase of 3,300 personnel, must be somewhere in the region of 10,000 below establishment now. Without good and fair pension rates for our servicemen and women, it will become increasingly difficult to recruit the right sort of people for service life. I welcome the creation of a veterans' unit, which I hope will be used to get rid of pension anomalies.

  1541
  I wish to focus your Lordships' attention on the profoundly unfair phenomenon known as the "pension trough", which impacts on our ex-servicemen first and then even more severely on service widows. This so-called "pension trough" comes about when pay increases are staged, with half the pay increase allowed in the first six months of the financial year, and the remainder in the second half. To explain this a little further, because pensions are based on pay rates those retiring in the first six months within the same financial year leave with a lower pension than those who retire in the second half. That is totally unacceptable and should be corrected immediately.
  An underlying principle of the military salary and of the Armed Forces pension scheme is a concept which is known as "the band of brothers" or "all of one company". Under this concept, all servicemen and women of the same rank, who have given the same reckonable service and who retire in the same financial year, should receive the same basic award of service pension. I think that your Lordships will consider it fair and proper that the military community should have constructed its pension regime on such a reasonable and equitable basis.
  But that inherently fair system can go very seriously wrong and operate most unfairly under external influences. The noble Lord gave your Lordships a general example in his opening speech. Perhaps I may cite a specific case. Commander Keith Monnery, after 30 years' service in the Royal Navy, deferred his retirement at the request of his superiors to suit the needs of the Polaris submarine programme. He actually retired in August 1977—in a "pension trough". Had he retired two years earlier, as originally planned, his pension would now be some £5,000 greater than it is. Had he retired one year earlier or later, his pension would still be some £2,000 a year greater than it is. That is profoundly unfair and it is not a befitting way for the nation to look after its ex-servicemen.
  Some might feel that the example quoted is from history, but perhaps I may describe the present situation.
  First, I must remind your Lordships that since 1971 the independent review body on Armed Forces pay has made annual recommendations on the remuneration package for service personnel. In particular, the review body makes recommendations to the Prime Minister on pay. In view of what has been said earlier about the lack of representation in the Armed Forces—in terms of a trade union or staff federation—your Lordships will recognise the importance of the role of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body in protecting the interests of the Armed Forces. I specifically draw attention to the independence of the body, a status which is crucial to its credibility.
  As I have said, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body makes recommendations every year about pay. Importantly, under the terms of the Armed Forces pension scheme, the pay rates in force on the day of retirement determine service pension rates. So, the review body's recommendations on annual pay have a direct bearing also on the pensions of those who complete their military careers in that year.
  1542
  It is a fact that in four of the past five years the Government have staged the introduction of the Armed Forces pay award, notwithstanding the fact that they have accepted in full the recommendations of the review body. That short-term expedient, as the Government well know, means that the pensions of those who are unfortunate enough to retire in the interim are permanently depressed.
  Earlier this year the chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body wrote in his 1998 annual report:
  "Our recommendations [for 1997] were accepted but for the second time in two years, and the third time in four, the implementation of the pay award was staged. We are seriously concerned that this practice has deprived our servicemen and women of a substantial proportion of their recommended annual salaries and is permanently damaging to the pensions of those who retire between stages. We urge that this is not repeated. This year our discussions with Service personnel revealed widespread anger at staging".
  In spite of that specific recommendation, and in total disregard of the longer-term implications for pensions, the Government again staged the 1998–99 pay award. Is it really the intention of the Government permanently to depress the pensions of service men and women who just happen to complete their service—which may have lasted 30 to 40 years—while a short-term pay restraint measure is in force? Moreover, the effect is aggravated by the passage of time and is then carried over into widows' pensions.
  By any yardstick this cannot be judged an honourable practice. If it is considered essential to stage the introduction of a forces pay award I urge the Government to adopt the practice of deeming of pay rates for pension calculation purposes. This would not create a precedent as that measure has been adopted on a number of occasions in the past, including arrangements for Members of another place in 1996. This is nothing but scandalous behaviour by Members of Parliament who have elected themselves deemed pension rights while denying them to members of the Armed Forces whose lives are at risk.
  Many of those deployed on operations face death daily. A precedent has been set for Members of Parliament. Let that now be applied to all members of the Armed Forces.
  I call upon the Government to reduce the disparity in the pensions paid to those who have suffered for a long time, not by large retrospective payments but by modest payments to correct their situation in future. I ask the noble Lord the Minister to explain why this cannot be done.
  1.41 p.m.
  The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for introducing this important Bill in your Lordships' House. I declare an interest. I work for the Royal British Legion. It is significant that its pensions department now handles over 90 per cent. of all claims that go to appeal tribunals of which there are some 10,000 annually.
  I should like to address two particular areas: the entitlement of reservists and medical conditions. Many reservists and TA personnel (over 600 people) who were

  1543
  deployed in the Persian Gulf for Operation Granby in 1991–92 are being denied access to the attributable benefits for reservists scheme (ABRS) on the basis that they were not medically discharged from Gulf War service. However, although approximately 420 of these people are in receipt of a war disability pension as the direct result of their Gulf War service these same servicemen and women were not informed that they could have asked for a medical discharge. They feel that they are being treated differently from regular soldiers and thereby discriminated against. This would appear to be in breach of the Ministry of Defence instructions that they would not suffer financially but would be treated exactly the same as regular soldiers in terms of pension entitlements.
  Territorial Army and Regular Reserve personnel who volunteered for Gulf War service were told by the Ministry of Defence that in the event that they should become a casualty they or their spouse would receive the same benefits as a member of the regular forces under the provisions of the ABRS. This advice was factually incorrect. Due to an anomaly in the regulations those who became ill and injured on embodied service, would not qualify.
  I turn to the question of medical conditions. Many former Far Eastern prisoners of war claim that the cycad seed which formed part of their near-starvation diet led to the development of neurological disorders in later life. This is supported by medical evidence related to the local population of the areas where this seed forms part of the dietary intake. The War Pensions Agency has investigated these claims but so far does not appear to have come to any conclusion. Those rejected claims that are now the subject of an appeal in some cases are being delayed pending a DSS policy decision in this matter. Some four years or more have passed since the submission of papers to the DSS and still no response.
  A similar situation applies in cases of stress and hypertension. An opinion was obtained from a leading cardiologist. That provided compelling evidence of a relationship between these two medical conditions and their application to service in the Armed Forces. Many war pension appeals are being adjourned and delayed while the War Pensions Agency considers its response. We understand that that is unlikely to be forthcoming until the end of this year. Considering that this option was submitted in September 1997 and that the majority of war pension appellants are of advanced age, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Presumably a consultative body with the necessary expertise and authority would be able to resolve such matters or at least provide strong recommendations in a considerably shorter space of time.
  In summary, the Gulf War and what happened to many of those who took part in it is still the subject of investigation and research. However, the conflict also highlighted anomalies in eligibility for compensation payments to reservists as opposed to members of the regular forces. There would appear to be no provision for reservist payments of invalidity benefits by the Ministry of Defence if they were not the subject of a medical discharge. Many reservists claim that they
  1544
  developed conditions not post-service but while still serving and that, irrespective of whether that led to their medical discharge, they should be treated on an equal basis with members of the regular forces.
  Although the reservists can claim DSS war pensions, the regulations further discriminate against them by placing on them the burden of proof, even if a claim is made at any time after leaving the services. It is to be hoped that the Government's current review of service compensation will address these injustices and provide long needed reforms. It is also hoped that the review will provide an opportunity for consultation with the service organisations who are closely involved in such matters and that it will not suffer the same fate as its predecessor, the Bett Report, which now seems to have been consigned to history.
  As many noble Lords are aware, there are no independent appeal procedures which can be applied to Ministry of Defence decisions. A consultation body such as that proposed in the Bill will provide for arbitration in such cases and is welcome.
  1.48 p.m.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I am pleased to support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, particularly in view of his marvellous record over the years in speaking out in this particular area. Only a small number of noble Lords are taking part in this debate but we come from all sides of the Chamber. This matter does not give rise to any political issue by any stretch of the imagination.
  I should like to concentrate on the issue of war widows. I do not do so because I believe that other parts of the Bill are unimportant. The last time this matter was discussed was during the passage of the Pensions Bill. It was a different day of the week and time of day but one could not sit down in the Chamber. The Benches on all sides of the House were full. I recall the remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. When we came to divide, the political disciplines were applied, but I do not believe that many noble Lords in this Chamber were convinced by the counter-arguments. Although time has moved on, the general principles that underlie the issue have not changed. Had we taken the right decision then, I do not believe that we would be discussing this matter in this way today.
  When the proposed change affecting war widows was discussed under the Pensions Bill in 1995 in another place, two reasons—I shall call them excuses, because that is what I believe they were—were given for not conceding the point of principle that when a woman, widowed as a result of the death of her husband in the service of his country, received a widow's pension, should she remarry, she lost her pension. That is the key issue upon which I should like to concentrate.
  There were two, as I say, excuses then given. The first was the perceived effect on civil servants in other areas of work. Although I do not have an interest to declare today, I was a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. I find it difficult to make a direct comparison between asking personnel when they sign up to be prepared to give the ultimate—their lives and

  1545
  therefore the future of their own families in many cases—and persons who are recruited into employment in other civilian jobs, and who are paid by the Crown, as are Service personnel. Nevertheless, that was put forward as a reason.
  From April this year, the LGA has done the right thing by widows when their husbands die in service. They receive a widow's occupational pension derived directly from their husband's occupational pension contributions.
  The other reasons given was that it would be entirely wrong. The Bett Report dismissed that, and rightly and not surprisingly so, because it was not a new principle, it was contained in the Goode Report, which was the key report which brought about the Pensions Bill itself.
  My experience in industry is that today occupational pension schemes, by and large, provide a widow's pension for life under the husband's occupational pension scheme. I do not accept that those are principles which should prevent this happening. If one wants to be mercenary and look at the cost factor, we are not talking about something that will increase the cost to the nation. But even the economic arguments do not stack up when one studies them.
  I happen to have a part-time public sector job. I pay 6 per cent. of my salary to the pension that I shall eventually receive. There is an abatement of 7 per cent. in the pay of Armed Forces personnel. So the abatement is an even higher figure. It is not as though the fund is a non-contributory one. It is a pension contributed to from the salary of those service personnel.
  The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, referred to the fact that the Armed Forces have no independent representation on their behalf other than the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. They do not have the right to join a trade union, and they do not have a federation. So who speaks for them? That is a key question. Although pensions are not directly in the remit of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, whenever I met Service personnel—and I met a great many of them, whether it was on their ships in the Navy, on air force bases, or soldiers—they all raised with me the issue of pensions. They were all concerned about it. They had no idea what they could do to get their problems aired and their concerns aired about their widows if they lost their lives in the service of the nation. On those facts alone, the Bill is worthy of a good hearing.
  There is a third reason. There is something wrong with a system that encourages widows not to remarry, although they may enter into a relationship, because on remarriage they will lose their pensions. That is not a threat many other widows in Britain have to face. The widows of people in industry whom I used to represent would not have that to face. They do not regard their pension as a hand-down from the state or from the private sector employer: they paid to it. It was part of their overall employment package. That is what I interpret it to be in the case of the Armed Forces.
  We believe in families—this is not a party political issue—and support them; we believe in the family unit; and in Britain we believe in marriage. There is something wrong with a situation where a woman
  1546
  knows that if she remarries she will be penalised financially. That is wrong. It is especially wrong if she marries someone who may not have sufficient income to care for the children of the marriage in the way that her previous husband was able to.
  I approach this issue on fairness and responsibility grounds. We have a responsibility to these people and their families. I have always judged good employers on how they judge people in the round, and not just on the level of their salary; how they regard them as employees. These people sign up knowing that they could give their lives in the service of their country. On those grounds, the Bill is worth a hearing. I shall listen with great care to what my noble friend the Minister says in response. I cannot think of any logical reasons for going against the Bill.
  1.56 p.m.
  Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on bringing the Bill to the House and thank him for his kind words about me. In the other place he has a well-deserved reputation as an assiduous protector of many groups, including the Armed Forces. I know that from my own experience. When I started out here three years ago, speaking on several of these issues, 1 received tremendous support and kindness from him. It is wonderful to be taking part in his Bill which he has so ably moved. As he said, the welfare of our servicemen and women, and their dependants, is an important issue. Parliament has a special responsibility to them and it is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, said, a matter of party politics.
  The noble Lord highlighted some of the shortcomings in the current Armed Forces' pensions and benefits regimes. I would like to expand on the problems underlying two of the concerns to which the noble Lord referred.
  The Armed Forces Pension Scheme is 40 years old. It has been periodically modified, to match new social norms, changes in legislation and wider pension practice. So, for example, in 1973, when it became standard to pay a widow a pension based on half her deceased husband's pension instead of one-third, the rules of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme were updated. Thereafter, new entrants to the scheme enjoyed a half-rate pension for their widows and those serving at the time were given the opportunity to buy into a half-rate pension. The provisions from 1973 onwards are seen as fair and proper.
  Unfortunately this is not the case for those whose plight prompted the change in the rules in the first place. Those who completed their service before 1973 never had the opportunity to buy into a higher rate scheme and their widows' entitlement remained at one-third. This affects the most elderly widows, who in addition receive far smaller pensions than those who served subsequently, and who current struggle to survive. This is absurd and unfair.
  In a similar way, in 1978 the rules of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme were changed to allow a widow of a post-retirement marriage to receive a pension based

  1547
  on any service her late husband gave after 1978. Those who had already completed their military careers when the new rules came in were unable to hand on any pension to wives married after they had retired, whatever their length of service. It should be stressed that this situation is particularly acute in the Armed Forces because of compulsory early retirement ages, which did not (and do not) apply to the same degree to members of the Civil Service, the police force or the fire brigade, or other public services.
  So, I challenge the logic and propriety of identifying inequities and anomalies in the Armed Forces pensions and benefits regime without offering remedy to those affected. Changes made to the provisions for widows have been essential and welcome, but the lack of new arrangements for the very people who are suffering is iniquitous.
  Let me give you two examples to illustrate the unfairness of the prevailing regime. Mrs. Jean Dewdney's late husband served in the infantry for 34 years. This included service throughout the Second World War, and in Korea, where he was appointed MBE. He retired in 1962 and his widow has had to manage on a one-third rate pension since her husband's death in 1987 because he retired before 1973. She is now nearly 73 years old and receives a pension from his army service of £3,634—a measly sum to live on.
  Mrs. Anne Sweetapple is in an even worse situation: she receives no service pension. Mrs. Sweetapple married her late RAF husband a little over one year after he had completed nearly 37 years' service. They were married for 28 years and she nursed him for several years before he died two years ago. She receives no service widows' pension because he completed his service before 1978.
  I find the cases like this very disturbing. It just doesn't seem right that women like Mrs. Dewdney and Mrs. Sweetapple should be left so inadequately provided for. Urgent action is required. Such women are increasingly old and vulnerable, and fearful of the future—often unable to pay for basic needs.
  Their pension provisions are grossly inadequate, as subsequent changes in the law recognise. Their needs will not go away. The inequity between the two will continue to cause great distress. It should be addressed as soon as possible.
  The argument against retrospection is understandable, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has pointed out, the circumstances of the Armed Forces have always been acknowledged as special. Moreover, arguments against retrospection are no reason for leaving vulnerable people in poverty while providing for others. They must feel as if their plight is being deliberately ignored in the knowledge that the passage of time will simply remove the problem.
  I understand that the MoD is again reviewing the Armed Forces Pension Scheme for future entrants to the forces. The House would like to be assured that the review will not only identify the shortcomings of existing provisions but consider measures to help those already suffering under them.
  1548
  It is morally unacceptable to identify and acknowledge serious shortcomings and to then allow them to persist. To this end, I hope that the Minister will ask the MoD review team to consult former service organisations in order to determine the views of service pensioners.
  Finally, I call upon the Government to grasp this late opportunity to ensure that the widows of servicemen who have served our nation are able to live out the last years of their lives with dignity and some financial security.
  2.3 p.m.
  Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I beg the indulgence of the House in speaking in the gap. I shall confine my comments to three or four sentences. I am pleased to associate myself with this Second Reading debate and the Bill. I admire the way that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, seems to have spent most of his life caring for people. He was Minister for the disabled and served terrifically well as chairman of the parliamentary pension scheme for almost 20 years. Now he is taking steps in respect of service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions. The essence of the Bill is worthy and I hope that it will be supported at all stages as it proceeds through both Houses.
  Clause 1 relates to the production of an annual report. The idea is eminently sensible. It would have the effect of ensuring that the Government are fully aware of the concerns and what is happening in this important field with regard to our servicemen.
  We have heard that there is a feeling of unfairness at the way ex-servicemen and women and widows are being treated. I shall not go into details. If the report does anything to overcome that feeling of unfairness, then the whole matter is justified. If there is unfairness, then published reports to ensure that there is accountability are worthy things.
  Producing such a report would institutionalise the concern of the Government for people who have served our country in such an admirable way—people who have given their lives, people who have suffered. Many of our fellow Peers walk with difficulty because of what happened during the war when they were shot at and experienced bombs and other horrible things.
  The report, which is the essence of the Bill, is worthwhile. It is laudable. I hope very much that the Bill receives support at all stages in both Houses and goes through on the nod. It is not complicated; the principle is simple. I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in his enterprise.
  2.6 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for introducing this Bill today. As all noble Lords are aware, his record of service not only to the war disabled but to all disabled people is outstanding and unique in this country today.

  1549
  Those who have been disabled through military service, or whose husbands have been killed in war service or died as a result of that service, are especially deserving of the gratitude of this country. Some pensioners were disabled, or lost their husbands, in the cause of defending this country from the desperate threat of World War II—a war in which the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, played such a distinguished part. The loss and hardship of others are no less real and deserving if they were suffered as a result of resistance to aggression and violence, even if that aggression posed a less direct threat to the United Kingdom. One thinks of the wars in Korea—in which a number of my National Service contemporaries were killed or disabled—the Falklands, the Gulf War and, more recently, Bosnia; or if the disability or death was caused in the process of peacekeeping operations in Northern Ireland. Fortunately, the number of new pensioners remains small. However, even now there is the possibility of further deaths or grave injuries in Northern Ireland; and there is a possibility of further involvement in places such as Kosovo.
  The services, war pensioners and war widows are a group who have always been supported by this House. It was as a result of pressure from this House in a debate on the Pensions Bill, subsequently the Pensions Act 1995, and in particular pressure from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that Section 168 of that Act was incorporated. It restored widows' pensions to those who had remarried but whose second marriage had terminated through death or divorce.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, both spoke movingly in support of the proposition that widows should retain their pensions following their remarriage. I hope that the Government will listen to those arguments. It is a total anachronism nowadays that any woman's pension should be lost by her remarriage.
  I also hope that the Government will support proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for age additions for the older service and war pensioners and war widows. I hope that the Government will deal with the anomaly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. It is an anomaly caused by staged pay awards and is clearly unjust.
  The Bill is directed to preventing unnecessary hardship to recipients of service pensions, war pensions, and war widows' pensions. The hardship of service pensioners, war pensioners and war widows is part of a wider context. It should be the aim of this or any government to ensure that all pensioners receive pensions which are adequate to provide a decent standard of living in retirement. How that is to be done is a matter for debate. It is a debate currently taking place within the Government and will soon become a matter for wider debate. It is not the occasion for that wider debate today.
  We on these Benches warmly welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. We support the Second Reading of the Bill and ask the Government to treat this now small and especially deserving group, whose numbers are declining, as generously as possible.
  2.11 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Conservative Benches. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for bringing the Bill forward. We have a tremendous commitment to, and give thanks for, all those who have served this country in the past, and continue to do so. They are exceptional people who always put country before their own individual personal gain.
  We welcome the Second Reading of this Bill which requires an annual report to be made on service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions. It will lead to greater and open awareness of what goes on. I was not in the House when the previous Bill was passed. I have sat humbly among your Lordships and was touched by the contributions made by noble Lords with great expertise from all sides of the Chamber. In this House we have an age range which represents those with experience of more recent times and those with great knowledge of earlier times. Before moving on to specifics, I pay great tribute in particular to the British Legion but also to the other myriad of organisations which help our service people.
  I put on record our tribute to all those who served in our forces. They have given great commitment. Many of us in this Chamber today know only too well their record of service in the past. I am sure it is right that we, in our turn, should make sure that their pension provision is properly met.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asks quite simply that an annual report be placed before Parliament and that it shall include the number of pensions and an assessment of payment levels to make sure that those pensions are sufficient to prevent hardship. Listening to the debate today I was deeply moved by the many examples which were brought forward by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Vivian touched on the problem of pension troughs and delay. I was not aware of that. He mentioned also that the pay awards are staggered. I hope that the Minister will respond to that in replying to the debate.
  The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referred in particular to pension entitlements and the fact that benefits should be relevant to the people concerned. He also raised the problem of medical conditions which ex-service people must overcome. At present, there is no right of independent appeal which, again, the Minister may wish to address.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, spoke of war widows of whom I have met many over the years. I too find it difficult to understand why their pensions are removed after remarriage.
  The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke of pensions and the pre-pension position of the ageing and older pensioners. The number of those is obviously dwindling and I hope that the Government may feel able to do something more practical for them.

  1551
  The noble Lord, Lord Randall, and others raised the unfairness of the system. That theme has been present throughout our debate. However hard one tries, anomalies tend to arise.
  If we give the Bill a Second Reading, the report provided in it will make it possible for Parliament to be able to see how well the agency is working, and to ensure that checks and balances are made. We shall be able to call into account the way in which pensions are provided. It is proper that those who serve our country should be looked after properly.
  I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, spoke of the serious consideration that she hoped we should give this matter today. I am sure we all agree. The review should encompass many of the concerns and questions which have been raised today. I wish and hope that this Bill will be accepted by the House and that many of the points which have been dealt with in great depth by noble Lords with much experience will be taken on board by the Government. We are all grateful to those who have served. In our turn, we all wish to make sure that we look after them after they have looked after us.
  2.17 p.m.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Morris for giving us this opportunity to speak about pensions and compensation available in respect of injury, illness and bereavement attributable to service in the country's Armed Forces. I add my tribute to all those who have been disabled or bereaved as a result of service to this country in the Armed Forces. The Government fully recognise the debt of gratitude owed to all those who made such sacrifices.
  I pay tribute also to the ex-service organisations which act in the interests of ex-servicemen and women and their dependants. I have great admiration for the valuable work they do and thank all noble Lords who have spoken today on their behalf. Also, I acknowledge the dedication of my noble friend Lord Morris to matters relating to disabled people. I pay tribute to his distinguished service to war pensioners, disabled people and victims in general.
  My noble friend's Bill brings before us today the matter of war pensions, war widows' pensions and service pensions. They are not all dealt with by the same department. War pensions and war widows' pensions are the responsibility of the Department of Social Security while service pensions are the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to address all aspects of the Bill. The legislation contains two main provisions. The first is a request for information about war pensions and Armed Forces pensions. The second is a requirement for a regular assessment of whether pension levels are set sufficiently high to avoid hardship.
  I shall start with a matter of information. There is already a statutory provision for a report on war pensions to be presented to Parliament each year. This report, the War Pensioners' Report, details the current number of war pensions' recipients and also gives
  1552
  information on the various issues affecting war pensioners considered by the statutory central advisory committee on war pensions. The committee meets twice a year with the Minister who has special responsibility for war pensions. It is an independent body; it is not a voice of government, as noble Lords seemed to imply. Committee members represent all major ex-service organisations such as the Royal British Legion, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, and the War Widows' Association of Great Britain. Indeed, I have with me the War Pensioners' Report for 1977. On page 22 of the document there is a picture of a young MP who has a lovely wave in his hair. The caption below the picture says:
  "Mr Alfred Morris MP, Minister with special responsibility for war pensions, during his visit to the Princess Louise Hospital, Erskine near Glasgow"
  That report has been in existence for a number of years, and I believe that noble Lords are well aware of it.
  A further statutory annual report is presented to Parliament by the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. This report, the War Pensions Agency Annual Report and Accounts, details how the war pensions scheme is administered and includes details of performance targets and achievements. I believe that that deals with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Randall about the necessity for openness to overcome unfairness.
  At present the Ministry of Defence does not present routinely an annual statement on service pensions paid under the Armed Forces pension scheme. But each year detailed information about the level of armed forces pensions, including ill-health benefits and attributable injury benefits, is published in Orders in Council for the Royal Navy; in the Army Pensions Warrant; and in the Queen's Regulations for the RAF. These documents fully describe the rules of entitlement for pensions benefits under the scheme and record the levels at which pensions are set. Thanks to the introduction of resource accounting, I am pleased to say that, from 1999, this information will be supplemented by an annual statement of accounts to be laid before Parliament. The point I wish to make is that I believe that, taken together, all this information is more than adequate to meet the requirements of my noble friend's Bill for information about pension levels.
  Perhaps I may now turn to the matter of adequacy as regards my noble friend's Bill. I shall take, first, service pensions. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, reminded us that the foundations of the Armed Forces pension scheme were laid in 1959–60. As he said, a number of improvements have been made since that time. It is a non-contributory, salary related occupational scheme. The retirement age for Armed Forces personnel is 55, by which time most individuals have earned a full career pension. Immediate pensions are payable on retirement at younger ages after periods of service as short as 16 years for an officer, or 22 years for a serviceman or woman of other rank. Pensions are increased annually in line with the rate of inflation so that they maintain their purchasing power.

  1553
  The scheme contains a range of ill health and injury benefits. Those retiring on ill health grounds can receive a pension after two years' service, and after five years' service the pension benefits are enhanced compared with normal pensions. Those becoming ill or injured as a result of their work may be paid additional benefits, known as attributable benefits, depending on their degree of disability. The pensions of individuals who are retired for attributable reasons are tax free.
  The Government Actuary periodically assesses the value of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. His most recent evaluation confirms that its benefits remain greater than the generality of occupational pension schemes. Nonetheless the scheme is kept under review and it continues to evolve and change in line with current legislation and policy. On 8th December, the Government announced a review of the current arrangements to compensate ex-service personnel for injury, illness or death. The review was commissioned because the Government shared a number of concerns—many of which were stated in this debate today—about the anomalies and complex nature of the existing arrangements.
  I can confirm that the review is looking at all the compensation schemes available—the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, asked about that—including the war pensions scheme, and the inter-relationship between them. The aim is to devise a modern, fair and simplified scheme which would apply to all service personnel killed or disabled as a result of their service. The main focus is on people who will join the forces in the future but the review will also consider existing apparent anomalies. We will publish the outcome of the review in a consultation document. Consultation will involve all those with an interest in the area, including the ex-service organisations.
  Turning to the levels of war pensions, this Government have fully protected the purchasing power of war pensions, by uprating them in April this year in line with the retail prices index. As regards the adequacy of the rates of war pensions, let me compare those we provide for our war pensioners with those we provide to civilians in respect of disability or bereavement. For example, a severely disabled ex-serviceman or woman could receive currently a total tax free war pension of over £400 a week. The equivalent payment under the Social Security Industrial Injuries Scheme would be £344.
  A former private who has served five years in the Army, and who is invalided as the result of a severe training injury and whose disablement is assessed as 100 per cent. could receive a tax free attributable pension from the Ministry of Defence of just over £4,000 a year. With the maximum war pension, that would give him a total annual income of some £24,000, all tax free. That is not the sort of income that could be considered to put a man or woman in hardship.
  I should explain at this point that financial recognition in respect of disablement or death arising from service in the Armed Forces can come from more than one source. A disabled ex-serviceman can be paid a war disablement pension from the Department of Social
  1554
  Security and can also receive an attributable service pension from the Ministry of Defence Armed Forces Pension Scheme. The same principles apply regarding war widows' pensions. Under the war pensions scheme, a war widow's pension may be awarded where the late husband dies as a result of service.
  The majority of war widows receive currently a total weekly pension of £157. That amount comprises the standard rate of war widow's pension of £83.90 a week, an age allowance, and a supplementary pension of £54.70.
  Again, to put the total pension into perspective, I should explain that the standard National Insurance widow's pension is £64.70 a week, around 25 per cent. lower than the standard war widow's pension, and less than half the full war widow's pension payable to a widow aged 70 or over.
  So, taking an overall view of war pensions income compared with that for the whole population of this country, noble Lords may find it helpful to know that figures based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey indicate that war pensioners' weekly incomes were within a few pounds of the average income of the whole population—£287. That average includes groups in full-time work. That perhaps demonstrates the adequacy of some of the pensions.
  Noble Lords raised matters of concern. My noble friend Lord Morris raised the case of Mrs. Koe and Mrs. Osland. I cannot discuss any individual case now, but I will write to my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised the case of Mrs. Dewdney and Mrs. Sweetapple. Again, I will write to the noble Lord, as I cannot deal with individual cases.
  Concern was raised about the matter of war widows remarrying. My noble friend Lady Dean spoke eloquently about the issue and it was mentioned by other noble Lords. Cessation of widows' pensions on remarriage with discretion to restore on second widowhood is a feature of most public service schemes. It is not an issue that can be looked at in isolation from the rest of the public service.
  The principle of spouses' pensions for life has been conceded for local government employees on the basis that local government pension schemes are funded schemes, and that the cost of the improvements will have to be found from within the authorities' pension funds. There are no direct public expenditure implications. The current review of compensation arrangements for death or injury to service personnel will, however, provide an opportunity to re-examine the arguments. We shall certainly take into account what has been said in the debate today.
  The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised the question of pre-1973 widows. A supplementary war widows pension may be awarded to pre-1973 war widows; that is, to the widow whose husband's death was due to service before 31st March 1973.

  1555
  That supplementary pension was introduced in 1990 in order to bring overall pension provision for pre-1973 widows more into line with that for the widow whose late husband's death was due to service on or after 31st March 1973 and who received an attributable pension under the Armed Forces pension scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, we have tried to deal with the question of pre-1973 widows.
  My noble friend Lord Morris raised the question of deterioration through age and the additional problems faced by war pensioners. Age allowances are payable to war pensioners aged at least 65 whose disablement is assessed at 40 per cent. or more. A war pensioner may apply at any time for a review of his case if he considers that his condition has deteriorated.
  My noble friend also referred to the issue raised by the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association in relation to age allowances for war disabled. I have to explain that these allowances are unique to the war pensions scheme and were introduced to ease the double burden of age and relatively severe disablement. The allowances currently range from £7.40 a week for those aged 65 or over whose war pensions disablement is assessed at 40 to 50 per cent., to £22.90 for those whose disablement is assessed at over 90 per cent. I understand the noble Lord's proposal, but those are not insignificant amounts. In isolation, it would be difficult to justify an increase in that war pensions preference. I will, however, ensure that the noble Lord's proposals are kept in mind.
  The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vivian, raised the question of the pensions trough and staging, and gave us an example. Certainly this can lead to anomalies whereby those who are about to retire can receive lower pensions than those already in retirement. This is because pensions are based on pay. Once in payment, pensions rise in line with the retail prices index. This matter affects all public service pension schemes. It is confusing. We cannot treat Armed Forces pensioners in isolation. We note the noble Lord's suggestion on deeming pay rates through pensions. I am sure that that suggestion will be considered by the Committee which is reviewing these matters. I can assure the noble Lord that we have no intention to depress pay through staging, but we have to keep within public expenditure limits.
  The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised the question of reservists in the Gulf. The Ministry of Defence has received a number of representations from Gulf veterans about their entitlement to invalidity benefits under the provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Claimants have questioned the status of members of the reserve forces for the purpose of determining eligibility under the rules, the circumstances and regularity of their discharges and the attributability of particular conditions to service. The Ministry of Defence is currently investigating these claims.
  The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, also raised the question of Far East dietary deficiencies. This matter is under consideration and we expect to be able to provide
  1556
  an answer during the course of this year. We appreciate the seriousness of the matter, but I understand that there are, in fact, very few cases.
  I believe I have responded to most of the points raised by noble Lords. Perhaps I may say in conclusion that the Government will not oppose my noble friend's Bill, but we feel that we are already delivering much of what the Bill asks for. A statutory annual report on war pensions is provided to Parliament each year. Together with the proposed annual statements of the Armed Forces Pensions Scheme, that should provide all the information which my noble friend requires. We have a Service pension scheme which provides benefits greater than do the generality of other schemes and war pensions which are payable at a higher rate than their social security equivalents, roughly equal to the average income of the population. I believe that that should go some way towards satisfying my noble friend's concern about the level of pensions.
  Finally, it appears to me that war pensioners and Ministry of Defence pensioners have a secret weapon. That weapon is noble Lords who are in this Chamber today. They will certainly keep the department on its toes. In the debate today they have demonstrated their deep concern about this matter. I hope that the Government will be able to respond to that concern.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him one question. I hasten to reassure him that I do not seek an immediate answer. My question relates to the treatment of noise-induced hearing loss in war pensioners. Can the noble Lord explain why the Government's treatment of this matter is so different from that of the Government of the Republic of Ireland? Perhaps he will remember, in drafting the explanation, that the Government of the Republic have relied on the advice of the same medical experts who have advised the British Government.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not aware of the advice given to the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The Government have kept their pledge to review the scientific basis for the department's approach to the assessment of noise-induced sensorial hearing loss in war pensioners. My noble friend Lady Hollis has accepted the review team's recommendation that the matter should be reviewed in one year's time and has asked the war pensions medical policy adviser to report to her on any further relevant scientific developments in February 1999.
  2.40 p.m.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am most grateful to those in all parts of your Lordships' House who have spoken on the Bill for all their kindness to me personally and for the support they have given to the Bill's provisions. My noble friend Lord Haskel promised to have urgently reviewed all of the individual cases raised with him. Quite clearly there were cases of personal hardship and I hope we shall hear very soon that they have been justly resolved.

  1557
  In reply to the only reservation I have heard about its provisions, I have to say that the Bill's purposes are not by any means met by present arrangements. Let me quote just two of the Bill's requirements. The first is that the annual report shall include,
  "an assessment of whether the payments made during the year in respect of those pensions [that is, service, war and war widows' pensions] have been sufficient to prevent their recipients suffering any unnecessary hardship".
  That requirement is not met now. We heard today of several cases of extreme hardship. While the Minister will respond in writing to the noble Lords who gave your Lordships' House details of cases of unnecessary hardship, it would help Parliament and the service and ex-service communities far more if there was a report, annually, on such cases from the Government. Secondly, the report sought by this Bill would have to say,
  "what plans, if any, [the Secretary of State] has to improve the well-being of those recipients [of service, war and war widows' pensions], whether by means of changes to the level of payments made in respect of those pensions or otherwise".
  That requirement is not, to my knowledge, met by any document now available to your Lordships' House. The requirements I am seeking are urgent, not just in my view, but also in the view of the recipients of service, war and war widows' pensions.
  The Royal British Legion, the Officers' Pension Society, BLESMA, among many other organisations to which frequent reference has been made today, have the admiration of all of us. They want to see this Bill enacted. If there is any attempt to block the Bill in this Session it will not disappear. They will carry on, as they did in relation to other important improvements that have been secured, for as long as it takes to succeed.
  1558
  I am satisfied that, given a wink and a nod from Ministers, the Bill would be enacted very quickly indeed, for there is also enormous support for the Bill in another place. Thus again, and with confidence, I ask this House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
  2.44 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to add to the verdicts or findings which may be subject to a reference to the court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ackner.)
  On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at a quarter before three o'clock.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Clean Coal Technology
  TUPE Regulations and Acquired Rights Directive
  TUPE Regulations and Acquired Rights Directive
  TUPE Regulations: Amendment
  TUPE Regulations: Amendment
  Organophosphates: Review of Evidence
  Organophosphates: Review of Evidence
  Stipendiary Bench
  Stipendiary Bench
  European Classification of UK Geographic Areas
  European Classification of UK Geographic Areas
  Savings Tax: Proposed Directive
  Savings Tax: Proposed Directive